"Why were these wounded not evacuated earlier? " etc. . .
When I first heard of this incident, I thought that the Marines were aware of the fact that a previous squad had cleared the bldg. and treated and disarmed the wounded. Sites was present at that time. So he knew that -- As he made clear in his recording.
It would seem that status information would come from the other Marines, not a reporter. BUT the fact is, that the reporter HAD that information BECAUSE he had been with that other squad -- NOT information he received independently, from an unnamed source, etc. So he had a duty to pass on information, if he could.
I assume that, if indeed this second squad did not know as it now seems, it was because: first, the medics would have been informed about evac'ing the wounded, not another squad. Otherwise, chaos and tempo of the battle. That is understantable.
When Sites spoke into the recorder, "these are the wounded left behind", it was an aside, to the camera/recorder. He was not addressing it to the Marines. I don't see that they heard that at all. He was right next to the mike. He did not have to speak up to get it on the tape. The other guys were shouting. He did NOT shout that information to THEM: "hey those are the wounded xxx's squad treated yest!"
The time for him to have told them, was before they entered the building, not knowing what to expect inside. By the tactics you heard on the early part of the tape (the complete one Hannity played, not the part on TV), it sounds as if the Marines had no knowledge of what to expect in the building. Yet Sites let them go on, without telling them that wounded might be encountered.
Alright, could we allow that he didn't know that they didn't know? Possibly. But you read his other statement, about how his violation of the comradeship with the unit hosting him may seem like betrayal, but that cannot prevent him from questioning the authority of those who run the war, and the way the soldiers on the ground have to deal with it . . . and you see a guy with an agenda to capitalize on a situation just such as this . . . who may have the mentailty that it is ethical to withhold contextual battlefield information from the Marines, and to stand back and allow this to happen so that he could film it.
IOW -- the DRAMA of the scene is BECAUSE HE KNEW these were wounded and unarmed AND STATED SO ON THE TAPE BEFORE THE MARINE SHOT. It is THIS contemporaneous statement on the tape which makes it seem as if the Marine knowingly shot a wounded man. Try to remember the FIRST time you heard the tape, and see if the implication is not that the Marine also knew he was shooting a wounded who had been left behind by the other squad?
If Sites had been uninformed, HE ALSO would not have known the likely condition of the men encountered on the floor, and could not have played it up as a possibly criminal shooting of unarmed wounded TO BEGIN WITH.
SO his (Sites') knowledge about them being wounded left-behind is the KEY to the tape's DRAMA: US Marine killing unarmed wounded man. I.E. it would not be a STORY otherwise: if he and the Marines happened upon a bunch of guys on the floor with NO ONE having any idea of what was going to happen, he could not have said that on the tape, and that statement is WHAT sets the scene for the implication. Intended or unintended.
Just a Pulizer Prize coincidence? You tell me . . .
BTW I am basing this on Hannity's tape, which I heard only once. I haven't been able to get it to play online. If you have seen a complete transcript of the whole thing, which Hannity played, I would love to read that, in light of this theory.
The "others" did not ever come, and the terrorists started killing Coalition Forces again from the mosque the next day.
So this was a new situation with people inside shooting at Marines and other forces on our side.
Soon after this in the same offensive another Marine WAS KILLED by a guy that was playing possum (and) jumped up and shot him; a quote from the Murdered Marine's Father.
Sites and the MSM are RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY MARINE OR SOLDIER THAT IS KILLED BY A FAKING DEAD TERRORIST IN IRAQ now that they have supported the terrorists (their isurgents-freedomfighters-comrades.)
When Sites spoke into the recorder, "these are the wounded left behind", it was an aside, to the camera/recorder. He was not addressing it to the Marines.
My understanding is that he was addressing it to the lieutentant accompanying him into the building...the same lieutentant that had talked to the Marines who'd come out of the building after shooting the wounded inside. It seems that it was when Sites and the lieutenant went into the mosque together that the cameraman was able to tell (only then) that the re-shot insurgents were the ones wounded from the day before.
Note... if the building was being "re-cleared," Sites wouldn't have been inside while the building was stormed. He couldn't have known that the men on the floor (that the assaulting Marines found) were the ones from the previous day. It was after the building was cleared (and the Marines storming the place had just re-shot these wounded men left behind), and Sites went in with the officer, that anyone realized the men inside were the previously surrendered wounded.
People posting that the fog of war makes it okay for the Marine to shoot, while claiming that Sites (psychically, I guess) knew that the Marines had just popped some men who'd already surrendered and should have conveyed that before he even went into the place, is just wrong. In fact, if this reporter did try to tell the Marines (that the guys in there already surrendered yesterday), I'd bet there would be all kinds of howls that this guy was interfering and trying to tell the Marines how to do their job.
I didn't hear Hannity's show, so I don't know what was played, but I've seen transcripts of a Marine telling his lieutenant that after (re-)storming the mosque, they'd encountered (and shot) some people inside. When asked if they were armed, the Marine shrugged. That says to me that the timeline is:
F & G make it clear that this was a misunderstanding, as we agree. But I also don't think Sites could have stopped it...he wouldn't have been in the room-clearing assault and didn't know the problem until after he went in with the Lieutenant.
I'm bothered that people want to whitewash that something was wrong here. I thought we're on the side of decency. I will await the outcome of the investigation before clearing anyone.
I assume that, if indeed this second squad did not know as it now seems, it was because: first, the medics would have been informed about evac'ing the wounded, not another squad. Otherwise, chaos and tempo of the battle. That is understantable.
I think we're in agreement on this point. I just think this is the point we should be focusing on, not just the video'd part. The shooting we saw was only the last part of the incident.