The part that I still have a problem with is that the tape Hannity played, [ the stuff BEFORE Sites says in to the camera, "these are the wounded that were left behind" ] it sounds tactical.
There is banging and troops yelling. It sounds like they are storming/clearing, not just entering a just-secured bldg. And Sites is clearly there, because it is on the tape.
Not only banging and yelling: the impression made upon my military-mind by those voices and noises during that part of it was: tension, unknown situation, etc.
As I said, I only heard it once. Hannity said he put it on his web site. I didn't try to get it again 'cause I have trouble getting things to play on my computer. When I can afford the time, I will try to listen to it again.
I appreciate your effort on the timeline. I was hoping some FReeper genius would post a complete transcript of the video, too, from beginning to end.
We don't know everything. But what stands out is the huge difference between the version we all first heard on TV and the complete tape: 1. The first time I heard the tape, the statement Sites made "these are the wounded left behind" is THE thing that conditions one's mind to think that the shooting was almost completely unjustified. This is the media version. After I heard it, knowing the rules of warfare, I thought this troop likely did wrongly overreact.
2. When I heard the complete tape on Hannity, it was clear that was not the case: the troop did NOT know they were wounded left behind, and the sounds preceding it were of tension and anxiety. You are with the troops going in, you sense the tension, and you are not conditioned by the "wounded left behind" statement which comes LATER. IOW: This version makes the troop look innocent almost completely.
So, the person who edited the tape for NBC had an agenda, no?
Site's other statements make it clear that he has an anti-war point-of-view. He and NBC did NOT have to make this tape into what it has become. Even if Sites did not set the scene, as you contend, he still constructed the STORY -- Marine shoots innocent man -- FROM what was on the tape. That is IMO -- PROPAGANDA. Because it is SELECTIVE use of facts to give a pre-ordained CONCLUSION. This is the clear use of the engagement in the press.
It is also PROPAGANDA because it does not give predominant time to the predominant atrocities of the enemy. It is the old media US Military BAAAAD; "freedom-fighters" GOOOOD mentality.
As for what Sites knew and when he knew it and where he was -- we need the complete details. However, it is totally consistent with his ethos that he "played dumb and acted smart". In order to advance what he says is his real job as a war correspondent in his quote: question the authority of those who run the war, and how it affects those on the ground who have to execute it
Conveniently, he was able to advance that agenda and "prove" that it conditions the troops on the ground to kill innocent wounded . . .
I have to respectfully suggest that you're getting one part mixed up, though.
It sounds like they are storming/clearing, not just entering a just-secured bldg.
Sites has made it clear that he was outside with the lieutenant while the Marines went into the room again on Saturday and shot the wounded (what I referred to as "the room-clearing assault"). You can see this at the beginning of the video I have--where there are shots coming from inside the building while the camera is outside. Then, he said a Marine reported they had shot people inside. The lieutenant asked if they were armed, and he shrugged.
Then, the lieutenant and Sites went inside the mosque...and that's when the Marine saw one moving and shot him--just after Sites tells the lieutenant the situation. Note that from the Marine's POV, this man was not an EPW, but an active combatant who might have been playing a trick. To Sites, however, this is an already surrendered, wounded detainee.
But I don't think that an important point is getting across... by the point of the video where the Marine shoots the wounded guy, the Marines have already shot four wounded captives! ...unless there's more to the story that comes out in the investigation. I think that one piece of info that we haven't heard is confirmation whether there was, indeed, hostile fire coming from this room on Saturday, or if it was just reported that there were some insurgents in there. This is key.
So, the person who edited the tape for NBC had an agenda, no?
Heck, does that surprise you?! While the video shows what it shows, that doesn't mean the network didn't try to make it worse! Just because they aren't ABC or CBS doesn't mean they're honest... ;-)
As for what Sites knew and when he knew it and where he was -- we need the complete details.
I strongly agree with this, as I've said. We can't clear the Marine or anyone until we know more about what happened. That makes my point clearly, thanks.
Conveniently, he was able to advance that agenda and "prove" that it conditions the troops on the ground to kill innocent wounded . . .
That could be one interpretation, but I would offer a different one... "The dirty tactics employed by our enemies have made the job more dangerous and have increased confusion, leading to incidents where even with our best intentions, misunderstandings will occur. Therefore, it's imperative that the insurgents understand that they are cutting their own throats, so to speak."
Note that before he went into his current silence, Sites made a statement supporting the professionalism and the behavior of our troops.