Posted on 05/27/2006 9:57:27 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
The press is already salivating over the prospect of the next Abu Ghraib-like public relations disaster for the U.S. in the war on terror - ballyhooing as yet unproven allegations that a group of U.S. Marines launched an "unprovoked" attack that killed 24 Iraqi civilians in town of Haditha on November 19, 2005.
But was the Marine response really "unprovoked" - as at least 40 press reports have claimed in recent days?
The Boston Globe reports that the confrontation was touched off when a roadside bomb struck a supply convoy of Kilo Company, Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment. The explosion killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso, who was on his second tour in Iraq.
"Everybody agrees that this was the triggering event," Paul Hackett, an attorney for a Marine officer with a slight connection to the case, told the paper.
If the roadside bomb was the "triggering event" for the developments that followed, however, then how can it be said that there was "no provocation"?
And while that provocation may not have been enough to justify the wanton murder of innocent Iraqis, it's far from clear at this point that all of those killed were indeed innocent. Or that any innocents who did die were killed in cold blood.
In an April report that pre-dates the uproar over the Haditha allegations, a Marine press release describes the Iraqi town as "a hotbed of insurgent activity less than a year ago." That would be about the time of the so-called Marine massacre.
Plainly, not all the residents of this terrorist hotbed were as innocent as Marine media critics are now claiming.
The Los Angeles Times reports that after smoke from IED cleared, the Marines quickly determined that it was "a type that would have required someone to detonate it."
Following standard procedure, the troops searched nearby houses, the closest of which was 50 yards away.
That's close enough for its occupants to have tracked the Marine convoy and timed the explosion.
It's also worth remembering that the press has so far reported only one side of the story.
All the witness accounts seem to come from residents of Haditha [that hotbed of insurgent activity] - who paint the Marines as modern day incarnations of Nazi storm troopers.
Alleged witness Aws Fahmi, for instance, told the Boston Globe: "I heard Younis speaking to the Americans, saying: `I am a friend. I am good,' But they killed him, and his wife and daughters."
According to the Los Angeles Times, the video that first raised questions about the how the Iraqis died was shot by Haditha residents themselves. Could it have been staged? We still don't know.
Then there's this intriguing tidbit, again from the Times, which notes that after the IED was detonated: "Marines and Iraqi forces searched houses and other structures in the narrow, dusty streets [of Haditha] - jets dropped 500-pound bombs."
Whoever ordered those airstrikes must not have believed the houses of Haditha were filled with Iraqi innocents who knew nothing about planting roadside bombs.
Despite the swirling questions, the press seems eager to jump to conclusions, taking its cue from Rep. John Murtha - who went public last week with charges that the Marines killed innocent Iraqis "in cold blood."
ABC News, for instance, reported Saturday morning that the military investigators had already determined that the killings were unjustified, and that several Marines would likely face murder charges. But instead of quoting anyone in uniform, the report offered a soundbyte from a Human Rights Watch spokesman.
It's also worth noting that House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, who got the same insider briefing given to Murtha, says the "in cold blood" allegations are all wet.
"I totally reject that," Hunter told the L.A. Times.
The California Republican has pledged to conclude his own investigation in June. In the meantime he worries about the press using Haditha to further their campaign against the military.
"I don't want the actions of one squad in one city on one morning to be used to symbolize or characterize or tar the actions of our great troops," Hunter told a Washington news conference last week.
The articles written to date by the media and statements made by Murtha have cited unnamed sources. That's not near good enough to convince me to abandon the presumption of innocence for our brave Marines or speculate on what may or may not have happened.
My comments about the event will wait until after the final outcome, whenever that may be.
j
If the reports I heard on the news last night about bullets to the head of women and children in kneeling positions is considered collateral damage, then someone is playing a video game and they are not following the rules of engagement.
WHERE did you get this from?
I 95% sure it was on NBC news last night while I was channel surfing. They had an analyst on afterwards (colonel who received Medal of Honor in Vietnam) to discuss.
Well, don't spread such a story until you can validate it or at least link to a reliable news source.
Hey trekie, get out of your scifi world and connect with reality. Our troops are trained not to execute civilians because it is against US and world law. Most, even accept increased casualties in order to avoid inflicting collaterol damage on civilians. Lining women and children up My Li fashion, if it occured, is NOT acceptable.
I agree. I'll take the Marine's side until proved guilty.
I predict the end of the MSM when they run with this and it's all false ... along with Murtha and his ilk.
I agree that if these Marines did an atrocious thing, it should be dealt with. Having said that, it doesn't help to have Murtha sensationalize it from the get go. I would expect the military to deal with the press in a professional and somber manner.
Even if those reports ARE true - we have no idea who fired the shots (Marines? Insurgents?) and whether the bodies were arranged by others in certain positions.
We don't know if any of the Iraqis had guns or pointed them at Marines.
We don't know if anyone made any false moves. (Remember the NBC video that purportedly showed a Marine executing an innocent sleeping Iraqi in cold blood?)
We don't know if the Marines had reason to believe that the people in those houses could have been suicide bombers themselves - which might explain why women and children were also among the victims.
There's a whole series of questions that need to be asked - and answered with proof beyond a reasonable doubt - before this story should be covered the way the MSM is currently covering it.
It's also worth remembering that it's not up to us - or the Marines - to prove their innocense. It's up to their accusers and military prosecutors. And if the witnesses against them all come from a hotbed of terrorism, I would think that hurts their case considerably.
Viewed from the perspective of who has to prove what here, there's very little evidence currently in the public domain that ties the Marines directly to the commission of this atrocity.
So far the media's case rests on the premise: How else could this have happened?
Agreed. AND they know THEY will be up on murder charges if they do. The Commandant of the Marine Corps is flying out to Iraq now to remind them.
Which by the way, is not a good sign as far as this story is concerned. If they were innocent, he probably wouldn't need to remind those currently in theater.
Murtha has been turned.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12998125/
Im pissed off again at our press ...ABC radio is hamming away on this
But the story will go on and on as if it were the truth. You know, tell a lie often enough and loud enough and it's as good as if it were true. And Marines' lives are ruined.
Help me understand. We are not supposed to hear about this until AFTER marines in question have been convicted by courtmartial? Never thought I'd hear that from a newsman. I mean it's not like the information isnt out there. Supposedly the Iraqi version is all over the middle eastern websites. So its only the American public that needs to be protected by the media?
Well the original reports by the Marines were that those civilians killed were killed by the IED along with the Marine. They have subsequently admitted that was not true.
The marines claimed they were in a several hour long fire fight following the bombing. Later reports indicate that was not true.
The top three officers onsite at the time have been relieved of their commands for a series of reasons, not just Haditha. Republican officials who had seen the evidence admit it doesnt look good although they are not spinning it like Murtha.
We will know a lot more in a few weeks.
head shot comments were on the newscast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.