Replies

Yes, the rush to judgment from many quarters has been appalling. Everyone who is taking the Murtha line needs to slow down and get a grip. Obviously there may be something seriously wrong since the investigation seems to be serious, but we do not know the facts and JOHN MURTHA DOES NOT KNOW THE FACTS.

One thing I have not seen discussed in this context is that Haditha was one of the worst Islamo-fascist hellholes on earth. That does not mean that "anything goes" for our side, but it does mean that reasonable people should consider all the ways in which evidence and the entire situation may have been manipulated before accepting anything said about this matter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1553969,00.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468284/posts#comment?q=1

That's not to say there could not have been wrongdoing by our side, but we'd better be really certain the local terrorists are not manufacturing and/or manipulating the evidence before we accept such a conclusion. It does not mean that IF (big IF) any rules of enagement were violated, etc. that those responsible will not have to bear the legal consquences. HOWEVER, hardly anyone seems to be recognizing that (1) there is a strong possibility of a propaganda set-up here, and if exhaustive evidence was not collected at the time before there could be any local tampering then I would not believe ANYTHING that did not get ironclad corroboration; (2) IF there were inappropriate killings they could well have come from accompanying Iraqi troops OR the local Islamo-fascists who wanted to create a propaganda event; (3) IF all killings there were done by our Marines we are far from having any reliable knowledge that there were no manipulations of the evidence and circumstances after the fact.

Knowing what we know about the terrorists, I sure hope our investigators are giving every consideration to every possible type of manipulation of evidence, bodies, etc. that could occur. It would be much more likely that the terrorists would kill people to manufacture an atrocity for our side than to believe that our Marines shot anyone in "cold blood" etc.

Also, I've seen reference to killings done by US weapons, but if this were a set-up it would hardly be the first time that enemies had used the other side's stolen or captured weaponry to stage an "atrocity incident."

Yours is an excellent post. But I must respectfully disagree with one fundamental point.

"It does not mean that IF (big IF) any rules of enagement were violated, etc. that those responsible will not have to bear the legal consquences."

I strongly disagree with this seemingly quite reasonable assertion. And let me explain why.

Violations of the rules of engagement can be prosecuted only if this can be done discreetly within the military justice system and in a way that does not undermine the larger war effort. This was the case in WWII. It was not the case in the Vietnam War, witness the Mei Li incident referenced previously on this thread.

Let me state clearly the moral dilemma we face. As citizens we must choose between the following two evils:

Prosecute vigorously and publicly all violations of the rules of engagement even if this means undermining fatally the overall war effort.
Suppress violations of the rules of engagement to avoid undermining the larger war effort even if this means violators of the ROE go unpunished.

We chose option 1 in Vietnam and ultimately lost the war. The aftermath of that defeat was the death of millions of innocents at the hands of the communists and the repression of millions more.

The Abu Graib incident proves that if option 1 is chosen in this war odds are we will suffer the same fate.

Life presents us with difficult choices. This is one. But I believe America is worth defending. And make no mistake. The islamists want to kill us all. For me, this one is easy. I chose option 2.

One thing I have not seen discussed in this context is that Haditha was one of the worst Islamo-fascist hellholes on earth. That does not mean that "anything goes" for our side, but it does mean that reasonable people should consider all the ways in which evidence and the entire situation may have been manipulated before accepting anything said about this matter.

I think your advice is a very wise one. Here is an article from the (London) Times:

The Marines and a 'massacre' in Iraq

snip:

WITH remarkable self-assurance for a ten-year-old girl, Iman Hassan recounted how her family was killed by American troops as she cowered in terror in a corner of her living room.

It happened soon after 7am on November 19 last year, she claimed in an interview with The Times. She was still in her pyjamas and preparing for school when a US military convoy rumbled down the road near her home in al-Haditha, a town on the Euphrates surrounded by date farms that has become a hotbed of insurgents. Three months earlier 20 American soldiers had been killed there.

Two things to note - the media has found their "spokesperson". Iman Hassan will be the face of this atrocity. Before it is too late I would suggest that the US authorities check that this is not a new Mohammed al-Dura

Note also the insidious (or careless) use of the present tense in the penultimate sentence. It would have been correct to write "a town on the Euphrates surrounded by date farms that was [or had become] a hotbed of insurgents". As the sentence now stands it indicates that the insurgency started after November 19 last year (despite the fact that they relate the fact that 20 Marines had been killed there previously).

It may seem pedantic in the extreme to complain about the tempi in the article, but knowingly or unknowingly this is one way the MSM slants their stories.