Drone's Video May Aid Marine Inquiry

Washington Post via washingtonpost.com ^ | May 30, 2006 | Thomas E. Ricks

[Lancey Howard]

Military investigators piecing together what happened in the Iraqi town of Haditha on Nov. 19 -- when Marines allegedly killed two dozen civilians -- have access to video shot by an unmanned drone aircraft that was circling overhead for at least part of that day, military defense lawyers familiar with the case said in interviews.

It is unclear whether the video obtained from that day's flight captured the violence, said the lawyers, who have consulted with Marines who were there. One lawyer said investigators have reviewed surveillance footage taken hours after the shootings, which showed the Marines returning to the town to remove the bodies of the Iraqis.

Yesterday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said charges will be issued against troops if the evidence merits it. For now, however, "it would be premature for me to judge" the outcome of the two U.S. military investigations, Pace said on CBS's "The Early Show." "We'll get to the bottom of the investigation and take the appropriate action."

[lugsoul]

Thanks for that response, but I'm curious what you mean by "this type of thing"? You mean civilians getting killed by the crossfire / stray fire between combatants? Or do you mean unarmed civilians getting purposefully killed at close range by the US Military?

If you mean the former, sure - it happens all the time, and it has happened a hell of a lot in this war.

If you mean the latter, it does happen, and it is wrong every time it happens.

It is easy for those who espouse the 'war is hell' defense to forget who incongruous this is with our stated objectives. If we are supposed to be the ones who are here to stop the brutality, the slaughter of helpless families, etc., then it isn't going to be very convincing to simply tell these folks 'sorry, we're here to help you, but that sometimes gets kinda messy and every now and then we'll blow your kids away at close range in order to help you.'

I'd still like to hear your response to the two questions from my previous post to you.

[jazusamo]

You're exactly right. It's too bad that the media can't be held accountable for their biased and libelous reporting but to prosecute for libel, intent has to be proved. We all know they intend to libel our military but it's near impossible to prove in court.

[Peach]

I meant the latter; military men snapping and killing innocent women and children. And who has said it isn't wrong?

As to your questions, the first as I recall relies on MSM reports and since I've posted several times today that the media has mis-quoted a general and freepers have found other little "mistakes" the media has made, you'll have to forgive me if I wait until a little thing called a trial before I believe the media reports about this matter.

The second question was a hypothetical and I'm not in the mood.

[lugsoul]

And who has said it isn't wrong?

Just open your eyes and look around...

[Peach]

I haven't seen a single poster say that Marines killing innocent women and children is an okay thing to do.

I've seen freepers say that it happens, that it can be bad judgement, a Marine snapped, they saw a gun and over-reacted, etc. All of which is true.

What most of us are having a hard time believing is that many Marines all snapped at the same time and went on a killing rampage for 4-5 hours.

And since a General and some others have said there is evidence favorable to the Marines that hasn't been presented to date, I'm not going to condemn them until there is a trial and they are found guilty.

[Navy Patriot]

Just so I'm clear, tell me what I'm missing

You seem to be clear already.

I drew parallels between the MSM's treatment of the Pantano case and this one. The disgruntled media and military fabricators turned out to be the accusers in Lt. Pantano's case and Murtha and the MSM are operating in an identical manner in the present case. Too convenient for words.

I use the qualifier "exonerated" to indicate that only in that event would action be pursued against Murtha, although I do believe that the Marines will be exonerated.

If the Marines are exonerated, Murtha has committed sedition and given aid and comfort to the enemy. There is reason to propose that he committed these offenses even if the Marines are convicted. Like Lincoln, I will not allow this activity, and to AVOID trashing the Constitution I would remove Murtha RATHER than the Constitution. Remember, treaty law is superior to the Constitution. When Murtha and the MSM try to bend the Constitution to protect seditionist activity, a patriot's duty is to give them an object lesson in how's it's done.

Finally King George called patriots criminals, however he didn't get to make the definition, the winners did, they defined themselves as patriots. I plan to win, stuff it.

[lugsoul]

Hmmm... So sending a Congressman to Gitmo for talking about something is your version of SAVING the Constitution?

You care about it so little - why give lip service to saving it?

[Navy Patriot]

So sending a Congressman to Gitmo for talking about something is your version of SAVING the Constitution?

See my tagline.

[leadpenny]

That was an [A]rmy incident, not Marines. There is a difference.

That's barracks trash talk. You know what I'm talking about.

There's a difference? Doesn't look like it.

[archy]

That was an army incident, not Marines. There is a difference.

That hasn't kept the Brits from continuing the comparison: Four marines singled out in Iraq massacre investigation

[archy]

Hmmm... So sending a Congressman to Gitmo for talking about something is your version of SAVING the Constitution?

Not the point: those Marines reportedly charged with the crime of Murder in Wartime still have a constitutional right to a trial in open court, not via congressional- or presidential- press releases and sound bites. And if their rights are violated, those who do so should also be charged:

U.S. Code, Title 18, US Criminal Code
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[leadpenny]

Their fact checkers were asleep.

"The latest developments in the military investigation are fuelling fears in the Pentagon and White House that the US is facing a war crimes atrocity with chilling echoes of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, when marines killed 500 villagers in a retaliation attack."

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"Murder was committed that day in Haditha"

That's not necessarily true. These people could have been caught in an exchange of fire, in which case it's bad luck, not murder.

"However, I am amazed by the tone of some of the comments here. They seem to suggest that, when badly provoked, it is somehow an acceptable act to shoot unarmed and unresisting civilians (especially women and children)."

I'm amazed at the number of people who seem convinced that the Marines did, in fact, kill those Iraqis in cold blood.

Michael Frazier

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"...a Hanford community-college teacher..."

I didn't know that.

It must have ticked her off no end when her son joined the Marines. Isn't the other guy from Marin County?

Michael Frazier

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"There is a difference."

I would be interested in hearing what that difference is.

Michael Frazier

[Captain Rhino]

Since you are fond of quoting me to myself, reflect on this quote from the same post:

"As a retired Marine, I hope the evidence to lead to a dismissal of all charges. However, I also want justice to be done, even if it means owning up to some pretty unpleasant facts about unlawful acts committed by service members."

Although it doesn't happen very often, we have had service members (including Marines) really commit war crimes in the past. And human nature being what it is, there are going to be those rare instances of war crimes now and there will always be instances of it as long as nations, peoples, and individuals settle their differences through violence toward one another. To deny this is at least a possibility in this case is to underestimate the capacity of young, scared, and angry armed men to occasionally talk themselves into doing incredibly stupid and vile things. Actually, it's a wonder it doesn't happen a lot more often. That it doesn't happen is a tribute to the self-discipline and integrity of the vast majority of the men and women of the armed forces.

You'll know from the law of land warfare that just as there are actions that are clearly crimes from the onset, there are many offenses that only become crimes when a justifiable reaction turns into a crime through carelessness or through excessive and uncontrolled use of force. Both, either, or neither might be the case here. I simply don't know enough to exclude any possibility (including the unpleasant ones) preemptively.

I'm going with General Pace: a thorough, professional investigation followed by actions appropriate to the evidence.

[brazzaville]

Good evening.

Good for you. I admire loyalty and I'm glad you admit there towards the end that they might not be guilty.

Michael Frazier

[lugsoul]

Um, it WAS his point. May not have been yours, but I didn't ask you the question.

[A CA Guy]

Won't work unless he is a stripper charging some Duke team.

[o_zarkman44]

I feel bad for the people who died. It is a tragedy. As for CBS they have been among the worst in bringing fair coverage to the war. And they have been known to manufacture news stories.
The fallen news reporters are getting more sympathetic coverage in the media than the soldiers who died.
The soldiers are the heros here. Thats my take.