Posted on 05/30/2006 10:13:00 AM PDT by pissant
WASHINGTON - Military investigators piecing together what happened in the Iraqi town of Al-Hadithah on Nov. 19, 2005 -- when Marines allegedly killed two dozen civilians -- have access to video shot by a pilotless aircraft that was circling overhead for at least part of that day, military defense attorneys familiar with the case said in interviews.
It is unclear whether the video obtained from that day's flight captured the violence, said the attorneys, who have consulted with Marines who were there. One attorney 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.
Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said charges will be issued if the evidence merits it. For now, ``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.''
(snip...Please Read Carefully below)
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military's initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents."
Who were those "military officials" of whom he conveniently leaves off the adjective anonymous?
But wait, in the same paragraph we DO find a military spokesman willing to go ON the record:
Lieut. Colonel Michelle Martin-Hing, spokeswoman for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, told Time the involvement of the NCIS (ed--naval investigators) does not mean that a crime occurred. And she says the fault for the civilian deaths lies squarely with the insurgents, who "placed noncombatants in the line of fire as the Marines responded to defend themselves."
Then our Time reporter starts an official sounding paragraph to cut to the known facts:
Here's what all participants agree on: at around 7:15 a.m. on Nov. 19, a U.S. humvee was struck by a powerful improvised explosive device (ied) attached to a large propane canister, triggered by remote control. The bomb killed Terrazas, who was driving, and injured two other Marines. For U.S. troops, Haditha, set among date-palm groves along the Euphrates River, was inhospitable territory; every day the Marines found scores of bombs buried in the dirt roads near their base. Eman Waleed, 9, lived in a house 150 yards from the site of the blast, which was strong enough to shatter all the windows in her home. "We heard a big noise that woke us all up," she recalls two months later. "Then we did what we always do when there's an explosion: my father goes into his room with the Koran and prays that the family will be spared any harm." Eman says the rest of the family—her mother, grandfather, grandmother, two brothers, two aunts and two uncles—gathered in the living room. According to military officials familiar with the investigation, the Marines say they came under fire from the direction of the Waleed house immediately after being hit by the ied. A group of Marines headed toward the house. Eman says she "heard a lot of shooting, so none of us went outside. Besides, it was very early, and we were all wearing our nightclothes." When the Marines entered the house, they were shouting in English. "First, they went into my father's room, where he was reading the Koran," she claims, "and we heard shots." According to Eman, the Marines then entered the living room. "I couldn't see their faces very well—only their guns sticking into the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny." She claims the troops started firing toward the corner of the room where she and her younger brother Abdul Rahman, 8, were hiding; the other adults shielded the children from the bullets but died in the process. Eman says her leg was hit by a piece of metal and Abdul Rahman was shot near his shoulder. "We were lying there, bleeding, and it hurt so much. Afterward, some Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying, shouting 'Why did you do this to our family?' And one Iraqi soldier tells me, 'We didn't do it. The Americans did.'" Time was unable to speak with the only other survivor of the raid, Eman's younger brother, who relatives say is traumatized by the experience. U.S. military officials familiar with the investigation say that after entering the house, the Marines walked into a corridor with closed doors on either side. They thought they heard the clack-clack sound of an AK-47 being racked and readied for fire. (Eman and relatives who were not in the house insist that no guns were there.) Believing they were about to be ambushed, the Marines broke down the two doors simultaneously and fired their weapons. The officials say the military has confirmed that seven people were killed inside the house--including two women and a child. The Marines also reported seeing a man and a woman run out of the house; they gave chase and shot and killed the man. Relatives say the woman, Hiba Abdullah, escaped with her baby.
I put in BOLD what the known facts are. The rest of the paragraph was a history of the town and Iraqi "witnesses" that are most definitely not "what all participants agree on". The author is being either careless or deceptive. I'll let you decide.
Here's a doozy of a paragraph. I'm sure the iraqi Mr. Ayed wouldn't be lying, would he?:
The Marines raided a third house, which belongs to a man named Ahmed Ayed. One of Ahmed's five sons, Yousif, who lived in a house next door, told Time that after hearing a prolonged burst of gunfire from his father's house, he rushed over. Iraqi soldiers keeping watch in the garden prevented him from going in. "They told me, 'There's nothing you can do. Don't come closer, or the Americans will kill you too.' The Americans didn't let anybody into the house until 6:30 the next morning." Ayed says that by then the bodies were gone; all the dead had been zipped into U.S. body bags and taken by Marines to a local hospital morgue. "But we could tell from the blood tracks across the floor what happened," Ayed claims. "The Americans gathered my four brothers and took them inside my father's bedroom, to a closet. They killed them inside the closet."
If this does not raise questions in your mind, nothing will:
A day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with Time.
It is this article, leaked anonymous sources and Murtha's rant that have triggered the firestorm of coverage. We know Murtha's agenda, we know Time's history, but we don't know the leakers. We also know that the Marines are NOT investigating the officers in charge, that they have the radio transmissions and drone video to comb over, and that we have not heard one word of defense from the alleged perps. All in all, I'm happy to presume innocence at this point.
Thanks. See post 361. I did a mini-fisking of the article from Time. I could have done alot more.
Good point. Thanks
Yep. The Time article that started this thing is dripping with agenda.
didn't I tell you before I ignore what the Iraqis claimed? What part of anything I posted gives you the impression that I believe the qualifier "rampage"?
"I must have missed that link where the Marines said they killed the women and children and the old man in the wheelchair. "
Yes, it sure looks like you did. The Marines admitted it and paid money for the wrongful deaths and injuries. Do you think the journalists made this up?
"He's your typical, ignorant, liberal fool, masquarading as a journalist."
What I can get from those stories is things like, Rumsfeld is the Defense Secretary, Bush is the President, we are at war, we have troops in Iraq, J. Edwards is a clymer, someone had dinner, ect.
"if these Marines claim differently, to whom will you afford the benefit of the doubt?"
The results of the investigation will provide me with more to think about. When that happens I'll have something to say about it. I remember the Pantano case. Lt Pantano caught 2 terrorists at a house containing terrorist devices. He shot them when he thought they posed a threat. The charges were brought by a Sgt. Daniel Coburn. Sgt. Coburn claimed that Lt. Pantano shot them in the back for no reason. The whole case rested on Coburn's accusation. Otherwise I saw no problem with the shooting. Since I could't interview the 2, I could not make a decision on who was telling the truth.
The investigators dug up the grave and autopsied the body. They found that Pantano was telling the truth. Coburn retracted on the stand.
I believe the investigators and the other officers involved will do there best in the interest of justice, as they did in the Pantano case.
"Then we did what we always do when there's an explosion: my father goes into his room with the Koran and prays that the family will be spared any harm."
Eman is in the other room. She obviously doesn't know what her father is doing.
Reminds me of when my children were young and my hubby would say he's going to "clean the garage". He was in fact, sneaking a smoke away from the kids.
Ayed says that by then the bodies were gone; all the dead had been zipped into U.S. body bags and taken by Marines to a local hospital morgue.
So who put the bodies into the carpets?
This is interesting....the first Time article that you've fisked here, quotes Eman yet doesn't mention a grenade tossed under her grandfather's bed. Her subsequent interview does state that a grenade was thrown. Eman has "shrapnel" wounds from "metal" according to the video interview.
I wish I had more time to parse the quotes of the kids.
Kids are not good liars - as I often remind my own....the truth will always come out.
Well, you are the one who linked the Time articles. I assume it was to bolster your argument, not just something for me to read while taking a poop. Since the majority of the case for malfeasance by the Marines stems from Times interviews of "local officials" and "witnesses", I'm glad you are discounting these quotes.
That leaves the rest of the Time article, paraphrasing anonymous "military officials" and one on-record spokeswoman who defended the Marines.
And since it was the great Time magazine investigation that took this from non-story to above the fold, it's best to examine what it said, since 90% of the rest of the stories are now using it for the basis and claiming its all true.
But I'm with you in waiting for the investigation to complete, and any subsequent trials. Unfortunately, Time and Murtha have already done the damage they intended.
Way too many holes in the witness accounts. And way to fantastical. And since the entire MSM handwringing is based on these witnesses (ABC & Time & NY Times -- digging them up) then I am growing more hopeful that its all a load of BS.
What you should get from those stories is that this Time guy is a partisan hack, not fond of the Bush Administration and with a long history of liberal bias. But that would cast doubt on the veracity of the MSM. We can't do that.
First, the qualifier anonymous is not appropriate. The adjective refers to those sources whose names are kept secret deliberately. The prelim. was ordered by Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli. That was his investigation and he's the one that would have authorized the payments. I have no idea who they actually talked to, it doesn't matter.
"And she says the fault for the civilian deaths lies squarely with the insurgents, who "placed noncombatants in the line of fire as the Marines responded to defend themselves.""
She must have had the results of the investigation long before it was completed to make this statement. The prelim. found the families weren't armed. I'm anxious to here how they threatened the Sgt.
"Here's what all participants agree on: at around 7:15 a.m. on Nov. 19, a U.S. humvee was struck by a powerful improvised explosive device (ied) attached to a large propane canister, triggered by remote control. The bomb killed Terrazas, who was driving, and injured two other Marines."
Someone posted a pic claiming to be the crater left by the blast on FR. It was in the street. The curb remained intact. I really have a hard time grasping how anyone would not see a propane canister in the street and not think it was a bomb and treat it accordingly. Maybe it was buried, after some construction work on the road. Nevertheless, it would be newly patched. Just a side track...
"We also know that the Marines are NOT investigating the officers in charge,
3 were relieved for lack of confidence. That's not a simple transfer to maintain integrity of the investigation. They were relieved, because of job performance reasons. The timing suggests the relief is related to this incident.
" All in all, I'm happy to presume innocence at this point."
The presumption of innocence always applies legally. It's irrelevant as far as collecting the facts about what happened. That's all I'm interested in. This incident involves a considerable number of innocent folks killed with no reason given for the killing. I do expect this matter to be cleared up. It should have been cleared up shortly after it happened. It wasn't.
It was implied.
Has Gen. Chiarelli's report been made public? I can't find it.
But an authorized Spokeswoman, presumably familiar with his report, says the fault for the civilian deaths lies squarely with the insurgents, who "placed noncombatants in the line of fire as the Marines responded to defend themselves." That to me carries more weight than 95% of the other statements I've heard made about this incident. Could she be wrong, sure. Could the MSM be wrong?
One of the relieved officers has said he was not relieved due to the Haditha incident. Maybe the other two were. I do not know. But if you have a link, please let me know.
Sure, I understand the presumption of innocence is a legality. But you cannot be blind to the MSM's above the fold drumbeat that continually rehashes the "likely to be charged with murder" meme over and over again, all over the world. It is irresponsible in the extreme and gives aid and comfort and inspiration to our enemies.
Do you remember the Wedding Party "massacre" BS. Same sh*t, different day.
I assume that would be the captain of another company not involved in this incident.
"you cannot be blind to the MSM's above the fold drumbeat that continually rehashes"
I couldn't have made it more clear, that I don't heed their BS. Most of the country is not so susceptible to it either, or Bush wouldn't be in office.
" the MSM's above the fold drumbeat that continually rehashes the "likely to be charged with murder" meme over and over again"
They'd have no drum if there was nothing to the story.
"Do you remember the Wedding Party "massacre" BS. Same sh*t, different day."
Not from what I saw from the initial reports. It was also cleared up immediately, unlike this one.
"the Marines responded to defend themselves"
From what? This was a Sgt. involved here, not raw recruits from boot camp.
From the Guidebook for Marines, Chap 4, The Laws of War:
"Marines are to learn something about the country in which they are operating. Once there, they are to treat civilians humanely and private property as if it were there own.
Do not violate civilian's rights in war zones. If you know something about people's culture and practices, you will have little trouble recognizing civilians' rights. Make sure civilians are protected from acts of violence, threats and insults both from the enemy and your fellow Marines."
You know the MSM is itching to trot out Lt William Calley for comment ...
They'd have no drum if there wa not an Agenda. If there was not an Agenda, they'd cover the story, factually, presume no guilt, and wait for the results of the investigations. Instead, as the 1500 articles listed by Google can attest, they blast this kind of shit:
"US probe finds unprovoked killings in Haditha"
take a look and google Haditha and just scroll down the headlines.
First, no US probe has determined they were "unprovoked killings". 2nd, the MSM has an anti-war, anti-US agenda. And 3rd, if the new media does not fight the propaganda, no one will.
So, while I am more than willing to wait for the investigations to be completed, I'm not willing to give these traitors in the MSM a pass for their irresponsible reporting.
I'd think they'd be more interested in finding some relatives, or survivers of Calley's action.
Do not violate civilian's rights in war zones. If you know something about people's culture and practices, you will have little trouble recognizing civilians' rights. Make sure civilians are protected from acts of violence, threats and insults both from the enemy and your fellow Marines."
Nothing to date tells me that they violated these rules. If the enemy blends in with the civilians, then there is bound to be collateral deaths. If the enemy has been PROVEN time and again to use civilians as targets, decoys, shields, etc, then there is bound to be many collateral deaths. If the enemy wears no uniform and hides behind skirts, there is bound to be many collateral deaths. And instead of outrage from the press about constant, disgusting atrocities by the enemy, there instead is scorn for those who pursue and kill these scumbags. That is the bottom line.
There's probable cause to think they have been.
"If the enemy blends in with the civilians, then there is bound to be collateral deaths."
There was no enemy in these 2 houses.
There is accusations to that effect, not probable cause, unless you think the MSM is getting the story straight.
And so the theory that they just went on a rampage has "legs" to you. It rings hollow to me. Sorry, I give my benefit of the doubt for the time being to our warriors, not Time and Reuters.
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.