Posted on 05/31/2006 6:20:21 AM PDT by Coop
... Snow said that he has been assured by the Pentagon that "all the details" will be made available...
Rep. John Murtha... has said Marines shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into two homes and shot others.
On Tuesday, [Snow] said President Bush learned of the killings only after a reporter from Time magazine asked questions...
Asked when Bush was first briefed about the events in Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in western Iraq, Snow replied Tuesday: "When a Time reporter first made the call."
According to the attorney for one of three Marine Corps officers relieved of command from a Marine battalion are not targets of investigations into whether their troops killed the civilians or tried to cover it up.
Meanwhile, Lance Cpl. James Crossan of North Bend, Wash., who was injured in the roadside bomb attack in Haditha, told a Seattle television station that some of the Marines might have snapped after seeing one of their own killed in action.
"So, I think they were just blinded by hate ... and they just lost control," Crossan told KING-TV, which aired the interview Tuesday.
The targets... are about a dozen enlisted Marines, according to Hackett, a Marine reservist and Iraqi war veteran who represents Kimber... [Hackett] said the highest ranking among those under investigation is a staff sergeant who led the four-vehicle convoy that was hit by the bomb.
Kimber... was relieved of command last month because his subordinates... used profanity and criticized the performance of Iraqi security services during an interview with Britain's Sky News TV...
...Hackett told The Associated Press by telephone. "He's not under investigation for anything related to what has played out in the press." [snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You have a point-I have been ambivalent about this war, there I said it, because I know that in war, the person who kills the most women and children wins. Period. You kill and kill civilians until someone says uncle. This is the modern theater, and Americans don't have the stomach for it.
I am not seeing these Iraqi's as all that grateful any damn way. There a bunch of stone-age islamic loonies, if you ask me, who don't deserve our boys dying for them. I know, I know, we are not only fighting for their freedom, but looking for terrorists. Well, we sure as hell found them!
And MAYBE, I SAID MAYBE, now our Marines are so spooked that they are shooting children who may have been related to a bomber? I don't have any answers. Only questions.
Great post at 422!
Actually, there's not. Unless they are an armed threat, it's completely illegal to shoot them 'for being bad guys'. Unless they were killed on accident or in the crossfire of another battle, shooting unarmed civilians will merit murder charges, under military law.
If they were innocent, there's every reason to suspect they weren't innocent or they wouldn't have been there.
Huh? It's a crime to be in your house? They may have known about the IED attack, and odds are they did, but that doesn't make them different from most other families that lives near a major roadway in Iraq. Terrorists will set up wherever they want to for an attack, and execute entire families that rat them out or otherwise resist them.
Yes. Shrapnel tends to inflict many wounds, whereas gunshot wounds are much fewer
Leave aside the obviously question why would a Infantry Marine would be examining the wounds of dead Civilians which is not part of his job
Actually, it is, so they can figure out what happened and write it down in the after-action report.
Now, the original AAR said that the Iraqi civilians were killed by the IED, and that was what the press got told in November 2005. By your statement, the Marines had no business making any such statement in their AAR or to the press, as they would have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not that was the case.
If he HAD been shot there, he would be crippled for life, his spine severed just below the neck.
Then two guys from my unit in Vietnam during my tour should should have been "crippled for life." Unfortunately for your thesis, they weren't.
So your "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" are shown to be liars.
No, they haven't, for the reason cited above.
So want to try and explain these inconsistencies in your "witnesses" testimony?
So, would you like to explain the inconsistencies between your take on what should have been in the AAR vs. what actually went into it?
"Weren't" was the operative word. The phrase, "If they weren't innocent" means either armed or hostile with the immediate ability to kill, not just being in the condition of being a "bad guy."
They were told long before to leave, from what I understand.
But he's an ex-cop, so ya gotta believe him.
================================================
Show me one post where I even conjectured on what the Marines did or did not do. You can't because I didn't.
You read the rantings of one of the most notoriously un-hinged freepers and buy into them. Who is sadder, the unbalanced raver on the corner or the on-looker who believes him?
When the witness says one thing, and the event scene photographs say something else, that witness gets to be a suspect.
Once upon a time, Free Republic routinely pointed out the mismatch between what the federal government said and what other evidence said (Waco, etc.) FReepers worked tirelessly to keep stuff from going down the memory hole.
Now, FReepers complain about the memory hole being out of order.
I've already said that. But you're assuming from the moment it happened it was viewed in a political light. I'm saying that likely wasn't the case until Time magazine started its campaign (whether the campaign was for justice or something else remains to be seen). Then the President was briefed.
Who's "he," Sink? Forget to ping someone, did ya?
If you don't consider it a silly game, don't treat it as such. You obviously want to say that this comment about the propane tank (What? Are you accepting something in a press report as true?) means or could mean that there was an IED in the house and that the initial report was therefore true. Why not come out and say it? Instead, you go through this cutesiness of asking about "rules" for IEDs and whatnot.
The first reports from the Marine Corps to the press in November 2005 stated that the deaths were all due to the IED going off. The evidence at hand says otherwise, including the photographs that so many are upset that the press got ahold of. When the witness says one thing, and the event scene photographs say something else, that witness gets to be a suspect.
And an investigation should be launched. And it was. And it is not complete. And you take some press reports which fit your agenda as Gospel, and dismiss others. But you promote them as fact, while others here prefer to wait for the investigation's details, and pray that U.S. Marines did not commit the atrocious crimes of which they are accused.
Once upon a time you used to use a term - "Semper Fidelis." Remember what that means?
And if FR has fallen from its previous great heights, perhaps you can post another opus, Poo-, err, PaleHorse.
I accept certain accounts in the press because they are corroborated by accounts from people I know at Camp Pendleton. The overwhelming message I'm getting is "this is going to be really bad."
No, I didn't. I was Army.
That's the same message I'm getting -- from you, from the press, from my next-door neighbors.
I also got a similar message about Ilario Pantano. Fortunately, a trial was held before his execution.
And the more I read about this case, the more discrepancies I find in various stories - from both perspectives. And when the defense speaks out, SHOCKINGLY their story presents a different picture.
I refuse to throw combat-tested Marines overboard prematurely. Semper Fi, esprit de corps, the few, the proud, all that good stuff. Remember?
If they're charged and found guilty, they'll pay. As will their families. If they're not charged, they'll still pay, as will their families. Will you be as vocal then? Or will you just disappear? If it's the latter, at least this time please spare us a fake opus, okay?
I never heard that about Pantano.
The folks who told me "don't worry" about Pantano are saying "brace for it" on this.
And when the defense speaks out, SHOCKINGLY their story presents a different picture.
Generally, it's easy to tell when a defense attorney is lying. His lips are moving. (/cynical former cop mode)
If it's the latter, at least this time please spare us a fake opus, okay?
I haven't opused. I'm not Poohbah. I met Poohbah once. He's a high-strung a$$hole IRL. Me, I'm generally not, as long as I make my physical therapy appointments (I have chronic pain from several injuries).
No. I didn't forget to ping anybody.
After Time did its own investigation....do you see the problem here?
And I thought he was The Sheriff...you need to keep your pet names straight.
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.