Posted on 07/31/2007 3:54:49 AM PDT by RedRover
CAMP PENDLETON — The war-crime hearings underway here have led to an unusual public airing of some of the Marine Corps' most tightly held combat secrets: the so-called rules of engagement that govern when Marines can use deadly force in Iraq.
Testimony thus far suggests the rules are ambiguous and subjective, and leave many Marines feeling they are being hamstrung in their ability to protect themselves by killing or capturing the enemy.
< snip >
In the Haditha cases, where enlisted Marines killed numerous civilians during a raid, the hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, has repeatedly expressed exasperation at testimony about the rules of engagement.
Capt. Kathryn Navin, a lawyer who briefs Marines in Iraq before they go into combat, testified that it is permissible to shoot and kill people fleeing a roadside bomb attack even if they are unarmed and no proof exists that they were involved in the attack.
But, Navin added, it is not necessarily permissible to kill someone just for pointing a gun at you.
"So the [rules of engagement] are more restrictive than the common law, where [a civilian] can kill someone who points a gun at you?" Ware asked with a note of incredulity.
Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore, who was the battalion intelligence officer when Marines killed 24 civilians in Haditha, testified that there is continuing conflict between frontline Marines and upper-level officers about what constitutes positive identification and what behavior defines hostile action.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Just point back and squeeze!!!!!
This explains why these Marines have consistently said they heard the sounds of AKs being “racked”.
Once they hear that sound they know their lives are in danger and can act accordingly.
It's nothing new, that's for sure. The same ROE was used in Mogadishu.
It's an insane denial of reality, since our troops are sent out to patrol wearing kevlar and ceramic plates, and are loaded down with spare ammo and weapons they cannot use until fired upon.
Marines called as character witnesses for the defendants have made no reference to whether they are judged fit for combat based on their knowledge and obedience to the rules of engagement. Rather, a Marine's dedication to helping colleagues survive appears to take precedence.
"He's a good noncommissioned officer," Capt. William Diaz testified about Cpl. Trent D. Thomas [in the Hamdania case]. "Good NCOs are hard to find. He would get his Marines home alive; that's the primary thing."
Thomas, making an unsworn statement to the same jury, said, "Every Marine I ever served with knows Cpl. Thomas has his back."
The most galling thing about the LCpl Tatum hearing is that a pfc is testifying against him. The pfc says he didn't feel there was a threat in Haditha. That morning was the pfc's first day in combat.
But Tatum, an experienced lance corporal (a veteran of Fallujah II), did recognize the threat and acted--maybe saving the pfc's life.
I believe LtCol Ware, the IO in the Tatum hearing, will accept LCpl Tatum's assessment and recommend that charges be dismissed. I don't think there's a reasonable alternative.
Think about it.
This is exactly why the Democrats use Bombs. Like themselves, they aren't accountable for collateral damage or unintended consequences. Damn their black hearts!
NCIS and JAG should both fall to a clearance scythe, leaving those standing cut off at the knees.
I’m getting real sick and tired of those douche bags that were killed at Haditha always being wrongly labeled as “civilians”. They were not civilians. They were insurgents.
The rest of this insane crap can be traced straight back to the sick, twisted, malicious leftist “journalism” propaganda that oozed out of the minds of the degenerate treason class during and after Vietnam.
Too bad you can't hear me say, "Hmmmm".
Yeppers. The incident at the white taxi will come down to this in court: one Marine saw a threat and one Marine did not. Too bad there wasn’t time to take a vote.
Also notice that the real echelon “experts” are second guessing them. I could have used a different word for “expert”. I suspect if one goes far enough back (not necessarily up the chain) the stench of lawyers will become unbearable. A person is not in the chain if you can’t write his fitness report.
oh for the good old days of.. shoot ‘em all, let God sort it out.
I can bomb the house, but I can’t shoot it? That is right up there with sheer stupidity.
In a hostile house, I have to ID the intent of a target before I shoot, but I’m allowed to frag the room?
Here’s the rule: Son, come home alive. That is the most ethical thing for your family and for you. Come home alive.
NCO: Bring ‘em home alive.
Will putting Marines on trial result in a more humane form of warfare?
In the houses cleared by the Marines, Iraqis had time to flee and there were survivors inside.
In the houses bombed from the air, no one had warning and no one survived.
Which attack was more humane?
On the surface I believe Atterbury made a false statement. If a house has been declared hostile because because enemy fire has come from it, according to Atterbury our troops couldn't fire into that house unless they actually saw an enemy fire at them. It doesn't require much common sense to figure out that an enemy isn't going to expose himself and fire at us so we can fire back.
Atterbury also uses the term "we" pretty loosely. If he was told to clear a house that enemy fire had come from, I believe he would toss in a grenade before he entered just as these Marines did without identifying individual enemy. If Atterbury didn't it would undoubtedly by the last door he ever walked through.
I think this was a good article by Perry, he covered the subject of the rules of engagement without including what he thinks they should be.
Agreed. Perry has good days and bad days. This was a good day.
I don’t think Atterbury’s argument will be persuasive. LCpl Tatum was told the house was hostile and he positively identified hostile intent (which has to be more than just eye contact).
And if the IO can’t figure out when it’s okay to fire, and when it’s not, I can’t see criminalizing Tatum’s actions.
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.