Marine Under Investigation in Shooting of Iraqi Soldier

Military officials are investigating a Marine who says he shot an Iraqi soldier twice in the back of the head following a grenade attack on his comrades.

The Marine Forces Reserve announced the preliminary inquiry of Gunnery Sgt. Gus Covarrubias on Friday, the day the Las Vegas Review-Journal ran a story in which he described the killing.

Covarrubias, 38, of Las Vegas, said that during an intense battle in Baghdad on April 8, he pursued a member of the Iraqi Republican Guard who had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at his unit. Covarrubias said he received a concussion in the attack and several other Marines also were injured.

Covarrubias, a 20-year Marine veteran, said he found the soldier inside a nearby house with the grenade launcher by his side. Covarrubias said he ordered the man to stop and forced him to turn around.

"I went behind him and shot him in the back of the head. Twice," Covarrubias told the Review-Journal.

He said he also shot the man's partner, who tried to escape. He showed what he said were the men's ID cards.

"I'm not vindictive, and I might get in trouble for telling you this, but I take it very personally when you do that to my family," Covarrubias said. "The Marines are my family."

The Marine Forces Reserve said the preliminary inquiry by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service will determine whether Covarrubias "met the established rules of engagement and complied with the law of war," and whether a formal investigation is warranted.

Marine reservist Sgt. Michael Dunn, who fought alongside Covarrubias and was injured in the battle, said he stands by him "100 percent."

"If he wouldn't have done it, those guys probably would've come back and killed or severely injured other Marines," Dunn said. "He did the right thing."

Unless the interpretation of a "prisoner" has changed a LOT in the last 40 years --- this Marine is going to need a good lawyer. This Marine appears to have executed his prisoner.. Not good.... He has a real problem, now --- if the article truthfully reported the facts.... this Marine compounded a "questionable killing" by TALKING about it...

The one defense argument that has a chance of getting him off will be:

"My client and his buddy are two dim-witted, loud-mouthed, lying braggarts who made this whole story up in order to yank the chain of a reporter. My client would now like to sincerely apologize to the reporter for playing such a cruel hoax on him and to sincerely apologize to the Marine Corps for wasting the Corps' time and resources on this investigation."

"The ONLY investigation that should be made is whether or not this GOOD MARINE should get a Bronze Star or a Silver Star for taking care of an Iraqi soldier/terrorist (who killed coalition forces) the way they all should be taken care of."

It's the soldier not the reporter who gives you the freedom of the press.

It's the soldier not the poet who gives you the freedom of speech.

It's the soldier not the campus organizer who allows you to demonstrate.

It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves the flag, whose coffin is draped with the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag!!!

"Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen."

I am not saying there is insufficient corrobative evidence. I have no idea what the evidence is. The evidence will have to corroborate the claim of killing--not theft or any other charge not admitted to. Even possession of two enemy ID cards might not be enough. It might be. The judge would have to make that ruling.

This will not necessarily be an easy case to prosecute unless investigators locate the scene of the alleged killing and find evidence of the killing, e.g., blood, spent M16 cartridges, bodies, etc.

"It's not a game, it's WAR........kill the enemy before he kills you."

If this were April, 1944, there is no way we would be having this (politically-correct) conversation!

General George Patton

"Grab 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass!"

patton180.gif (32613 bytes)

"I don't care what color you are, so long as you go up there and kill those Kraut sonsabitches."
General Patton Addressing First Colored Tank Units in 1944.

The "full story" that might just save his ass.

1. What I said was true -- I did have the drop on the Iraqi - and ordered him to turn his back to me, so that I could search him for weapons..

2. He complied.

3. Then he started running and screaming something in Arabic - I was afraid he was calling his team to come assist him. I was alone, and lightly armed - I was in no way prepared to deal with these bastard's friends.

4. I ran him down to keep him from getting to a weapon - shot him to shut him up, and to keep him from escaping.

5. As soon as I killed him, his buddy took off running and screaming - I also killed him.

6. I removed their I.D. only to verify they were enemy soldiers, and not civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

7. I regret that the reporter didn't get the entire story - He seemed satisfied with what he heard to go with his story.

Semper Fi

The real truth of the incident at Malmédy was that the Germans accepted the surrender, disarmed the Americans and told the to walk to the rear and report to on coming units. The Americans instead of doing that rearmed themselves and shot up the oncoming German unit who had been told by radio to expect the Americans. The Americans were dealt harshly because of their rearming themselves........Atlantin:

Can you provide a source for this? This is the first time I have read this account of the incident at Malmedy. The only version I have read or seen on televised reports was that they were unjustly executed by fanatical SS troops. If it takes you time to get the source, that's ok. You can E-mail me through FR when you get it. Thanks in advance........Enterprise

The link I posted does refer to that German version. However, the original German version does not even go so far as the later embellished German version that had the Americans rearming themselves:

Most German apologists, and certainly many former members of Leibstandarte, subscribe to the explanation given by Peiper's adjutant, Hans Gruhle, who said that there was a gap of about 10 minutes between Sternebeck and the command group leaving Baugnez and the arrival of the first elements of the main body of the Kampfgruppe. During this time the Americans were left to their own devices and, since they were not marching toward the east as would have been expected of normal POWs, the newly arrived elements mistook them for a combat unit and opened fire. How Gruhle could have known what happened on that tragic afternoon, however, is a mystery since he was allegedly traveling at or near the rear of the column!.......................With the passing of time this story, too, has been embellished to a point where the surrendered Americans, having recovered their weapons, actually opened fire on the main body of the Kampfgruppe. It is hard to comprehend how supposedly intelligent people can advance a theory that green and terrified soldiers who had already surrendered would pick up their rifles and pistols--they had nothing larger--which hardened Waffen SS soldiers had left lying around, in order to engage tanks and halftracks.

The version from American survivors was:

Twenty-one American survivors made statements to U.S. authorities in Malmédy on December 17, the same day as the massacre, and on the following day--long before there was any possibility of collusion or anybody putting ideas into their heads. They all told essentially the same story: After surrendering to a German armored column and being disarmed, they were assembled in a field just south of the crossroads. The Germans then opened fire on them with machine guns and rifles. In most cases, the survivors mentioned two pistol shots before the main shooting started. They said that soldiers then entered the field and shot anyone who showed any signs of life and that many of the bodies were kicked or prodded in order to get a response. Following this, the German column continued to drive past, with some of the vehicle crews taking potshots at the bodies lying in the field. All but one of the survivors insisted that no attempt to escape had been made before the Germans opened fire, and that the escape attempt came at a much later stage when they thought the Germans had left the area.

However, as some have posted on this thread, war is simply about kiiling as many of the enemy as possible and, therefore, the 1st SS Panzer Corps had every right to kill our American G.I.'s after they surrendered. To claim otherwise is simply "Political Correctness". < /sarcasm>

I see that you're being subjected to the "been there and done that" logic. If you haven't "been there and done that," you cannot voice an opinion. Therefore, if you question the legality of shooting enemy POW's, your question isn't valid and you don't have the right to even ask it because you "haven't been there and done that." Of course, if you condemn the shooting of American POWs, that is acceptible because you are a patriot.

Suppose that in the end he is convicted by a military court of a war crime, and it shows that you were in fact right to raise the question. It would make no difference that you were right to question the original action, because you "haven't been there and done that." The only ones who have the right to agree with the conviction would be the military court, and those who "have been there and done that."

You pay taxes of course, and those taxes fund the military, and the military is under civilian authority, (many of whom "haven't been there and done that"), you have a right to know that the military acts in a lawful manner in peace time and in time of war, and you have an absolute right under the First Amendment to pose the questions you pose. That is, unless, you "haven't been there and done that." Then under that unwritten law, you have no right to question anything the military does.

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.