Posted on 04/27/2003 7:37:18 AM PDT by harpu
That seems to be clear-cut evidence that they were captured (by an overwhelmingly stronger and more numerous force), then transported to the building, where the Iraqis had full control over them, and then shot in cold blood, doesn't it?
By contrast, the Marine was on a lonely search-and-destroy mission in enemy territory. What could he have done with the first Iraqi, the one next to the RPG? Tie his wrists with his shoelaces, then march him back to the Marine position? He would never have gotten past the other Iraqi.
I'm sorry, I don't see the Marine as having control in anything but a technical, legal sense.
P.S. I never served in the military, so maybe I should keep my mouth shut.
A pleasure to meet your acquaintance, I'm sure!
War is greasy, grimy, gut-level split-second decision making at it's best.
To enforce the UCMJ and the Articles of War cannot be understated, neither can supporting the incentive and morale of our troops in what is about to be a long, drawn out police action.
We are off on the right foot. This is not going to change that.
Me bet is still with the Gunny. He has a good shot at Sgt. Major.
Had we proceeded with the politically correct mindset some are advocating in this thread, we would still be watching Hans Blix tell us Saddam is a good leader on CNN and all of Hollyweed making movies from the West Wing.
Of course you are correct - all those actions have been honorable.
As Central_Floridian pointed out, "Cpl. Alvin York managed to move 135 German POWs out of enemy territory to American lines without having to shoot any of them in the back of the head."
The bottom line is that the LOAC does not recognize and specifically prohibits "Gee, how am I going to get them back" as an excuse to execute a POW.
Remember that the LOAC is there to protect POW's on both sides. What military law says is O.K. for one side then becomes O.K. for the other side.
If you have one side claiming "I shot the (German/North Korean/Iraqi) because I thought there was a second (German/North Korean/Iraqi) in the area", then you have the other side claiming, ""I shot the American because I thought there was a second American in the area".
There is a saying in law: "If law is not on your side, argue the facts. If the facts are not on your side argue the law".
The military law is clear. You cannot execute that POW once he was passively following your orders and under your physical control even if the area was surrounded by an entire Republican Guard Division. Trying to argue at a court-martial that you think the law is (wrong/stupid/not practical) will get you as far as a Democrat claiming that Al Gore is really the President of the United States because they do not agree with the Constitutional law that put George Bush in the White House.
In order to be acquitted, the Marine needs to ensure that it cannot be proved that the Iraqi was passively following his orders and under his physical control. Since physical evidence is most likely not available and there were no witnesses, the only thing that can convict that Marine is his own loose and extremely dumb lips.
If the Marine claims that he exagerated the story, etc., he gives the court-martial some leeway. If he stands by his original story, the court-martial has no choice but to enforce U.S. Military Law.
Telling the Judge, "I'm awfully sorry, Judge, I really believed that she was 18" might get you off the hook.
Telling the Judge, "Yeah, I knew that she was 13 but that law is a stupid law and should not be enforced" will get you convicted.
Here's where he went wrong, obviously. Emotionally, I can understand and sympathize with the response. Intellectually, it sounds a lot like cold blooded murder. I hope they don't make an "example" of this guy.
I'm not sure what people expect - war is hell . . .
I agree, we don't have to be, but I think many are taking this story outside of the context of "the battle field". Until you've seen your friend - the guy who's been covering your ass - hurt or killed, you have no clue how you'd react in that situation. When placed into a situation where one has to literally kill to live, all the pretty little philosophical distinctions go out the window, and the battle stress response takes control. I would personally have a VERY hard time condemning this guy.
I just finished reading "We were soldiers once, and young". It is the story of an early battle in Vietnam, and part of the battle was an ambush of our guys where they were just cut to pieces. As night fell and our guys finally had formed something of a perimeter, they could hear the NV soldiers walking through the tall grass, finding our wounded and shooting them, all the while talking and laughing. And they wouldn't just shoot them in the head and finish them off - they would put the gun in the GI's mouth and pull the trigger.
It's not like I didn't know that happened, but reading about it was still disturbing, and it made me proud to be an American, because, I thought, that's the difference between us and them.
Until I read these threads where freepers cheer because some Marine executed a POW.
Perhaps you have a point about combat stress, and the things people may do when under stress. Perhaps we need to overlook it sometimes when it happens.
Here's the problem. This gunny made that impossible, though, by being so public with what he did. Once something like this gets public, you cannot overlook it, because that would look like condoning it. You have to address it under the laws of war because if you don't, you've now sanctioned future violations of that law. You count on the illegality of such acts to be one factor that restrains people from committing such act, even under combat stresses.
But if you give this guy a public "pass" on this, you've basically given license for guys to commit similar battlefield crimes. You can't do that, so you've got to nail him.
Also, before we give this guy a "pass" for doing this "under stress", it strikes me as rather weird that the guy went public with this, and apparently saw nothing wrong with it. I saw some things that were disturbing in the Gulf War, but I never went blabbing about them. And I know plenty of Vietnam Vets and other people who've seen terrible combat, and they don't go blabbing about it either. That fact that this guy so blithely mentioned it makes me think it wasn't stress or pressure at all.
In fact, the whole "battlefield stress" thing is a red herring. He doesn't claim it was that at all. He just flat-out says it was the right thing to do. That is the type of thing that cannot go unpunished.
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.