Marine Under Investigation in Shooting of Iraqi Soldier

Fort Worth(less) Startlegram ^ | 4/27/03 | AP Story

[harpu]

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.

Calls to Covarrubias' home and knocks at the door went unanswered.

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."

[wimpycat]

Exactly.

[umbagi]

I'm hoping the Marine in question was telling the reporter a fish story.

Ditto.

Best case is that the "journalist" fabricated most of it. Next-best is that he forgot to report the "Now this is no shi'ite" part of it.

Worst case is that it's true, and the guy will be dealt with appropriately, and the world will continue to know that we really are the Good Guys in this scrap. We don't work that way...

[Arkinsaw]

I don't know who will care what I think supposing I see combat (I am considering joining the US military). I pray that anything I experience will not cause me to have a cruel attitude toward other people. And in the meantime I'll try to fulfill my duties and be a good and productive citizen.

Just remember that "honor" is not unimportant. This incident is no way indicative of the vast majority. We have seen some amazing actions by our soldiers and Marines in this conflict, honorable and chivalrous actions in terrible circumstances. We've seen a LOT of good judgment by the lowest ranks. Nearly every one of them that came up in front of the cameras during live coverage knew why they were there, how to do it, and were eloquent about it.

No way that this guy should get more press than they do or reflect on them in any way.

[Central_Floridian]

From what the Marine said it seems like he killed this Iraqi soldier who was cooperating when he could have just as easily captured him (the Iraqi was unarmed, the Marine says he had him turn around and shot him twice in the back of the head). If the reporter is lying or the Marine is mistaken (due to the concussion) I will be glad to hear it. If the Marine had stormed the house and killed the Iraqis on site that would be perfectly honorable. If the Iraqi had dropped his weapons, had his hands in the air, and had not rigged himself with grenades and then the Marine shot him it would be murder, just as ruthless as what some of the Iraqis did to some of our soldiers.

[river rat]

If this Marine had simply moved in behind the Iraqi and shot him PRIOR to giving him any orders or instuctions - which were OBEYED --- no problem.
If this Marine had jumped, siezed the Iraqi, spun him around and shot him in the head....no problem.
If this Marine had blown the bastard and the house to bits...no problem.

But this Marine had the Iraqi under control sufficiently enough to approach him closely, order him to turn around - and execute him..

These two Iraqis had in my interpretation of the story -- achieved the status of combatants under control....
The first killing --- appears to be in "suspect kill" - the second killing of a "prisoner" attempting to escape is a supported killing...

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 truefully reported the facts..


Now, in fact -- I have no problem with killing an enemy in any circumstance...
But, this Marine compounded a "questionable killing" by TALKING about it...

Irrespective of what most keyboard warriors think about our Marines having an unrestricted, reckless "right" to kill anything or anyone that comes into range --- they're wrong.

If in the heat, confusion or excitment of engagement - a "bad" killing occures -- it is best to STFU.

Apparrently, this Marine's desire to "get credit" for 2 KIAs -- taking their I.D.s -- set himself up for some serious consequences..


Tough scenario.... But I've heard of worse.

Semper Fi

[umbagi]

"We're in a fight for our principles; we ought to live by them."
  --President George W. Bush, 09-20-01

[Arkinsaw]

"We're in a fight for our principles; we ought to live by them." --President George W. Bush, 09-20-01
<br Good quote, thanks.

[Unwavering Conservative]

This Marine is a disgrace to the Corps.

He is nothing more than a gang-banger thug IMHO.

[Unwavering Conservative]

This Marine could tarnish the reputation of our great military in the minds of humanity.

He needs court-martialed.

[Enterprise]

"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."

This is a corroborative statement from someone who was there. If Covarrubias shot an Iraqi soldier who was complying with his orders, and Dunn stands by that statement 100%, it is a dreadful corroboration.

[Central_Floridian]

Thanks for that Bush quote. It hit the nail on the head.

[Central_Floridian]

Thank you for your service to our country sir.
Were you an Army Ranger (photo of you in black beret)?

[Thumper1960]

Dammit, Marine!!

Shut UP!

Geezuz! Plead temporary insanity if need be, but never, ever talk to the damned PRESS!

Compared to the trick Iraqi "surrender" that killed and wounded some of our troops, this should be considered a bit minor.

[Polybius]

I am willing to kill people and destroy things to defend my country and it's interests. You called me a "politically correct baby" because of my statements that US soldiers shouldn't kill enemy soldiers IF they had surrendered and were compliant. Gen. Patton told his soldiers he would not tolerate them killing German POWs. I certainly don't think that made Patton a "politically correct baby". Just an honorable soldier. I don't think it takes alot of courage to shoot an unarmed POW in the back of the head.

You would make a fine and honorable member of the U.S. Armed Forces, Central_Floridian.

The honorable conduct you advocate is not "political correctness". It is conduct mandated by the U.S. Department of Defense as outlined in Department of Defense Directive 2310.1: DoD Program for Enemy Prisoners of War (EPOW) and Other Detainees.

The willful execution of captured Enemy Prisoners of War that some on this thread advocate is a direct violation of the law of armed conflict and of U.S. Defense Department Directives. In the Waffen SS and in al Qaeda, such conduct may have made you a more studly soldier. In the U.S. Marine Corps, such conduct simply makes you a crimminal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

As noted by Marine Corps Reference Publication 4-11.8B: War Crimes Investigation, Chapter III, the willful killing of an EPW can be punished under UCMJ Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), Article 134, (General article), Article 93 (Cruelty and maltreatment) and Article 118 (Murder).

If all Iraqi soldiers subscribed to the Waffen SS wannabe mentality that some on this thread portray as "non-Politically Correct" warfare, Pfc. Lynch and seven other American ex-POW's would now be dead with bullet holes in the back of their skulls.

[Thumper1960]

Agreed!

After the "incident", he should have kept his yap shut. I understand that battle clouds the mind, sometimes. In the strictest interpretation, he was wrong in the first killing. Having said that, I can understand his actions.

I do hope that a courts martial will be sympathetic and go easy on him.

[umbagi]

Were you an Army Ranger (photo of you in black beret)?

No, Navy -- Drove a River Patrol Boat (PBR). We (Navy's CTG 116) wore black berets, too, "flopped" to the other side, and with the insignia (CTF 116's) on the right.

[Kevin Curry]

It is an axiom of criminal law that a confession or admission of guilt--standing by itself--will not sustain a conviction. There must be independent corroborative evidence.

If that were not so, every boastful, full of BS, barstool warrior in America would be on death row.

[Enterprise]

"It is an axiom of criminal law that a confession or admission of guilt--standing by itself--will not sustain a conviction. There must be independent corroborative evidence."

Referencing post number #64 by Sandy:

"He said he ordered the man to stop, forced him to turn around, and removed his black beret. He shot him twice in the back of the head.
He took the man's military ID as a souvenir.
Outside, the man's partner was escaping. Covarrubias said he chased him down and killed him as well. He took the man's ID and his AK-47 assault rifle.
"This," he said in the interview, holding up the two ID cards, "is justice."

I strongly agree that mere statements are not enough to convict. However, they are sufficient to begin an investigation. He has made a statement which was corroborated by someone else and which could damage him terribly at trial. And, he has allegedly produced identifications of individuals he killed. The military is going to demand that he produce those IDs. An investigative team will go to the location where he claimed this occurred. In time, the physical evidence may be literally "unearthed" and may well be sufficient to convict him. If it is, he has only himself to blame.

[Central_Floridian]

"Compared to the trick Iraqi "surrender" that killed and wounded some of our troops this should be considered a bit minor".
The US occupation forces should try to find the cowards who used such underhanded tactics and execute them. I believe that is what will be done. We should never sink to the level of our enemies, if we do we will wake up one day and realize we are just like them.

[Axman4]

Welcome home, umbagi. Worked with some PBR guys near Chu Lai 67-68 while with the 196th LIB. Nice boats!