Posted on 11/18/2004 3:34:57 PM PST by writer33
One U.S. Marine, a cameraman, and a terrorist. The marine, acting in complete self-defense, fired the round into a terrorist pretending to be dead. Seconds later, the terrorist was dead, and now part of the mosques décor.
What do you get when you add all of that up? A compulsion to run with the tape. The mainstream media had President Bush now. This will get him impeached. They knew this Cowboy was sending troops over to Iraq to murder innocent civilians. The Dennis Kucinich theory was in full swing. Somehow, the liberal press would have you believe that this poor, unarmed, Iraqi civilian would still be alive had this trigger-happy Marine not gunned him down in cold blood.
Democrats have pulled out all the stops and the Civil Rights lawyers to defend this poor, insurgents soul. Michael Gross was already championing the plight of this suffering, innocent terrorist on Hannity & Colmes, November 16, 2004. So, the strategy begins for liberals and the Democratic Party. Dig up anything and everything they can on President Bush and press for impeachment and removal from office; a theory expressed by Rush Limbaugh months before the reelection of President Bush.
In order to have that happen, liberals and the mainstream press want everyone in America to think our soldiers are murderous thugs, thugs that were duped into going to Iraq at the whim of an unchecked, imbecilic, war-mongering president. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coasties are honorable men and women, serving with distinction in a war that protects the life of everyone in this United States, and they spread liberty throughout the world. In a Reuters news story, his fellow brother-in-arms defended that brave marine. I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head, said Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. You cant trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong.
Exactly the point. If we are to believe this Iraqi man is an innocent civilian, then what was he doing faking his death? Why would a civilian caught up in the battle not cry out for help? Especially when help was right there? Because he wasnt an innocent civilian, and he wasnt an insurgent. He was a terrorist assassin out to kill Americans, period. He couldve been booby-trapped. He couldve had a hand grenade in his hand. There is a myriad of possibilities that couldve led this marine to shoot him. Speculation at this point is a typical senseless agenda. This shouldnt have even made the news. There shouldve been cheers for the marine for doing his job. Instead, we have Democratic operatives trying to insert doubt into the minds of the American people by insisting on an investigation.
Since the days of Watergate, liberals have been trying to remove conservatives by scandal. It seems to be the only method they know how to use. So, by suggesting that there needs to be an investigation behind this shooting, theyre implying that there is something wrong, something the American people need to know. Democrats want everyone to think that this marine performed a war crime. The kind of crime John Kerry committed while in Vietnam. They hope, in their warped machinations, that Americans will begin to think of Iraq as they did Vietnam, which happened to be the entire philosophy of the Kerry campaign. Its the kind of rhetoric that Janine Garofolo trumpets, the kind of lies the press wants in your subconscious. It didnt work then, and its not going to work now.
Could America have survived World War II and Korea with the meddling press corps we have today? In those days, we wouldve leveled everything; anyone that didnt get out of the zone wouldve been part of the landscape. Now, with precision weapons and an overly sensitive press, we exercise caution at every little nook, cranny, and mosque. During WWII, that marine wouldve been walking through a blasted pile of rubble. Thats why this marine found himself face to face with an injured insurgent. Thats why theres a story for the press to blow completely out of proportion, and thats why were in Iraq, to liberate the oppressed from terror.
Were spreading freedom throughout Iraq, which will help to stabilize an extremely volatile area of the world. These assassins operate on one kind of mentality: Kill em all, let Allah sort em out. Which is why a terroristone that was injured from earlier fightingwas playing dead. This leaves our fine men and women of the U.S. Armed forces only one choice, survival of the fittest.
This marine did his duty. He made a judgement call, protected himself, his unit, and the United States of America. America should be proud of this young marine, bursting at the seams with confidence. This marines actions reflect great courage upon himself, his unit, the Marine Corps, and the United States of America.
Semper Fi, marine.
I'm not a troll. I don't care to have my IP address publicized, but am happy to authorize the moderator to confirm that my posts on this thread came from the identical IP address as all my posts going back to 1998. I don't know how else to "prove" I have not hijacked DrC's screen name. This line of argument is all a red herring since whether I am a troll or not, my argument can be evaluated on its merits.
As for my original post, I really was trying to make a very simple point--one that you mistakenly inflated all out of proportion into an attack on the marines, America, apple pie and motherhood. The professor made 2 assertions that were "news" to me: my deepest apologies for never having served in the military and not knowing this stuff "first hand." Do I get brownie points for my Dad having attended West Point? In any case, what the video shows is no obvious movement by the victim. Hence, the question on the table was under what circumstances could the shooting be justified? The professor pointed out that "mercy killings" are not allowed. I did not raise this point in my post because it wasn't relevant. I was reacting to a specific poster who, in my estimation (notwithstanding your claim that it is a strawman defense) was actually invoking the "might have done it" defense. And to that poster, I merely reported the second thing I'd learned from the WP professor, namely that such defenses are not allowed. The marine in question has to demonstrate that in his judgment this victim posed an actual as opposed to hypothetical threat to him or the other soldiers present. As I indicated earlier, had the victim reached beneath his blanket--even if it later turned out he had no weapon beneath--that action alone would have justified the shooting. But absent that, my understanding of how the code is applied [COMPLETELY derivative from a WP professor!], "he coulda done this" or "he coulda done that" won't be sufficient to convince a fair-minded military panel against conviction.
Again, this may not be "news" to you or anyone with experience in this area, but since not everyone here has had the benefit of your experience, including the poster who was offering up the "might have done" defense to defend this marine's actions, I thought my post was a reasonable contribution to the discussion.
The underlying premise of my argument was that the military justice system was fair and could indeed be counted upon to ignore inappropriate defenses even if the lawyer defending the marine offered them. That may be naive in the extreme from where you sit, but it's a conclusion I drew from observing how Abu Graib was handled--reasonably swift, no-nonsense justice without any effort to "rally round the marines" who admittedly are in a tough fight over there. The military has high standards of conduct that were upheld at Abu Graib and I expect an equally principled decision in the case of this marine.
If I understand your position correctly, it is literally impossible to expect a conviction of this marine. I, on the other hand, believe the odds favor his conviction but acknowledge the possibility of an acquittal based on evidence not visible on the tape. I'll leave it for readers to decide which is the more defensible position. I personally am quite content to let the investigation play and see which one of us is right in our predictions.
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.