[DrC]

The only problem with this theory is the U.S. Military Code of Justice. A marine CANNOT kill another person based on speculation about what that person "might have done" as that would leave enough discretion to kill literally anything in sight, depending on the circumstances. I believe that like the soldiers at Abu Graib, this marine will be court martialed and convicted of being in violation of that code. Clearly, he should be given a fair trial and offered a chance to offer an explanation for his behavior: there may be an extenuating circumstance not visible on the tape. And until then, he is innocent until proven guilty. But offering excuses for the behavior, if indeed it crossed the line, is indefensible. If we wish to win hearts and minds in Iraq, it is critical that we maintain our high standards and honor and not stoop to the complete lack of regard for rules of war exhibited by the enemy. That's tough to do, and it even, tragically, risks American lives. But for the same reason that freedom itself is worth paying for in blood, when necessary, so is integrity, honor and all the values that make our military the best in the world.
admittedly

[xone]

Based on what I've seen (the tape)I don't think he will be charged,

[writer33]

Actually. I just talked to a Jag officer about this, and because the "insurgent" was feigning death there will probably be no recourse in charging this marine.

[Eagles6]

He didn't shoot the terrorist for "what he might have done". He shot him because he rationally perceived him to be a danger at that moment. True justice would be to send this Marine back to his unit asap with a profound "Thank you".

[sarasmom]

You are wrong.
The US Marine did exactly what he was supposed to do.
That you might find it repugnant is of no concern to me, the much touted and little read Geneva Conventions,or to the DOD.
You have a right to your opinion.
You will be proven wrong in a short period of time.

[namvetcav]

Your #16:
You have an interesting fantasy view of the UCMJ and its' "might have done" provisions. The UCMJ was not devised to get people on our side killed. It takes the concept of war seriously. I think you're confused and have only taken the concept of law seriously. The idea that you would bring up Abu Graib only demonstrates your lack of seriousness. Combat differs from Abu Graid because it has nothing to do with digital camera perverts messing around with unarmed prisoners. Military justice deduces a difference which you do not. Perhaps you should be more circumspect in favoring us with your insights into the UCMJ and the moral imperatives of western civilization. Your notion that this Marine should be tried and punished will do nothing but damage to the interests of the United States. It will harm every soldier who defends this country and portray us as pathetic and hapless jackasses to anyone we should respect. If you keep wanting to sacrifice guys like me to your overarching, insufferable high mindedness, we may decide not to show up to defend guys like you.

[TalBlack]

A terrorist feigning death is engaged in battle with his enemy. The degree to which he is armed (or not) is irrelevant. He who is not surrendering is shootable.

[TexKat]

Umph!!!

[sinclair]

"If we wish to win hearts and minds in Iraq..."

I don't wish to win hearts and minds in Iraq. I want dead Islamonazis. That is all. Over.

[SampleMan]

Wrong.
1. These folks aren't even covered as combatants, nor as civilians under the GC.
2. Before this incident the terrorists made a bad habit of falsely offering a white flag and then opening up when our guys exposed themselves. They also blew themselves up and their dead up with explosives. So even if you want to give them GC protection, they loose its protection when they break its rules.
3. Based on the above this Marine had every reason to shoot that terrorist. If you want to blame someone, blame the terrorists, they are responsible for forcing us to shoot first, ask questions later.
4. Had that terrorist had an explosive vest or grenade, like many have, and killed that fire team of Marines, what would you be saying now, "That's life." I suppose.
5. This happened in WWII in the Pacific on a regular basis. Like these terrorists, the Japanese were bent on suicide and would fake death, booby trap their dead, and feign surrender, just to kill one more Marine. It became common practice to shoot all Japanese that appeared dead before approaching them.
6. How about trying out your own theory. Go to the worst part of town at two in the morning and ask the first person you see on the street if they have change for a $100 bill. Keep trying that until you find someone kind enough to help you out. After all you don't want to assume the worst of people, you might hurt their feelings.

[TexKat]

[calenel]

A marine CANNOT kill another person based on speculation about what that person "might have done" as that would leave enough discretion to kill literally anything in sight, depending on the circumstances.

The Marine shot an insurgent terrorist in the act of committing a War Crime. The terrorist was out of uniform (a War Crime) and using a mosque as a military base (a War Crime). Other incidents had occurred with booby trapped bodies (a War Crime), false surrender (a War Crime) and faking injuries to lure into ambush (a War Crime).

According to the Geneva Convention, because of the wide spread commission of War Crimes by the terrorists the US military is no longer bound by the Geneva Conventions (it is not a suicide pact) in this conflict - the terrorists are no longer protected. We do not have to aid the wounded, avoid civilian casualties or take prisoners. We don't even have to respect the Red Cross as there are documented cases of the terrorists using Red Cross vehicles and markings to move troops and munitions. We do not have to honor surrender as the terrorists have used false surrender to ambush our troops. Any of that that we do is solely our choice. How many of the troops we have lost in Faluja, or even in the entire war were due to terrorists engaging in War Crimes?

[stumpy]

Have to disagree with you. I was a Marine in Hue City in 1968. Later I was a Law Enforcement officer here in the states. ALL ARE JUSTIFIED IN KILLING SOMEONE if you believe your life, or other lives are in danger.

Worked with a cop who during a coroner's inquest over the fatal shooting replied "no, I wasn't in fear for my life, he only had a hatchet and I had a shotgun. I knew he wasn't going to kill me. I killed him". end of story.