Posted on 11/21/2004 4:58:22 PM PST by finnman69
Edited on 11/21/2004 5:01:54 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
To Devil Dogs of the 3.1:
Since the shooting in the Mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a 'gotcha' reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.
This week I've even been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read the dispatches on this website is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to play it straight down the middle -- not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right.
But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.
It's time you to have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.
Here it goes.
It's Saturday morning and we're still at our strong point from the night before, a clearing between a set of buildings on the southern edge of the city. The advance has been swift, but pockets of resistance still exist. In fact, we're taking sniper fire from both the front and the rear.
Weapons Company uses its 81's (mortars) where they spot muzzle flashes. The tanks do some blasting of their own. By mid-morning, we're told we're moving north again. We'll be back clearing some of the area we passed yesterday. There are also reports that the mosque, where ten insurgents were killed and five wounded on Friday may have been re-occupied overnight.
I decide to leave you guys and pick up with one of the infantry squads as they move house-to-house back toward the mosque. (For their own privacy and protection I will not name or identify in any way, any of those I was traveling with during this incident.)
Many of the structures are empty of people -- but full of weapons. Outside one residence, a member of the squad lobs a frag grenade over the wall. Everyone piles in, including me.
While the Marines go into the house, I follow the flames caused by the grenade into the courtyard. When the smoke clears, I can see through my viewfinder that the fire is burning beside a large pile of anti-aircraft rounds.
I yell to the lieutenant that we need to move. Almost immediately after clearing out of the house, small explosions begin as the rounds cook off in the fire.
At that point, we hear the tanks firing their 240-machine guns into the mosque. There's radio chatter that insurgents inside could be shooting back. The tanks cease-fire and we file through a breach in the outer wall.
We hear gunshots from what seems to be coming from inside the mosque. A Marine from my squad yells, "Are there Marines in here?"
When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.
The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"
One of the Marines raises his hand signaling five.
"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?
"Roger that, sir, " the same Marine responds.
"Were they armed?" The Marine just shrugs and we all move inside.
Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds. The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.
"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.
I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap -- as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.
While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.
Then I hear him say this about one of the men:
"He's ....... faking he's dead -- he's faking he's ....... dead."
Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.
However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.
Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.
"Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background.
I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic.
He says, "Yesterday I was shot... please... yesterday I was shot over there -- and talked to all of you on camera -- I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information." (This man has since reportedly been located by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service which is handling the case.)
In the aftermath, the first question that came to mind was why had these wounded men been left in the mosque?
It was answered by staff judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Bob Miller -- who interviewed the Marines involved following the incident. After being treated for their wounds on Friday by Navy Corpsman (I personally saw their bandages) the insurgents were going to be transported to the rear when time and circumstances allowed.
The area, however, was still hot. And there were American casualties to be moved first.
Also, the squad that entered the mosque on Saturday was different than the one that had led the attack on Friday.
It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier. Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat -- those Marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.
During the course of these events, there was plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The Marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.
I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one Marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.
No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone with you, would deny that a solider or Marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.
In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the Marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat -- the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.
I can't know what was in the mind of that Marine. He is the only one who does.
But observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the dark perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances -- it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. According to Lt. Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or Marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.
Making sure you know the basis for my choices after the incident is as important to me as knowing how the incident went down. I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.
We all knew it was a complicated story, and if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation -- providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.
For those who don't practice journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all -- especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behavior or character of an organization as a whole.
The answer is not an easy one.
In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both -- though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting. For example, acts of selfless heroism are likely to be as unique to a group as the darker deeds. But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective - will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonizing struggle -- the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.
I knew NBC would be responsible with the footage. But there were complications. We were part of a video "pool" in Falluja, and that obligated us to share all of our footage with other networks. I had no idea how our other "pool" partners might use the footage. I considered not feeding the tape to the pool -- or even, for a moment, destroying it. But that thought created the same pit in my stomach that witnessing the shooting had. It felt wrong. Hiding this wouldn't make it go away. There were other people in that room. What happened in that mosque would eventually come out. I would be faced with the fact that I had betrayed truth as well as a life supposedly spent in pursuit of it.
When NBC aired the story 48-hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that Marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible. Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world.
The Marines have built their proud reputation on fighting for freedoms like the one that allows me to do my job, a job that in some cases may appear to discredit them. But both the leaders and the grunts in the field like you understand that if you lower your standards, if you accept less, than less is what you'll become.
There are people in our own country that would weaken your institution and our nation –by telling you it's okay to betray our guiding principles by not making the tough decisions, by letting difficult circumstances turns us into victims or worse…villains.
I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time-something that now seems prophetic. It was this:
"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."
I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.
So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
I pray for your soon and safe return.
Exactly. See my post above. He'll shoot his yap off about how horrible the war was and how he saw babies shot before his very eyes and the dumbass kids will hang on every word with their moist lips agape.
He'll pick up big fees. He'll swagger around with his greasy long hair and post more images on anti-war sites while the Marines he helped slander will be living on much much less if they are living at all. He'll get rich but they'll still be proud.
He would have painted the euthanization of an enemy insurgent in a positive manner to bring glory upon the Corps.
Alas, he was stupid
Post #66 is great!
Anti-American scum bag......I agree. He's a pig!!!
"some new ways to help us retake the initiative in the information war"
hello. we are fighting the REAL WAR. the information war only exists in the minds of the MSM. the answer is simple. leave the reporters in the situation room drinking coffee. give them a few still fotos at the end of the action. my choice for this one would have been the headless and legless mutilated body of the "western" female. let them post that.
worried about the complaints from the MSM about no access? take the hit and get on with the war, the real war. win it and then argue with the press.
hello.
And why does it take a professional writer that many words of prose to defend his position? Because it's a flawed position, is why.
There is a God. Justice will be done. It won't be on this Earth, probably.
/john
So he is probably on heightened alert.
"I'm also well aware ..., when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one Marine was killed and five others wounded."
Yes, he is definitely on alert, that's a fact!
"No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone with you, would deny that a solider or Marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you."
Wise words of advice, actually another fact about war.
"...it bothered me that the Marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat -- the one very obviously moving under the blanket..."
So, seems to me something really didn't seem right with this guy, right? If this marine is just a uncaring killing machine, why didn't he waste everyone in the whole room? Why would he pick on this one guy at random? Kevin, you said it yourself, he didn't consider the others a threat, but he certainly did on this one (another fact).
"I can't know what was in the mind of that Marine. He is the only one who does."
Yes indeed. And it seems to me you gave yourself plenty of facts to explain the situation, but that didn't seem like enough for you, did it?
So why do you feel the need to show this video to others, knowing how controversial it would be?
Because you knew the attention you would get from it, you were only thinking about Kevin.
I think it's more likely that the Marines of 3.1 won't even give him the time of day, much less any cooperation, now that he has revealed his hard left colors. So with typical liberal arrogance and hubris, he feels he can write this missive and fool the grunts into thinking he's playing his job straight - after all, in his mind, the Marines are simple-minded rubes who aren't worthy of washing his underwear. It's the same attitude - we're too stupid to know better - that defines the MSM here at home, and the attitude that's driving the democrats into faking piety and a belief in God.
Betrayal is an ugly thing and Sites knows that is just what he did. And it's very public and it is there for the world to see. He betrayed that young Marine into a courts-martial and he betrayed all the Marines to Al Jazeera.
Having a point of view is one thing. Betraying American soldiers to the enemy is another.
That, plus I think this kind of Olympian, condescending, preachy and self-aggrandizing writing style is just another trait of the mental illness known as liberalism.
"...give them a few still fotos at the end of the action. my choice for this one would have been the headless and legless mutilated body of the "western" female. let them post that."
yes, good advice. this man makes my blood boil. now he wants to "explain" to the people he was with?
{SELF CENSORSHIP HERE}
I sent the following e-mail to Mr. Sites:
How did Al Jazeera get the tape? Did you know they would get the tape? If you did, why are you performing cervices that will benefit Al Jazeera and obviously hurt the interests of the United States, especially the interests of individual Soldiers and Marines? It appears that you betrayed the Armed Forces and the rest of the citizens of the United States. Even if you did not know for certain that the tape would get to Al Jazeera, couldn't you have reasonably expected that it would?
Why did you wait until the man was shot to tell the Marines what you had told the lieutenant?
You said the following about the Marine: "The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread." Are you a mind reader? Are you trying to hang this guy out to dry for the sake of your own career or conscience?
From your CYA letter, you seem to think this matter is all about you. It's not!
No kidding, shove-it is right. This seems like WAY too much tap-dancing to me, like a kid might do that is caught in a corner. Yes, perhaps in a perfect world, NBC would handle it right and say the exact right things. Do you just suppose anyone else could use it for their own purposes? Like Al-Jazeera? Oh, I know, let's make them PROMISE they wouldn't. DUH.
"Time Magazine sticks up for the traitor:"
Time magazine S*cks, if you doubt it asked famed Pornographer and publisher of Screw magazine Al Goldstein. I knew it s*cked since I was a little girl tagging along with dad & brothers to the barbershop so I could read the magazines. I was 10 years old, it was 1968, and I KNEW Time magazine was an Anti-American piece of cr*p. It has certainly only gotten worse. Mr. Goldstein offered his own assessment on NY cable tv circa 1986. It continues to decline.
It seems that emotion has totally overtaken the events here.
I hadn't heard that the military was going to court martial him - I thought they were still investigating the shooting. Is this a new development?
Sorry, Mr. Sites. This is not a time to play it straight down the middle. Don't tell us you didn't know how the enemy was going to play this once you filed your report.
No middle of the roaders in this war. You're with us or against us. Our military has the discipline and the sense to do what's right if a wrong was committed. Don't need your help to make a bad situation worse. You caused public opnion to come against us in the ME, providing more fuel to the terrorists and resistance to the upcoming election.
Your deeds were not noble and your employer's were less. You lack common sense and your timing couldn't have been more terrible. American journalists can't be neutral in this area of combat nor in this type of war. Ask the last neutral journalist that was beheaded.
No friendly ear here. Go home. Better yet, trade your camera for a rifle. You're camera lens will not separate you from the war. You are part of it -- for the better or for the worse.
Lie #2.
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.