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.
This guy has the same mental illness that afflicts all the other lefties- which is the arrogance that presumes they know what is best, that they are the arbiters of right and wrong. He sees himself as above the rest, as the "objective" journalist who with his camera sees the "real truth". He's too narrow minded to realize his own perceptions distort reality, that the camera does not see all, that the view through the lense can and does lie effectively by the simple fact that it is often the narrowist field of view.
Many times, our own calamity is a direct result of our own misguided choice.
It's not hard to figure out why the Marine shot the terrorist.The day before one of the scumbags pretended he was dying or dead and ended up killing a Marine and wounding this Marine in the face.He was tricked once the day before and wasn't going to let it happen again.He killed the terrorist because he leaned a dead terrorist is a safer terrorist.
I disagree. This video should have been seen by the Marine's chain of command, and if they chose so, any investigation and/or prosecution the Marines deemed necessary. What the video should have never seen is broadcast media.
The Marine sees an insurgent not moving. He moves closer, and sees that the guy is still breathing. Not moving and still breathing is what makes this Marine believe the guy was faking.
Sites points out that the prisoners who were moving were not shot. Again, precisely the point. The Marines come in, presumably talking loudly and making noise. You'd expect to see Iraqis who actually were wounded moaning, moving or doing something. The Iraqis who are acting the way you'd expect don't get shot. The guy who is laying there and not moving, but still breathing, is perceived as a faker, and is shot.
WEll thanks SE Mom.
Good read, I liked it. Glad he made this statement. He gets more respect for this from me.
ATTN Everyone else: Before you flame me, stop and think.
I like how he was the only one who knew what was going on. Especially how he saved the entire platoon from burning ammo. Trying to Establish credibility?
They would not allow an honest reporting of their deeds, so the journalists embed with those who don't commit atrocities and are relatively free to report at will, for we are not ashamed of our tactics and have nothing to hide.
Mr. Sites overlooks that fact and it is the very reason he is allowed to embed. But he took advantage of an anomolous or unclear situation and spun it as an 'atrocity' -- and the norm.
Yes, let him imbed with the enemy for a while. Let him see what the enemy's 'norm' is.
You assumed right. This letter was spin. Read the FReeper comments, you will see it dissected. For example, he strongly implies that he said, without saying that he said, these were disarmed prisoners. On his tape, you clearly hear him say 'These are the same ones from yesterday." Not that they were prisoners. Not that they were disarmed. Only the same ones. But he implies he conveyed the relevant information he did not.
He implies that the the lack of movement of the man shot should have kept him from being shot. In fact, that is exactly what got him shot...pretending to be dead. The ones who were clearly wounded were not seen as a threat...it was the one who was alive, but, to quote the Marine, faking dead, that was perceived as a threat. And if there was no movement, how did the Marine even know that he was in fact alive, Mr. Sites?
There are others, but the point is that this is a CYA distortion by a propagandist. (Straight down the middle guy posting at images against the war?) Journalists are professionals who know how to tell the story...but they are also professionals who know how to not tell the story...a propagandist.
My suggestion for Mr. "fair and balanced" Sites is to go join one of his beloved 'insurgent' units and film the atrocities they commit on a regular basis and give the footage to the pool. Who knows, we may even get to watch as his own camera catches them chanting "Allahu Akhbar" as they saw off Sites head.
He doesn't explain how his tape made it to Arab TV, does he?
I think the journalists try to be 'internationalists,' try to see both sides of the issue. Which you cannot do, especially in a war. Maybe it can be done from the safety of a tidy office at some podunk University, but when you try to live it out, it doesn't work. Kevin Sites chose the wrong side in this, because, truly, if he was not WITH the Marines he was against them. There is no neutrality in war. Like someone said on this thread, 'Ask the neutral guys who were beheaded.'
Actually he does.
"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."
That mean any footage he shoots gets shared among any of the other reporters covering Fallujah, including Al Jiz and the other arab propaganda outlets.
He was honest about that, but dishonest is saying he did not know how the arab news sources would use his footage. In addition, NBC ran the story in a manner which indicted and convicted the Marine.
Never trust anyone that still wears an 80's surfer cut.
Mr. Sites:
I think we have virtual unanimity here that what you did was wrong. After reading our reasons for saying so, what would have you done differently, if anything?
Don't rust him for a second. Don't give him the time of day if he is assigned to your squad.
Ooops! Should be, 'what would you have done differently?'
He must be really worried about the feedback he'getting,this is not a letter he wrote by himself this is a spin letter. It's all fine and good to be thhe insurgents mouthpiece as long as you know that you can comeback to the good old USA,but now he's seeing that coming back may not be so friendly.
If much more is said on this they will both become politcal martyrs...hung out to dry for what they both thought (while things were literally exploding around them) was the right thing to do. The marine should have blah blah blah...sikes should have blah blah blah. Let us all be thankful they were there so we didn't have to be.
This reporter needs to be transferred to a unit that is digging latrines. His presence will interfere with future ops, and may cause the death of fighting men who will think twice and not act in time to protect themselves.
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.