Tape showing US soldiers killing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi

[St Leo]

Fundamentally, the guilty parties have to be punished.

Yes, this may have been inevitable, but that does not mean it is excusable. This is one of those things where we must punish those who get caught to discourage flagrant abuse of the system.

And if the soldiers don't like it, they can damn well mutiny.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Proteus -

According to the audio tape, yes. They knew there were wounded prisoners inside awaiting pick up from the day before.

Yup. That perception will drive the prosecution of this soldier.

Killed? I only heard about the one shooting.

The MSNBC-Article gives more and more hints that the Marines shot other insurgents within the mosque befor ethe man with the camera arrived:

Military investigators also are looking into whether more than one wounded insurgent was shot in the mosque, said Maj. Francis Piccoli, a spokesman for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.

Two other men visible on the NBC video appear to be suffering from what the network described as fresh and fatal gunshot wounds.

Earlier in the footage, as the Marine unit that Sites was accompanying approached the mosque, gunfire can be heard from inside. Marines who were already in the mosque emerge, and a lieutenant in the approaching unit asks if there were insurgents inside and if the Marines had shot any of them. An exiting Marine can be heard responding affirmatively. The lieutenant then asks if they were armed, and the Marine shrugs.

After the Marines that Sites accompanied entered the mosque, the video showed two other men slumped by a wall. Sites’ account said the men, who were hurt in the previous day’s attack, had been shot again by the Marines on Saturday.

(Yesterday only the last quote was there, but obviously the indications of more insurgents within the mosque being killed in cold blood get stronger and stronger.)

[Ned]

Question, can the Europeans haul these marines before the International Criminal Court to be tried as war criminals?

[Saint Marcus]

Not if the US tries them in their courts.

[Agathon]

Not at all, the US isn't part of the ICC and if we needed reminding why, there is always the present case.

[vodkakov]

Just a thought, (bit of a nitpicking one, really) this isn't actually a war, it's an insurgency. The war (according to Bush et al) ended a fair while ago, not that there was any official declaration anyway. If it's not a war, then "rules of war" and "war crimes" are not relevant. Instead it's the peace time laws of the US military and Iraq that matter in this case.

Regarding the particulars of this case, I'd say it's understandable why this may have happened (with regard to previous insurgent tactics), although this is still not morally excusable. So, basically, it's understandable, but that doesn't make it right.

Also, how badly wounded was this US Marine? Knowing the media, he probably got a small scratch and was wearing a plaster or something, which they've blown out of proportion. Given that they always magnify everything (a couple of 500lb bombs being dropped is generally described by them as being akin to Dresden) and that I doubt even overstretched forces would put a guy that's got more than a scratch (as opposed to half his face blown away) back on combat duty.

[Saint Marcus]

Not at all, the US isn't part of the ICC and if we needed reminding why, there is always the present case.

Wrong. The ICS can try people from nation who have not signed the agreement.

If it's not a war, then "rules of war" and "war crimes" are not relevant.

Wrong. Warcrimes can happen in civil wars as well, when there isn't an official declaration of war either. Warcrimes can be commited in any armed conflict of this nature, as we've seen in previous UN courts.



The reason why the ICS won't prosecute the Marines is because the US will try them themselves. The ICS won't try anyone who's already been tried (in an impartial way). However, if the US decides to cover this thing up and lets the Marines get of the hook, it's another matter. Should this happen, it would be advisable for those Marines involved not to set foot in ICS-ratifying countries or they indeed run the risk of being arrested and shipped to The Hague if anyone decides to file a legitimate suit against them.

[vodkakov]

If you read the bit where I say it's a 'nitpicking' point, I was merely stating that many of the posts on this thread do not seem to differenciate between a war and an insurgency. In most cases where soldiers are used as police, i.e. in a role to back up the civil authorities, they are not treated as war ciminals, they are treated as normal criminals. This is the point I am trying to make. In Northern Ireland, British troops were issued with a 'Yellow Card' which outlined what they could and could not do. If they broke the rules they would be treated as a soldier would in time of peace, not in time of war. Also, I stated that the war, so far as the officials (Bush et al) were concerned was over, therefore there cannot be a war. It's just logic.

[Saint Marcus]

For one, US troops aren't only used as police. Fallujah is a clear example of a direct combat, not law enforcement, role. What happened in Fallujah went well beyond police duties. Any crimes commited of a severe enough nature during that operation should and would be labeled as warcrimes, regardless of wether or not Bush and Co call it a "war".

And it most certainly is not "just logic" that something isn't a war because officials don't call it a war. That's absolutely rediculous. Sure, politicians have tried this in nearly every conflict. Calling operations "police actions" just sells easier than calling it a war. This does not mean that it is not a war. UN court jurispudence clearly show this, were people have been convicted (or at least tried) for warcrimes in parts of the world, despite there ever being an official declaration of war or despite any official statement stating it was a war. Just because Bush doesn't consider Iraq a war anymore, doesn't make it so. He may wish it wasn't a war. He may convince certain people that it isn't a war. But it's still a war. A rose by any other name... That is just logic.

[Kuciwalker]

And it most certainly is not "just logic" that something isn't a war because officials don't call it a war. That's absolutely rediculous.

It's also true. The world works that way.

[Saint Marcus]

No it doesn't.

1. Hell, even the Korean War was considered a "Police Action". Are you saying that wasn't a war either?
2. As previously stated, people have been tried for warcrimes eventhough there wasn't any official declaration of war.
3. Civil wars are considered wars, despite any official statement or declaration of war.
4. Bush calls the Iraqi situation part of the War on Terror. Even if your reasoning is correct, and whatever Bush calls it is how it is, then Iraq is part of the War on Terror and therefor what happened in Fallujah was part of that war.

[vodkakov]

I would not call it a war. It is counter-insurgency. Military forces are acting IN SUPPORT of civil authorities. That is not a war, that is COUNTER-INSURGENCY... there is a difference. In a war, you can get away with a lot more, like totally levelling cities a la WW2, in a counter-insurgency you fight a guerrilla force that blends into the civil population. There is a distinct difference in the scale of fighting and the type of fighting.

I did not say that they are not crimes, but it would be inaccurate to call them WAR crimes, as it features as part of a counter-insurgency campaign.

In a war, it is perfectly legal for an army to shoot any non-uniformed opponent as a spy, so, therefore no crime was committed. In counter-insurgency, whereby the army acts to support civil powers, this is illegal, but it is not a war crime, but it is a crime. There is a difference.

I accept your point about official declarations, but this particular case is not a war, it is counter-insurgency and therefore should and would not have the same 'rules of war' applied to it (see point about spies in the first paragraph).

[vodkakov]

As a side note, if the guy shot wasn't actually an Iraqi, officially under the Geneva Convention he would be classified as a mercenary, and therefore has no rights as a POW:
"Article 47.-Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces."

Foreign combatants in Iraq would come under a, b, d, and probably f in my opinion.

Insurgents are also not armed forces:
"Article 43.-Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
...
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict."

The insurgents do not have an internal system of discipline, which ensures that the forces under its control uphold international law. Therefore that disqualifies them as being classed as 'armed forces'. Also, they have not 'informed' the other party of their use of paramilitaries, if they are in fact to be considered an 'armed force'.

Therefore, if this were a war, there would be no war crime, as the casualty is not to be classified as a legal combatant. If he is not Iraqi, he does not gain any protection either, as he is a mercenary. In a counter-insurgency campaign, the rules are different, as both parties are judged by the laws of the civil power.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
No it doesn't.

1. Hell, even the Korean War was considered a "Police Action". Are you saying that wasn't a war either?

Yep.

2. As previously stated, people have been tried for warcrimes eventhough there wasn't any official declaration of war.

Those who tried them decided to call it a war anyway.

3. Civil wars are considered wars, despite any official statement or declaration of war.

By whom?

4. Bush calls the Iraqi situation part of the War on Terror. Even if your reasoning is correct, and whatever Bush calls it is how it is, then Iraq is part of the War on Terror and therefor what happened in Fallujah was part of that war.

That's completely disingenuous and absurd. We are not at "war" with spam or drugs or poverty either, it's a metaphor relating the literal concept of war to our relationship with spam/drugs/poverty/terror.

What constitutes a war or war crime is determined by whoever has the most guns.

[Dinner]

I'm so glade Kuci says Vietnam wasn't a war.

For a moment I believed the propaganda that people died there.