Tape showing US soldiers killing an unarmed and wounded Iraqi

[Pax]

i'm willing to wait for the investigation results. but the "terrorists" won't. the "blood maddened thugs" will probably give less thought than the young marine responsible for the incident.

[Pekka]

"Pekka, I believe there was some discusion early in the tape about if those men were new prisoners or from the day before. If the marine was ligetimately confused about them being new prisoners then in light of the Marine Corp's warning to their men about the dangers of wounded insurgents conducting suicide attacks the Marine's reaction my be justified in a "fog of battle" sort of way. I'm not saying I agree with that but I am attempting to explore all options."

Right, and I don't disagree with that so much. I'm trying to figure out if this is justifiable in the eyes of the military laws.

Now, you can say and give orderds that 'there has been people faking and then attacking', but that really doesnt' change the situation, where the laws say you can't shoot wounded unarmed person. It just doesn't change it, and even if commander tells you otherwise, it just doesn't change it. The only thing you can do is 'be advised'. Not 'take no prisoners'. I mean you can order that too, but it's still illegal even though it sounds stupid because after all it's war. But that's the way it goes. Now if there could be a rule, that since enemy has used these kind of attacks before, and that you could counter it with just shooting faking enemy, then you can shoot anyone and just say you thought they were faking, and it doesn't matter if they were or not. That's no pretext to any procedures that are sane . I mean, of course you can have this happening, and most likely it happens even with the people whose **** don't stink but I'm pretty sure you can't shoot in that situation and expect to be released. Like I said, the video in this demand is very clear and sound.

Because you can't execute prisoners, or wounded enemy if you THINK they MIGHT be faking it. You do, but when you get caught, *CLONG* and the bars close.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Is it that hard for you t6o believe that there was more going on then was showen in that short clip? Don't you think it is wise to let the JAG's Office take a look at all of the evidence before condemning a man? That is the proper legal procedure in these cases. Let's let legal procedures be followed.

I wouldn't want to draw a hard conclusion from that clip either. I had many questions after seeing it and as your following post illustrates, there are many good questions to be asked. As awful as war is, it got appreciably worse for everyone in that mosque that day.

Sadly, the real impact will be the emotional/propaganda coup for the insurgents. Right or wrong this clip will be damaging.

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Is it that hard for you t6o believe that there was more going on then was showen in that short clip? Don't you think it is wise to let the JAG's Office take a look at all of the evidence before condemning a man? That is the proper legal procedure in these cases. Let's let legal procedures be followed.

You're right. My post was directed at those on this thread who seem to be jumping to justify what he did even in worst reading of the situation

[RGBVideo]

In peacetime, people get murdered; this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Do we infer that's too no big deal?

Yes. I guess you're not too aware with the western values yet, kid.

[Dinner]

My personal inclination is to say the man is guilty but that there were extenuating circumstances which would call for a lighter sentence. I will await the courts decision, however.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Pekka
No, it was very clear video, there's just no interpretation for it, unless you really look for it and believe in Santa. That was illegal killing 101. The individual must face punsihment.

I want to bring another perspective into this.

Consider: "The individual must face punishment."

I ask: "Which individual?"

The one that shot the guy? His superior who failed to properly instruct him / prepare him? Commander in chief of the Army for putting soldiers in these situations? President of the USA for starting this mess?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Oerdin
My personal inclination is to say the man is guilty but that there were extenuating circumstances which would call for a lighter sentence. I will await the courts decision, however.

Oerdin you've been to Iraq and I highly value your opinion on this matter so I'll ask you too.

If we presume these things happen much more often -- which I believe is very likely -- at which point, at what number of similar incidents should a higher functionary be tried?

[Pekka]

VetLegion, well, I have to still stress out that IF the video shows all that matters. So yes, they must look all the evidence and things and not just the video, I only saw the video on news. There could be something else to it too, but I don't think he is completely innocent judging by that video alone. But.... I'm no judge and I have no evidence so, I don't know the case.

Anyway, as far as responsiblity goes, that individual who shot the guy. Then we must look who his closest superior is, and how he is responsible for the individual shooting. It goes all the way up until there is no clear show of responsibility. And no, President is not the one responsbiel for this shooting. But an officer or two might be punishable as well, though not as tough as for this individual, if he is indeed 100% guilty. Can be anything from slap to the wrist all the way to getting kicked out of the army I'd predict. But I predict slap on the wrist for the superiors, and then jail time for the individual.

[Berzerker]

Just saw more of the tape as they were entering the building and these guys knew these Iraqis were wounded and left by another unit for pick up. It doesn't look good because that changes the status of the Iraqis from battlefield wounded to captured prisoners, albeit too wounded to need guards 24/7. But it also appears to be a legitimate mistake brought on by the circumstances.

Also, the soldier who fired said the Iraqi was faking death and another soldier confirmed that he was breathing re-inforcing the shooter's perception of a threat. But I have to ask, these guys were just told there were Iraqi wounded in the building awaiting pick up. WTF! How could they see a wounded and breathing Iraqi and believe that was out of the ordinary? The Iraqis were left there by a unit that treated their wounds, of course wounded (and breathing) Iraqis were there! Oh well, put me in that situation and I would see Saddam clones coming at me from every direction, I'd be blasting away too.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Oh sorry, am I interfering with your sanctimonious prattling?

Hardly - "when I was an infantry officer I shot the F*cking enemy wounded and ordered my men to put a round in every body they came across."

I don't have a problem with this.

[VetLegion]

At which point do these killings stop being accidental or collateral and can be said to be the real purpose of the war?

Say that Bush did plan the invasion solely to opress and kill Iraqis, how would it play out? By having American soldiers do so. So how can you exclude it a priori?


Lest someone thinks I am pulling their leg. There is a very clear analogy with my own country and a recent war here. But here:

- for the numerous cases of atrocities where the individual soldier(s) who commited them could not be identified afterwards -- very high officials were indicted. Such as Army Chief of staff.

- for the aggregate destruction, chaos and crimes of war president of the country was going to be tried (but he died so he wasn't).

I will also mention that here the war was conducted on our own territory in our own country.


So I ask -- if in a small country very highly positioned officers get tried for soldiers' "errors", and if here the aggregate of such events is (rightfully) questioned for being purposeful policy -- than why different criteria for USA?

[Berzerker]

At which point do these killings stop being accidental or collateral and can be said to be the real purpose of the war?

When we have proof.

if in a small country very highly positioned officers get tried for soldiers' "errors", and if here the aggregate of such events is (rightfully) questioned for being purposeful policy -- than why different criteria for USA?

I'd agree with that on the Abu Ghraib scandal, they didn't climb the ladder of command because that policy came from high up even though they nailed some of the little people. But this case doesn't look like the results of a policy, just some less than bright bulbs put in a really scary situation. They sure wouldn't allow reporters to film such a policy in action...

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin
---
You may also recall that for one month prior civilians were ordered to leave Fallujah as the city would be declared a war zone and that no one would be able to asure their safety. These people ignored both the warning and the directive on proper proceedures.

These proceedures are in place so that persons who want safe passage can be identified and those persons who wish to continue combat can be told apart. That these people refused to follow proceedures which surely they must have known (as the city was saturated) is inexcusable on their part. I see that as suicide after all this is a war zone.

So, did you set up refugee camps to house the civilians while you bombed their homes? Or did you expect them to take care of themselves, walking in the desert, eating scorpions and drinking river water? Why would anyone leave his home if he has nowhere to go?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Hardly - when I was an infantry officer I shot the F*cking enemy wounded and ordered my men to put a round in every body they came across.

I don't have a problem with this.

You were in combat?