Who needs the International Criminal Court when you have the media?
Cripes, they have already convicted this Marine, and it appears that no one is even paying attention to what Kevin Sites himself has said. If you listen to the media, our Marines are just running around executing people.
Just some quick doses of reality:
a.) The insurgents have been booby-traping bodies.
b.) If we were just executing these people, why did we bandage them yesterday?
c.) These people blow themselves up in car bombs and with explosives belts every day. Is it really far-fetched for a Marine to think a guy playing dead might have bad motives?
I am sick of the media. I am sick of the blame America first mentality of our press and their cheerleaders on the left.
Sharp as a Marble
If I’m not mistaken, the same Marine just returned to duty after being shot in the face by a sniper.
The more I review this incident, the more it appears justifiable.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is pretty similar to John Kerry’s action that earned him a Silver Star.
IMO, people who purposely do not abide by the laws of war – false surrender, for instance – do not deserve the protections or considerations afforded by those laws. Period. They are, in effect, fair game.
Any treatment they get that falls short of summary execution for war crimes is a mercy to them; they have no right to complain.
Why, yes, I *AM* pretty bloodthisty about such matters.
Your link doesn’t work on this end; you may want to check it.
From what I’ve seen on the tube, the coverage has actually been pretty circumspect, as exemplified by Sites’ report, which was scrupulous in providing the context you’ve enumerated. You might be jumping the gun here a little; so take a deep breath yourself, my man. You might be surprised by the reaction in the US.
As a hippy, who takes as his starting point that war should always be the last resort & who opposed this one for that reason, and continues to criticize its less than competent waging, I am nevertheless loathe to pass judgement on the actions of the men & women who are made to wage it. Hell, that’s why I stray on the side of caution in the use of war in the first place. Moreover, I’m loathe as well to pass judgement on those who pass judgement, because self-assessment is what makes our country strong and attractive.
The problem, though, is that this type of conflict, more than any other, entails a battle for hearts & minds, and this doesn’t help. It’s not Abu Ghraib, but from the perspective of those we’re trying to win over, we need to appear to take this very seriously. We are different than our adversary here, and we need to engage in (in order to teach) self-reflection. It doesn’t mean this young man should be sacrificed, just properly and publicly admonished.
I actually agree with you. That is why I am so angry at the media.
It is obvious that this was an isolated incident. We ARE trying to win hearts and minds in Iraq. Our policy is NOT to simply kill ’em all.
This kid was in a horrible situation. At worst, he got stressed out and made a terrible mistake. I doubt that he went around indiscriminately killnig people before joining the Marine Corps and attacking Fallujah. At best, his actions were entirely proper. If the wounded Iraqi had been wired with a booby trap, everyone in that room could have been killed in the explosion, including the cameraman.
But you woudn’t know that from watching the media. If you simply watched the network news, you’d think that all we do is torture prisoners and shoot the wounded.
Well, the world is watching. And the media is destroying America’s good name. People will die as a result.
They never should have aired this film. It’s obviously an isolated incident, a mistake.
But instead, the media is running it 24/7. Why? Becuae they hate America, that’s why. To them, this video is a classic example of a truth they know in their bones to be true. Soldiers are brutes. America is crushing innocen Iraqis under the heel of its jackboot. Etc., etc.
I work in the media. We ain’t hatin’ no one and I take personal offense that you would cast such an aspersion.
Ironically, you’re saying the media is blameworthy for jumping to conclusions about the soldier’s motives. But you can only conclude that if you also jump to conclusions about our motives (Unless, of course, you know someone who works in the media and that person has confessed to you.).
Know what “indisputable truth” I thought of when I first saw that video? That war is hell.
But you can only conclude that if you also jump to conclusions about our motives (Unless, of course, you know someone who works in the media and that person has confessed to you.).
Except that it’s entirely appropriate to draw conclusions based on an organization or entity’s actions, particularly when you have, oh, several decades worth of actions to observe.
It’s one thing to draw a conclusion based on a 20-second video clip, and another thing entirely to judge, say, CBS News’ 20-year (at least) record of flacking for the left.
If this action was a war crime, we would all be speaking Japanese. This tactic was common during WWII, and our GI’s paid the insurance every time.
It looks like a pretty standard violation of the laws of war in a heavy combat situation. With the tape out, I expect a pretty thorough resolution.
I continue to be amazed at the people who seem to believe that you can fight wars without shooting people. This sort of thing is precisely what we signed up for.
Once personal survival instincts start kicking in, the infantry grunt is gonna shoot first and ask questions later, and he ain’t gonna care what military or civilian bureaucrat or reporter or politician has to say about his decision to kill, only his fellow soldiers. Combatant and NonCombatant Civilian wounded will generally be cared for only after an area is cleared and secured from enemy forces. The Marines took fire from that area/position, and have encountered booby-trapped bodies and suicide bombers numerous times during their combat tenure.Just like the intensified belligerency of Iran and North Korea, and now since Kerry “lost” [or has he?], the Failed Left and Anti-American agendists will be hitting harder and harder, but PC, against Dubya and the GOP-Right, inverting and perverting and subverting re-re-resubverting anything and everything, each any and all issues however legit or illegit. As a LeftBlogger once posted, there will be no more wars around the world if America became the “PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF AMERICA”!
bob wright is NBC chairman/CEO.
NBC’s parent company is GE. (NYSE:GE)
We could drop a note to GE Board member Sam Nunn; he could explain to his peers why NBC should have reporters who know the rule of engagement, instead of jerks like Sites who play gotcha with soldiers’ lives and buy pulitzers with their blood.
We could also alert the GE board that while they sell major appliances, so do Sears, Viking, Fisher-Paykel and many others – and do so without supplying recruiting video to our enemies.
I wonder what sort of nightmare that soldier’s 48 hours prior to the incident must have been. His actions must be viewed in the context of the totality of the circumstances. Those of us who watched the ten seconds of video tape in the comfort of our living rooms probably have no business passing judgment.
If you have never been in the situation with someone firing at you. You have NO right to critize the marine and what he did in the line of duty. HE is the one that needs to live the situation over in his mind. To me it was totally justified. If you have bad guys playing dead and wounded. Then you ensure they are dead and not wounded. If the “Wounded” Iraqi had set off a bomb then it would have been the marine’s fault that the news cameraman was injured or killed. The imbedded reporters need to be removed and let the marine’s do their job. Without the news media reporting on their every move. War is hell. but like General Patton said. You don’t win wars by dieing for your country, you make the other poor dumb [email protected]#d die for his. Enough said.
Those of us who watched the ten seconds of video tape in the comfort of our living rooms probably have no business passing judgment.
Exactly, that marine was making a potential life and death decision for everyone in the room.
If a soldier starts to second guess himself he often comes home in a body bag.
“Hearts and minds”?
Reminds me of “The Peace Process” and “For The Children”.
A very lefty concept, based on fantasy – not reality.
those who are not familiar with warfare are obviously stunned by what they are seeing.
Notice, too, most are more outraged by this than the beheadings.
This is not a ‘criminal’ argument. forget rhetoric. that dog won’t hunt. this is about philosophy. about the antiwar, need i say anti-bush establishment. can you imagine pres. kerry apologizing to al zarqarwi (sp) and chirac by now for this action?
How so laughable many of the comments are in this thread….pretty hilarious.
Wow, this is great…….most comedy iv’e ever seen in a thread…..
Notice, too, most are more outraged by this than the beheadings.
Well, yes, we expect terrorists to be barbaric, while we do not expect our countrymen necessarily to be so — even if we subject them to tremendous combat stress.
Do keep in mind that most folks want the terrorists who took part in the beheadings to be captured and killed (or, in rare cases, imprisoned for life). Most folks who saw this want . . . a serious inquiry.
Harry in Atlanta
A serious inquiry? This is another stupid sweeps week gotcha by the press to try to restore their now well earned rotten reputation. The marine acted within the rules and every marine in that mosque including the ‘newsman’ got out with their lives except for the terrorist. I’m okay with this outcome.
If for some reason the military in its sometimes real stupid desire to please the press and the leftist ballsniffers therein decides that this marine committed murder then I would really hate to be a soldier with a ‘newsman’ embedded in my squad because a lot of them are going to hesitate before acting and a lot more GIs will die needlessly.
And there is no moral equivalency to what this marine did and the savage sawing off of peoples’ heads, video taping the crime and then selling them like hotcakes for the entertainment of Islamonazis.
While it is true Kimmitt that we should expect our people to be better than our Islamonazi enemies we shouldn’t expect them to be STUPID either and needlessly give their lives because the some of methods they have to employ to protect themselves and do their jobs chafe blue-stater sensibilities.
Besides Al Queda and the rest of the terrorists think that the Geneva Convention is for suckers. They aren’t interested in killing combatants, like we have to be, they want to kill everyone who they consider an infidel or apostate whether it be soldier, mother, insurance salesman, or high-school football cheerleader they make no such distinctions. Just ask the 3000 who lost their lives at the WTC or Nick Berg and Danny Pearl. Americans need to stop being such partisan pantywaists and let go of the idea of such a thing as politically correct combat. It’s a loser. It’s time to get real and cowboy the fuck up.
Harry, it’s time to cowboy the fuck down.
Another insightful, thoughtful comment by Justin.
Surprise surprise! Kevin Sites appears to have a couple pages at an anti-war activism website. He apparently is looking for footage to validate his anti-war biases.
A serious inquiry is already in the works. So, Harry, Justin, please keep the knives in until such time as said inquiry concludes, ok?
And, to clarify, I’m not equating you with Justin, Harry.
Harry in Atlanta
Who is justin?
The laws of war are simple. If an enemy combatant is in front of you, is able to surrender and does not take positive action to surrender, or is discovered to be faking a surrender, your job is to kill him. This is not a police situation. The Marine did exactly as he was taught.
I’m not military, so I approach this from a position of ignorance. I want to give this Marine the benefit of the doubt. The question: are there any procedures for this kind of situation, some kind of drill? Some checks that the marine was supposed to make to verify this wasn’t a dangerous situation?
I think at the worst, this Marine- wounded and under stress- made a bad judgement, and I frankly wouldn’t punish him at all, or very lightly. How can we punish him and run Kerry for pres at the same time!??!
If our military, two weeks ago had looked at Fallujah and said, “Screw it, carpet bomb it into the stone age…” would it have received as much negative press as this isolated incident?
And how much coverage is being given today for the senseless execution of Margaret Hassan? Whose dead body was discovered in the streets? Murdered by the very people that she was helping most of her adult life.
The question: are there any procedures for this kind of situation, some kind of drill? Some checks that the marine was supposed to make to verify this wasn’t a dangerous situation?
Someone on LGF suggested that the Marines should send the inbred reporters to check if “dead” “insurgents” are actually dead and not a threat.
Sounds good to me.
Well Cad, they were both on the front page of the Washington Post’s website yesterday and today. Right next to each other, in fact.
PS: No Harlan, fuck you.
It looks like a pretty standard violation of the laws of war in a heavy combat situation.
Spoken by somebody with how much military experience? Oh, right. NONE. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Thank you for playing, Kimmet. When I want a four-page dissertation on the effectivness of navel gazing on the inner child I’ll give you a call. When I want to speak to someone about a military combat situation, I think I’ll find somebody else. Because quite frankly, what you know about the military could fit into a thimble, with room for a thumb left over.
Just in case you haven’t figured it out (and I really don’t expect Kimmet to EVER figure it out), the rules of war do not apply when facing an enemy who doesn’t abide by them. Despite all the screaming from the Left side of the blogosphere, the Geneva Conventions clearly state that if you don’t follow the rules, you aren’t protected by the rules. Now, since our troops are fighting an enemy who are repeatedly violating the GC, they’re legally free to do pretty much whatever they need to.
Couple that with the fact that the terrorists are doing things like playing dead and then ambushing our troops, faking a surrender and then attacking, booby-trapping bodies and all other sorts of chicanery, this Marine’s actions are entirely reasonable. If you were shot in the face by someone playing dead the previous day, you learn pretty darn quick to shoot any prone terrorist who starts moving. Don’t blame the Marine for reacting in a combat situation, blame the terrorists who made themselves targets with their actions.
As for the cameraman who shot the film, I have this question: Did he send back a large chunk of tape, and this is the bit selected by the people stateside? Or did he shoot a lot of film and only send this little bit back?
The problem with all of this is we see only what the news director of each station chooses to show us. We don’t know what happened shortly before or after the incident.
Also, I would NOT want to be in those soilder’s shoes and I wnat as many of them to come back home to their families as possibly.
As I said in a earlier posting. If you have never heard or had a round fired at you in anger you have absolutely NOTHING to add to this conversation.Your mighty opinion is equal to a wilted head of lettuce, good only for pig slop.This is something that is well understood in the military circle. You do what you have to stay alive.
The GC does not apply in this situation when you are fighting terrorists. There is no such thing as a humane war. IT is killed or be killed. This is not a police action where the marine yells halts and the terrorist gives up willing. They are booby-trapping bodies, playing dead and sniping at our soldiers. They deserve everything they get. Not to mention that the terrorists are killing their own people with car and beheadings.
It was stated earlier that this marine did not do anything more than Kerry did when he won his medal. SO please think before you go with your feelings. Any time you place soldiers in harms way. You can Monday morning quarterback all you want, butfirst try and place yourself in their shoes.
Just in case you haven’t figured it out (and I really don’t expect Kimmet to EVER figure it out), the rules of war do not apply when facing an enemy who doesn’t abide by them.
That is false; the Geneva Conventions and USMC are binding on our soldiers even when engaged against soldiers who do not abide by them or by laws equivalent to the USMC.
Heh, UCMJ, of course, not USMC. The USMC is always binding, but in something of a more direct fashion.
So far as I can see the man whowas killed was an obvious war criminal. He was fighting out of uniform. He was not an agent of any government. He was in a Mosque, using it as a fire base. He may have even moved in a way that would appear aggressive to the Marine who shot him. if the Marine is tried under the UCMJ, then all the “insurgents” captured in Fallujah should be tried and then shot.
So, StuckinOregon, does that mean that men have no right to comment on abortion? Or straights have no right to comment on gay marriage?
Notice I haven’t commented on this particular situation, or revealed my politics. Just pointing out what I find to be a very tired argument.
Kimmit – the Geneva convention is binding between signatory nations, and covers only those persons falling within its protected classes – soldiers, civiliaians, and some classes of irregulars with clearly defined chains of command, etc.
By its nature Al Qaida is diffuse and organized in cell structure, not a recognizable change of command – it was set up that way intentionally. If we are to believe the left, then the native Iraqi members of the Fellahdeen are diffuse free-lancers too. Therefore both groups fall outside of the Conventions’ protection.
The Geneva Conventions (note that we did not sign the latest addendums, so are not held to them) clearly differentiate between soldiers, civilians and guerrillas. Soldiers have a chain of command, and a uniform of some kind – an armband will suffice. Civilians must be fighting for their lawfully established government. These two categories have protection under the Geneva Convention, but terrorists (not fitting into either category) do not. They get what we decide to give them. Under DoD regulations, the concept of collective guilt is used. In other words, if false surrender is being used as a tactic, we are not bound to give quarter when asked. If wounded terrorists booby-trap themselves or suicide, our soldiers can shoot these people on sight during the operation.
Like any law or contract, once one side breaks it, the other side isn’t bound anymore.
Yes, but the UCMJ still has regulations about what our soldiers do, even when facing guerillas or systemic violations of the Geneva Conventions.
The real stupidity here comes from not destroying the tape. I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not the first time this has happened, given the apparently common practice of booby-trapping the wounded. Wars are horrible, and people who are getting shot at do not necessarily spend a lot of time worrying about legal niceties.
I would expect the inquiry not to recommend a court-martial, but we’ll see how it pans out.
Since you seem so knowledgeable, why don’t you tell us exactly WHICH provisions of the UCMJ that this Marine violated?
I’m not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination; I merely sought to refute the absurd point that our soldiers were not bound by US law when facing guerillas.
Kimmitt, if you aren’t a lawyer, don’t try to argue like one. What I wrote was what I was told recently by a colonel/lawyer who is currently on active duty and teaches junior officers about such things. In other words, a subject matter expert. I’ll point out where to contact him if you really want to, but… let’s just say he has a way with words.
Well, your source trumps mine, who is merely a very bright Navy officer, not a legal expert.
Harry in Atlanta
After the Marine assault on Iwo Jima in 1945 only 212 Japanese soldiers were taken prisoners. This is just a hunch but my guess that at Iwo Jima the Marines weren’t taking prisoners until the very end.
Killing an enement combatant who has clearing identified himself as surrenderin or already in custody is clearly without question murder. Killing an enemy combatant who is wounded but not asking for surrender, and whose comrades have proven to use deception of surrender and being wounded only to ambush or suicide themselves to kill US forces, should have no expectation of a less than lethal response from very suspicious Marines.
If anyone is interested in hearing the entire story as told from those who were actually there, not anti-war activist pool-photgrapher Kevin Sites, go here:
For more info on Sites, visit WorldNetDaily. There was an interesting aritcle there a couple of days ago.