Marine kills unarmed Iraqi - Murder? I don't think so.

from JoeUser Forums
I'm sure we've all seen the dramatic footage from NBC and its worldwide affiliates of the US marine shooting an unarmed and seriously wounded Iraqi (from style of dress and surrounding equipment almost certainly a rebel). The fading to black with the inclusion of full audio was particularly dramatic, and certainly got my attention as I worked on the news last night.

But is a war crimes tribunal really necesary for the young man who pulled the trigger? Some who've probably pigeonholed me as a member of the "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show" set (I love that description of a non-conservative) might consider my attitude to be a little strange.

But personally I think there are several possible explanations for the shooting. The first, and due to the audio available possibly the least likely, is that it was a mercy killing. ie that the marine felt that the best thing to do for the poor terrorist was to end his suffering. Unlikely yes, but without further evidence we can't yet be sure.

Secondly he may have done it as a result of his own recent injuries. Anyone who's studied the effects of war on a psyche will be aware that personal injury can do harmful things to a mind, and perhaps he was inflicted with some sort of randomised veangeance disorder. So whilst it might be murder, the circumstances seem to negate the need for jail-time or anything serious apart from being sent home for treatment. This too seems a little unlikely for my mind, but not impossible and certainly more rational than the next explanation I could come up with.

The final possibility worth considering is that in cold blood he made the rational decision to inflict pain and suffering and murder the young man in the full view of a film crew and several marine (probably supportive, but still) witnesses. I consider this unlikely. There was no order to shoot, and there were hardly overtones of the death prison. Whilst only a full investigation will uncover the truth, I would be greatly surprised and a little disappointed if a tribunal decided to make him a scapegoat for a common wartime event. Abu Ghraeb was a lot different to a combat patrolman losing it momentarily, and I don't think the punishments should be similar for what are two entirely different phenomena.

What do you think?
5,067 views 36 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The 3 reasons you list for why he may have done this don't matter. The killing of a unarmed, injured man goes against the UCMJ, Geneva Convention and what this country stands for. There is no justification for what he did, and he should face the full consequences of his actions.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The spin I'm perceiving from the news outlets is the soldier killed the insurgent as an act of retribution for being shot in the face the day before. Completely erroneous and dangerous direction to take the story, in my opinion. Was this a case of cold blooded murder? I don't believe so either. This is war, this is a combat zone, this squad was clearing this mosque (for the second time in two days) and previous incursions into buildings had already yielded booby-trapped corpses. Now if you walk past a bunch of dead bad guys and one of them moves, what would be your reaction. Personally, I would have emptied my clip, but that's just me.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Considering how trigger-happy I get in psychological shooter games like Doom 3 and its ilk, I can only imagine how bad it is in real life where it's real bullets and real traps. I appreciate the opinion of an actual soldier voodoostation.

Psikotik - as I'm sure you're aware from the various law courts in the world, there are always extenuating circumstances. I consider a combat situation to be a very extenuating circumstance, especially as he only fired a few shots. A psycho could have made the corpse 'dance' or sliced him up with a knife. This guy did neither. So I don't think he deserves to be hit with the full force of the law.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is war, this is a combat zone, this squad was clearing this mosque (for the second time in two days) and previous incursions into buildings had already yielded booby-trapped corpses


They weren't clearing the mosque, they were investigating whether insurgents were in the mosque again. There had been no boobytrapped bodies in the mosque in the first assault, the boobytrapped body was a few blocks away and the two soldiers who entered the mosque from the rear had already established the insurgents were injured and unarmed before the shooting took place. The five men in the mosque were left there from the previous days fighting.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Psikotik - as I'm sure you're aware from the various law courts in the world, there are always extenuating circumstances. I consider a combat situation to be a very extenuating circumstance, especially as he only fired a few shots.


He didn't just fire a few shots, he walked up to him and put a bullet in his head. As for the "trigger-happiness" playing Doom, you are playing a game and were not trained to work in a combat zone. These men are supposed to be.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you sure he walked up to him? From the video I saw the shooter was at least 5-10m away before the fade to black. And the shots came pretty soon after that fade.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you were to put a bullet anywhere else it just wouldn't be as effective. "Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs."
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
war is war....and war is hell.....do you think for one second that if that marine was the one laying there, and that insurgent was the one walking past would have helped him up and offered to give him medical attention? No....in fact, the insurgent would possibly had grabbed the closest rusty knife and went towards the throat to proudly display the head of the marine....

To be honest....Rules for War is a joke....
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
war is war....and war is hell.....do you think for one second that if that marine was the one laying there, and that insurgent was the one walking past would have helped him up and offered to give him medical attention? No....in fact, the insurgent would possibly had grabbed the closest rusty knife and went towards the throat to proudly display the head of the marine....


That's what I said in my first post. That's what makes us better than them.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's funny. On one hand, the U.S. is obliged to follow rules that place it at a disadvantage to the terrorist, but on the other, the same people bitch at how the U.S. isn't effectively stopping the insurgents and the beheadings.
Of course, innocent people dying is much worse than terrorists being mistreated.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's funny. On one hand, the U.S. is obliged to follow rules that place it at a disadvantage to the terrorist, but on the other, the same people bitch at how the U.S. isn't effectively stopping the insurgents and the beheadings.
Of course, innocent people dying is much worse than terrorists being mistreated.


and this is the point i was attempting to make....Vietnam vets were treated so badly due to this same type of issue....besides....i seem to have read that Kerry did the same thing (ran down a wounded enemy, shot him)....does that mean he should be charged to the fullest extent to the "law"? Like I said...in war....it is either us or them....I would much rather it be them. If this marine DIDN'T kill him, and he was booby-trapped, or armed while faking death...and he killed one of our guys, Bush would be blasted for the death.....
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
i seem to have read that Kerry did the same thing (ran down a wounded enemy, shot him)


The kid Kerry shot was carrying an RPG, the Iraqi was unarmed.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
an enemy is an enemy is an enemy....and a wounded enemy is still an enemy.....and a wounded enemy is even more dangerous than a physically fine enemy. That wounded man could very well have been "carrying" under his cloak or robe (or whatever). Bombs can be hidden....all in the name of Allah....

Besides, the kid that Kerry took out was wounded, right? AND trying to retreat, right?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Try and keep the Kerry-bashing to a minimum guys. The election's over and it's time to let humiliated sleeping dogs lie.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
What do you mean by a war crimes tribunal?

The soldier has rightly been taken off duty while this incident is investigated. The investigation will determine what exactly happened and whether the soldier needs to be charged. That's the law working as it should.

If the soldier did indeed shoot dead an unarmed injured enemy then he would have seriously broken US rules of engagement as well as the Geneva conventions and would have to stand trial. Extrenuating circumstances would be unlikely to change this, especially if the enemy were already confirmed to be unarmed. It may possibly change the level of the punishment though. Soldiers have got away with just discharges for similar shootings.

paul.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think one thing should be remembered - their is a very fine line that separates a professional army from a group of people with guns. Technology aside, it basically comes down to the professionalism exhibited in combat situations.

Being a professional soldier, and by inference a professional military is not predominately determined by how many or how quickly you kill. It is determined by allowing context, command and discernment to determine how many and how quickly you kill.

It appears that this "incident" was not only an affront to humane behaviour but also to military professionalism.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
The kid Kerry shot was carrying an RPG, the Iraqi was unarmed.


that had already been fired, hence making him unarmed at the time of the shot. Same situation.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
notsohighlyevolved, great post and I agree with you. Something else to keep in mind is that this soldier will be given a lawyer and a fair trial. His lawyer will and can present any mitigating, extenuating, or aggravating circumstances in his defense to the Court. Those circumstances may not let him off of the legal hook, but it will certainly have an effect on the severity of his punishment if he is found guilty. It could make all of the difference in the world. Holding ourselves to the same standard (and in some cases to a higher standard) than our enemies, allows us to claim the moral high ground. This is helpful with showing civilians that our cause and our philosophies are just. It also helps to curb the occurrances of civilians supporting, encouraging, or joining the insurgency. It is in our own long-term interests to do so and any military leader worth his/her salt will tell you the same thing. It does not mean we care more for the terrorists or the enemy than we do our own brave soldiers...it means we live by a higher standard.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is very straightforward in my view.

What happened was not a war crime, it was war.

The Marine was fully justified, based on lethal tactics previously used by the terrorists (discussed ad nauseum elsewhere).

The military's investigation should determine that the Marine was acting appropriately, fulfilling his duty to protect his fellow soldiers and accompanying civilian(s) (the reporter).

No lawyer, no court-martial.

Next terrorist, please.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Next terrorist, please.


There's my second Insightful for the day. Your entire comment was right on, IMO.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
No lawyer, no court-martial.

Next terrorist, please.


Jesus Christ! We've seen the results of "taking the gloves off" - 3000+ people in a skyscraper dead!

Vietnam should have taught us that it's not just the danger of not being able to look around and distinguish friend from foe, but also of looking into the mirror and not being able to make that very same distinction.

One thing to come home dead, one thing to come home a hero, but its another thing all together to come back home a murderer.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think there should be a investigation, but it shouldn't a sham either way - he shouldn't be made a scapegoat, but nor should he be let off scot-free. There must be consequences, and I don't believe he should be returned to active duty either way. If he's not rational enough to keep it out of the view of a camera it's only a matter of time before he does something really stupid.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
is it true that he felt he was threatened, and that his unit was threatened by a man, who has been very recently, shooting at either him or his brothers in arms?

If so...who CARES if the camera was there!!!!!! To me, that marine did the right thing....he eliminated a threat (doesn't matter if he was later discovered to not have a weapon)....he was looked upon as to being a threat.

Remember in Saving Private Ryan, the Americans spare the life of the German....then, in the last battle, that same German show NO mercy???? Why can't ppl understand what happened there? If you are a marine, and you are in on a battlefield, and your prior experience is that these guys are lying and blowing ppl up with booby-trapped bodies, saying they are surrendering, then to turn around and shoot, or again, blow themselves up (taking some americans with them).....I would hope that COMMON SENSE would be used, and shoot.....not wait to see if you see an explosion.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Remember in Saving Private Ryan, the Americans spare the life of the German....then, in the last battle, that same German show NO mercy????


That was a movie you know.... don't you? It's not evidence at all of, well, anything, least of all the duplicity of Iraqis. I'd rather hear about your research into military strategy and US Army policy on encountering wounded hostiles. I'm sure someone on high has made a policy statement about what a professional soldier is supposed to do. Compare that with common practice in Iraq and you might be onto a legitimate defence, although it might be one that places the blame on the Army leadership or the circumstances of the war.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wasn't using it as evidence, exactly....it was more....relatively speaking, maybe.....in that, that type of stuff happens....and American soldiers are usually the ones to get the screwy end of the deal. It has been nearly 10 years since I was on active duty....I honestly don't remember the exacts of how to deal with wounded hostiles....but that key word, "hostiles", should tell you soemthing.....they are hostile, and will try to kill you. In war, my personal opinion, it is kill, or be killed. Especially when you are fighting an enemy that has no honor (really, to "surrender", then fire under the white flag, or to fake death, or booby-trap yourself....or one of your dead soldiers....deep contrast there.....the terrorist are booby-trapping their dead, while marines refuse to leave their even their dead behind).

An interesting note, when I was in basic, one of the drill sgts had told us about the .50 cal, that it was not to be used to fire at humans, but rather, only on equipment.....and this is something that I have always remembered.....he then went on to say, "but that gun he is carrying, that is equipment. That kevlar, his clothes, any gear he may be carrying....that is equipment."

When you are a soldier, and you are in combat, on a battlefield....you either do what you need to do to survive.....or you simply don't survive. I have heard the phrase lately: "Would you rather be judged by twelve, or carried by six?"

That pretty much sums it up for me.....that marine did what he felt needed to be done to insure his safety, as well as the safety of his fellow soldiers. When you have miliseconds to decide what needs to be done....instincts take over. He reverted to what he was trained to do....make war...kill, or be killed. What is actually happening over there, is that American Soldiers are renowned for their generosity and mercy (speaking in general terms here, how they are trained)....and the terrorists are taking advantage of that....but, perhaps not anymore.

I like the idea that i read somewhere, that maybe the US needs to just pull out of the Geneva Conventions, and say that they will uphold their standards of warfare, until the enemy shows no regard to standars either. I mean, really....why should we continue to put ourselves at a constant disadvantage....and ppl saying that the US needs to be held to a "higher" standard....BULL....

Just one question....has Kerry made any comment about the marine? I would be interested in reading or hearing what he has to say about the whole thing.....especially after his War Criminal Campaign after he came back from Vietnam..... To be honest with you, I would hope he would say the man did what needed to be done....I would have a bit more respect for him (but still could NEVER vote for him).