Marine gets three months in jail for massacring two dozen civilians

[Texashiker]

Clear advocacy for violence upon Muslims.

When muslims stop blowing each other up, then they will have the right to point the finger at others.

 

[chucky2]

Clear advocacy for violence upon Muslims.

An incite to crime.

The extreme of hate speech.

Damn, the sooner this forum gets cleaned up the better.

From an extremist point of view though, he's right. Of course, that's exactly the reason for Western forces to not kill Muslim civilians (whenever its realistically possible), so as to not further the extremist goals. Bad situation for everyone involved...

 

[Ninjahedge]

When battling extremists, it is usually not a good idea to go around killing moderates.

 

[CitizenKain]

When muslims stop blowing each other up, then they will have the right to point the finger at others.

Why does one act of violence negate another act? That is a line of reasoning so abjectly stupid that I'm surprised you managed to slam your flipper like hands down on a keyboard to form it.

 

[cybrsage]

Why does one act of violence negate another act? That is a line of reasoning so abjectly stupid that I'm surprised you managed to slam your flipper like hands down on a keyboard to form it.

It never does, which is why I am completely against torture. Just because others do it does not mean we should.

 

[Texashiker]

Why does one act of violence negate another act? That is a line of reasoning so abjectly stupid that I'm surprised you managed to slam your flipper like hands down on a keyboard to form it.

When you have gangsters doing drive by shootings, its kinda difficult to feel sorry when the cops shoot a few of them.

In the case of civilians, I feel bad for the people that get caught in the cross fire. But what do they expect? They are in a war zone, but for some reason they do not have sense enough to get out of the way?

I compare the insurgents to criminals. Would you want someone running around your backyard shooting at the cops? But in this case its the US military getting shot at.

Gangster runs through your house, shoots at cops. Cops shoot back, killing some of your family.

Where do we place the blame? On the insurgents for putting innocents in the cross fire, or the military for returning fire?

 

[piasabird]

War is hell! He was ordered to go to a war zone, it is not his fault if he could not handle it. Just plead temporary insanity.

 

[Ninjahedge]

When you have gangsters doing drive by shootings, its kinda difficult to feel sorry when the cops shoot a few of them.

This is not about shooting AL Capone here. This is about shooting the children playing ball at a street corner when you try to arrest him or his cronies.

In the case of civilians, I feel bad for the people that get caught in the cross fire. But what do they expect? They are in a war zone, but for some reason they do not have sense enough to get out of the way?

That makes no sense. If that was their home, and these guys came rushing in with guns blazing, where the hell are they going to go?

I compare the insurgents to criminals. Would you want someone running around your backyard shooting at the cops? But in this case its the US military getting shot at.

Again, conflation. We are not talking about insurgents or combatants, but the death of innocent civilians. You keep re-assigning them to a different category and THEN saying it is "ok" they died, ignoring the basic fact that they were NOT COMBATANTS AND THE OIC WAS CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER.

The equivalent is simple. If someone came up to you and insulted your mother and you got in a fight with them and (accidentally) killed them, you would STILL be charged with aggravated assault and manslaughter and serve time. Killing someone in "self defense" only works as a defense if your life was threatened DIRECTLY by them.

These guys being let off almost completely for this just does not ring true. Something either does not fit, or went horribly wrong with our system.

Gangster runs through your house, shoots at cops. Cops shoot back, killing some of your family.

AND THAT IS MANSLAUGHTER.

The cops should not have shot at the gangster running through your home. Read up, that's the way the law was written.

Where do we place the blame? On the insurgents for putting innocents in the cross fire, or the military for returning fire?

Again, conflation. Association of guilt on the innocent for actions committed by another.

 

[woolfe9999]

This thread starts with a link to an article which first, is quite slanted, and second, is quite sketchy about the details. There is much more to this case that has been reported for many years now. For example, here is a detailed account of what happened from the perspective of the marines as reported in the Washington Post in 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061001129_3.html

According to their account, after the roadside bomb, they went into the neighborhood pursuing possible perpetrators, and they took gunfire from a house. They then went into that house and threw grenades into each room before entering, which is a fairly standard procedure when you have taken fire.

The controversy is that, according to some Iraqis, civilians were executed at point blank range while begging for their lives.

Apparently, forensic evidence may contradict this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/world/middleeast/15haditha.html

In any event, the guilt of these men should not be an assumed conclusion that precedes a moral opinion. It should be the end of a process of investigation and analysis of evidence. All these statements saying that apparently it's just OK for marines to murder civilians are begging the question of whether this was, in fact, murder. This boils down to the credibility of certain marines versus that of certain Iraqis. Civilians dead does not automatically equal a war crime.

Maybe these guys are guilty as hell, or maybe not. But there's a lot more to this case than is being acknowledged here.

- wolf

 

[Texashiker]

That makes no sense. If that was their home, and these guys came rushing in with guns blazing, where the hell are they going to go?

If you look at the migration pattern of humans, a lot of exodus occurred during times of conflict. Why are people in the war zones of the middle east deciding to stay?

There is a war being fought in your front and backyards, do you leave or stay?

If you decide to stay, and a member of your family is injured or killed, do not complain.

AND THAT IS MANSLAUGHTER.

You are ignorant, as in you do not know any better, do you?

If you break the law, and the police accidentally injure someone while responding to your actions, you can be charged with the crime associated with the injury.

If it were not for your actions, the secondary injury would have never occurred.

If the insurgents had never fired upon the troops, those families would still be alive. Its the insurgents that should bear the blame for their deaths, and not our trooops.

 

[Brovane]

It's absurd for you to make an assertion what their intent was or the motives of the prosecution. How do you know the reason for dropping charges wasn't something else?

The original Court Martial Judge had told them when they where reviewing the charges that he didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. Once the trial started and the prosecution starting calling witnesses the case started fallingn apart. One of the other people charged in this incident and his case went to trial he was acquitted. So basically the case fell apart on them in the court room. They had so many charges basically as a face saving measure they did a plea-bargain to one of the charges. They knew that if the case went to the jury it was likely to come back with a acquital.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

According to their account, after the roadside bomb, they went into the neighborhood pursuing possible perpetrators, and they took gunfire from a house. They then went into that house and threw grenades into each room before entering, which is a fairly standard procedure when you have taken fire.

OK, let's put this as it relates specifically to the Marines in question aside and look at it from a point of view of procedure and policy as dictated from the top:

When an occupying force is operating in areas where civilians are known to be, when you are dealing with an enemy that you KNOW is going to flee through, into, or fire from civilian occupied houses, is it really the right thing to do to to have "throw a grenade into every room" be part of the rules of engagement?

Obviously the next answer is, "oh but the civilians should have been somewhere else". For all we know, when things like this happen it is not necessarily a planned ambush, but instead a couple of the men in the family(and you can bet all households in Iraq have weapons) saw soldiers coming down the street and ran to the windows to fire. Then boom, every room in the house is methodically cleared. And unless the women and children want to go live out in the desert away from houses, or unless they have the ability to find houses in which they can live in by themselves with no men(which is neither possible in Islam nor safe even if it were), there is nothing they can do.

And remember, I'm not talking about soldiers anymore, but the policy as it comes from the TOP. So as the President, or a military official in charge of such policies, is it really the right thing to do to use such procedures in civilian occupied areas? Is it really the right thing to do to even occupy the country in the first place? Note that there's a difference between invade and occupy, basically what I'm saying is after Saddam was removed and reasonable checks for WMDs could have been conducted, was occupying the country beyond that point really the right thing to do?

If you look at the migration pattern of humans, a lot of exodus occurred during times of conflict. Why are people in the war zones of the middle east deciding to stay?

There is a war being fought in your front and backyards, do you leave or stay?

If you decide to stay, and a member of your family is injured or killed, do not complain.




You are ignorant, as in you do not know any better, do you?

If you break the law, and the police accidentally injure someone while responding to your actions, you can be charged with the crime associated with the injury.

If it were not for your actions, the secondary injury would have never occurred.

If the insurgents had never fired upon the troops, those families would still be alive. Its the insurgents that should bear the blame for their deaths, and not our trooops.

As for "migrating", I really don't think that the neighboring countries would have allowed the entire Iraqi population to flee elsewhere. To suggest "migrating out of the warzone" is ridiculous. You have demonstrated an unflinching commitment to have people in positions of authority never be held responsible for excessive force.

Yes, if you are committing a crime and the police injure someone as a result you should be able to be charged with it, that should not, however, be used as a free-for-all justification for the police to use haphazard force.

 

[woolfe9999]

OK, let's put this as it relates specifically to the Marines in question aside and look at it from a point of view of procedure and policy as dictated from the top:

When an occupying force is operating in areas where civilians are known to be, when you are dealing with an enemy that you KNOW is going to flee through, into, or fire from civilian occupied houses, is it really the right thing to do to to have "throw a grenade into every room" be part of the rules of engagement?

Obviously the next answer is, "oh but the civilians should have been somewhere else". For all we know, when things like this happen it is not necessarily a planned ambush, but instead a couple of the men in the family(and you can bet all households in Iraq have weapons) saw soldiers coming down the street and ran to the windows to fire. Then boom, every room in the house is methodically cleared. And unless the women and children want to go live out in the desert away from houses, or unless they have the ability to find houses in which they can live in by themselves with no men(which is neither possible in Islam nor safe even if it were), there is nothing they can do.

And remember, I'm not talking about soldiers anymore, but the policy as it comes from the TOP. So as the President, or a military official in charge of such policies, is it really the right thing to do to use such procedures in civilian occupied areas? Is it really the right thing to do to even occupy the country in the first place? Note that there's a difference between invade and occupy, basically what I'm saying is after Saddam was removed and reasonable checks for WMDs could have been conducted, was occupying the country beyond that point really the right thing to do?



As for "migrating", I really don't think that the neighboring countries would have allow the entire Iraqi population to flee elsewhere. To suggest "migrating out of the warzone" is ridiculous. You have demonstrated an unfliching commitment to have people in positions of authority never be held responsible for excessive force.

I'm not going to disagree here with your critique of the RoE. That is a legitimate and important issue but is a totally separate issue from what my post is about. This entire thread was about marines supposedly being guilty of war crimes because...because nothing. An article called it a "massacre" in its headline. My only point is that people need to first marshal the facts before they proceed to their moral opinions.

So far as any criminal process is concerned, the only issue here is whether these men followed the RoE. According to the account of some Iraqis, they did not, as executing unarmed people is not part of the RoE. According to the account of the marines, what they did was permissible under the RoE because throwing grenades into rooms of houses from which you have taken gunfire is part of the RoE.

If there is a problem with the military's RoE, then fine, that should be addressed. But let's get our facts straight first before judging the men on the ground. These men got off light because it was a he said, she said and what limited forensics they had seemed to corroborate the marines' account and not the Iraqis'. This was not a sham legal process as has been suggested here. These men were not set free because "it's OK for marines to murder civilians." These opinions are probably bunk because the factual assumptions they rest on are likely incorrect.

- wolf

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I'm not going to disagree here with your critique of the RoE. That is a legitimate and important issue but is a totally separate issue from what my post is about. This entire thread was about marines supposedly being guilty of war crimes because...because nothing. An article called it a "massacre" in its headline. My only point is that people need to first marshal the facts before they proceed to their moral opinions.

So far as any criminal process is concerned, the only issue here is whether these men followed the RoE. According to the account of some Iraqis, they did not, as executing unarmed people is not part of the RoE. According to the account of the marines, what they did was permissible under the RoE because throwing grenades into rooms of houses from which you have taken gunfire is part of the RoE.

If there is a problem with the military's RoE, then fine, that should be addressed. But let's get our facts straight first before judging the men on the ground. These men got off light because it was a he said, she said and what limited forensics they had seemed to corroborate the marines' account and not the Iraqis'. This was not a legal process as has been suggested here. These men were not set free because "it's OK for marines to murder civilians." These opinions are probably bunk because the factual assumptions they rest on are likely incorrect.

- wolf

All I'm saying is that if following the ROE is all it takes to absolve the people who actually did the deed, then we have to go after the ROE.

Although, I would also ask, did all of these civilians die to grenades in rooms(where they couldn't possibly be seen) as permitted by ROE, or were any of them shot in plain sight where they could have been identified as unarmed? I'm not talking about "executions" here, I'm just talking about kicking the door in and shooting. Hey, if all of the civilians deaths WERE from grenades, then that's not much different than unintended casualties from airstrikes.

 

[Texashiker]

You have demonstrated an unflinching commitment to have people in positions of authority never be held responsible for excessive force.

Its difficult for me to point at a solider and say "what you did was wrong", when Harry Truman ordered 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan, killing tens of thousands of men, women and children in the blink of an eye.

Its difficult for me to point at a solider and say "what you did was wrong", when allied bombers carpet bombed Germany back to the stone age in 1944 and 1945, killing an unknown number of men, women and children.

Its difficult for me to point at a solider and say "what you did was wrong", when the US government detains people with no due process (guantanamo bay).

Its difficult for me to point at a solider and say "what you did was wrong", when the US government is responsible for wiping out entire tribes of Native Americans.

Its difficult for me to point at a solider and say "what you did was wrong", when the US government conducted human experiments on people without their knowledge, as recent as the 1960s.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Its difficult for me to point at a solider and say "what you did was wrong", when Harry Truman ordered 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan, killing tens of thousands of men, women and children in the blink of an eye.

Its difficult for me to point at a solider and say "what you did was wrong", when allied bombers carpet bombed Germany back to the stone age in 1944 and 1945, killing an unknown number of men, women and children.

Its difficult for me to point at a solider and say "what you did was wrong", when the US government detains people with no due process (guantanamo bay).

Its difficult for me to point at a solider and say "what you did was wrong", when the US government is responsible for wiping out entire tribes of Native Americans.

Of course all those things are wrong. But what is the relationship between the things you list, and police? None.

And as far as the military goes, all of those examples you listed are based around the people at the top who have the authority to actually order such things. I was pretty clear that the people at the top need to be held responsible for the ROE as well.

And to be even more clear, yes, the atomic bombs should have been dropped on military targets only. Yes, dropping it on civilian targets was a war crime(or, in the event that there isn't/wasn't an actual international law specifying that it was, there should be/should have been one).

The only thing that's a gray area is the carpet bombing example. But the massacring of Indians is clearly an atrocity and, while I won't say that Guantanamo is a "war crime", clearly, holding people without accusing them of something is wrong.

 

[woolfe9999]

All I'm saying is that if following the ROE is all it takes to absolve the people who actually did the deed, then we have to go after the ROE.

Although, I would also ask, did all of these civilians die to grenades in rooms(where they couldn't possibly be seen) as permitted by ROE, or were any of them shot in plain sight where they could have been identified as unarmed? I'm not talking about "executions" here, I'm just talking about kicking the door in and shooting. Hey, if all of the civilians deaths WERE from grenades, then that's not much different than unintended casualties from airstrikes.

Following the RoE will absolve the men, unless the RoE is clearly an illegal standing order. If an RoE says, "when under fire, always kill as many unarmed children as possible in order to demoralize the enemy" then that would be an illegal standing order. In practice, RoE's are never that specific and are never illegal per se. So you're right, if we don't want this sort of thing to ever happen, we are best addressing our criticisms to the military's RoE's.

You have to read the article to get the marines' account. They threw grenades and sprayed automatic weapons fire into each room before entering. They believed there were gunman in one or more of these rooms. There may actually have been gunman. This is their account, not that of the Iraqis.

 

[NAC]

Having read only the article – a few short paragraphs – I would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the solders. Fine – no one fired at them. Perhaps there was a gun on the table – they have to assume there were more. Perhaps all the residents ran into the back room – leaving that gun on the table. The residents didn’t respond to shouts to come out. Perhaps there was gunfire in a different situation across the road. Perhaps a kid pointed a realistic toy gun at the soldiers. Perhaps they were told that the buildings had enemies in them. All of this should have been revealed in the investigation, none of it was described in the article.

You can armchair quarterback in football regarding a win or loss. It is much harder to armchair quarterback killing in a war – when BOTH the civilian AND the soldiers’ lives are at risk. In the end, the soldiers might have found no gun and no traps – but I believe both these phrases are true: hindsight is 20/20 and war is hell.

Soldiers can’t always second guess their use of force like a police officer must. They are in a war situation, they were just attacked with an explosive. Their colleague just died.

My defense of the soldiers doesn’t make it less of a tragedy that innocents were killed. And I agree justice failed if the situation was simple and not as I described. If there was no gunfire nearby, and no real or toy guys, and everyone was in the open few unknowns for the soldiers at the time – then justice failed.

 

[CitizenKain]

If you look at the migration pattern of humans, a lot of exodus occurred during times of conflict. Why are people in the war zones of the middle east deciding to stay?

There is a war being fought in your front and backyards, do you leave or stay?

If you decide to stay, and a member of your family is injured or killed, do not complain.

I have a feeling these marines would have executed people if they'd tried to leave in the first place. Its not like these people can throw wheels on their house and leave, they aren't a bunch of worthless southerners.

 

[Craig234]

The original Court Martial Judge had told them when they where reviewing the charges that he didn't think there was enough evidence to convict. Once the trial started and the prosecution starting calling witnesses the case started fallingn apart. One of the other people charged in this incident and his case went to trial he was acquitted. So basically the case fell apart on them in the court room. They had so many charges basically as a face saving measure they did a plea-bargain to one of the charges. They knew that if the case went to the jury it was likely to come back with a acquital.

Valid points, but it's a frustrating situation to have such a hard time with accountability.

 

[blankslate]

This person not going away for years for this crime is just a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations waiting to be used.

 

[Nebor]

This is a terrible situation, and while generally you don't Monday Morning Quarterback actions in combat, it seems pretty clear that the wrong decision was made here. No evidence was found that they took incoming fire at all. And the "toss a grenade to clear a room" RoE was gone by the time this incident took place.

Just a very shameful incident with a shameful outcome.

 

[iGas]

But what do they expect? They are in a war zone, but for some reason they do not have sense enough to get out of the way?

Where do we place the blame? On the insurgents for putting innocents in the cross fire, or the military for returning fire?

1. Iraqis didn't start an illegal war.

2. Iraq is the unarmed civilian home and the paid volunteer/mercenaries invaded their home/country and killed them. Where shall they go?

3. Iraq is the home of the insurgent. Where is the home of the gun blazing American cowboys that shoot first and ask question later?

Perhaps the world would be a more peaceful place if American respect non American country/culture/custom/natural resources.

IMHO, this is a case of bigotry where Americans are judge by a different standard than Iraqis.

 

[iGas]

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Muslims are instructed by sharia law to kill non-muslims.

But when non-muslims kill muslims, expect a crap storm to follow.

What are you talking about?
This doesn't apply here, unless your are advocating that the rest of the world gang up together and bomb the shit out of the US to rob its natural resources.

 

[Nebor]

Also, this is why the US refused to leave troops in Iraq without complete immunity from Iraqi law.