Im not sure what topic to put this in so move it if need be.

I realize there is little information on this yet but :

I decided to start this debate before any convictions take place.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/16/...robe/index.html



Put yourself in the position of the Marine(s) while answering the questions.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

What consequences should be taken if any?

Surely it is impossible to say right now.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

Depends on the circumstances. If the Iraqi was unarmed and wounded, then 'no'. However as the investigation is not yet complete, it isn't possible to tell.

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?


Possibly, but I am not a trained member of the USMC, who must operate to certain standards. I would hope that shooting unarmed people is considered below those standards. Especially given the situation in Iraq.

What consequences should be taken if any?

Depends on the outcome really. You can make allowances for the situation, but really, to shoot someone who is unarmed and wounded is not acceptable behaviour in warfare (or at least not by the moral standards of the West) and is more akin to murder.

This case reminds me of the case of colonel Budanov in Russian Army a few years ago - the brief description can be found here:



Eventually Budanov went on trial, was convicted of all charges, and serves time now as we speak (even though a large segment of population doesn't view him as a criminal).
If an Iraqi was unarmed, there's no way the Marine was justified in his shooting. Judging by the events on the tape, the Marine wasn't in any danger at the moment. Shooting a wounded, defensless man lying on the ground is not much different from strangling an enemy's sniper during an interrogation.

You've convinced me. Shooting a wounded man who wasn't surrendering, who shot at you yesterday, who is a member of a fanatic death-cult that is known to be willing to die as long as you die too, who may or may not have been armed, whose buddies' dead bodies were rigged with grenades, is exactly like abducting and raping a high school girl. Exactly. I trust that the media will give this guy a perfectly fair trial.

Worth noting that this video has been showing in a 24 hour loop by Al Jazeera, but they couldn't be bothered to show the murder of that aid worker, because it is "too graphic." Fair and balanced. Wouldn't want to shed any light on the type of maniacs we are fighting there after all...
al jazeera english

Your sarcasm is unnecessary. What difference does it make whether the enemy is a high-school girl or a male in his late 40s? And, of course, seizing and enemy sniper at her home is "an abduction"... very fair and balanced. According to Russian Army's reports, this girl killed up to 15 Russian soldiers. For all we know, she shot at Budanov too, was a member of the "death-cult" as well. Does it make the killing justified?
Both events are war crimes and violations of Geneva convention. The colonel serves his time. We'll see what happens to this Marine.
How do you know that the guy on the ground wasn't surrendering?
As for the slain aid worker, it's worth noting that she has been working in Iraq for twelve years under Saddam's rule. I guess, for her and her family there's no question whether Iraq is better off without Saddam...

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting? It looks rather bad for his case, but of course we don't know the details yet. According to the link, just the day before a similar style attack had taken place, where an insurgent who was playing dead had in fact been booby trapped, and a number of Marines had been injured and wounded and one Marine was killed. That might be an extenuating detail in the soldier's defense. We'll see.

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle? I can't make that call since I'm never been in the heat of battle. If this is a common tactic used by the enemy...feigning injury, surrender, or death and exploding a grenade I can understand the situation must be horrible.

What consequences should be taken if any? This should go to trial, and we'll see, won't we? Is anyone else as curious as I am about how this tape was obtained? Do all mosques have cameras in them? Was a journalist present? Or...was this some sort of a setup?

Leave the soldier alone. He's a young kid scared crapless in a far away land fighting a bullcrap war against people using uncivilized methods to inflict as much damage as possible to anyone in the area - whether military or civilian.

The enemy is fighting without uniforms and out of civilian areas. That's against probably every rule in the Geneva convention. But we want to hold this kid's feet to the fire?

It's unbelievable to me that our president sends us off to war against a sovereign nation that has not attacked us under false pretenses and not only isn't tried for war crimes, get's re-elected.

Then, soldiers follow orders and torture people in a prison only to be court-martialed while the leaders are not held accountable.

Now, everybody is calling for this soldier's head for not following the standards of war the enemy doesn't follow. We want his blood because he's the only one that appears to be accountable to the rule of law in that God-forsaken hellhole.

To be sure, this behavior should not be condoned. But I completely empathize with it. He did not blow up a bus full of mommies and their babies. He put away a person who was too wounded to continue trying to kill him, that scared the hell out of him, and in all likelihood, had already killed some of our soldiers from a FREAKING MOSQUE.

The guy he killed was a combatant - that is clear. The combatant chose not to follow international law. So we shouldn't be held to that strict of standard.

It's a little unsettling to see some of my anti-invade-Iraq colleagues wanting to make this soldier pay when the soldier should not have been there to begin with. It's easy for us to point a critical finger from the comforts of our living rooms with one finger on the TV remote. But knowing the guy might be wounded and faking it so he could blow you up (as happened the day before) could have put me over the edge easily. He deserves to go home to his family and I don't think you can pass judgement over him without that in mind.

Slap him on the wrist and put out a memo. That's more than what happens to our leaders who do far, far worse things.

But isn't ANY wounded enemy combatant is simply too wounded to try to kill us? Any wounded enemy combatant most likely killed some of ours... and would kill more if he could. That what enemy combatants do!

To be clear, I am not advocating a prison term for the guy. But maybe he should get a one-rank demotion, or something along those lines... a punishment which doesn't ruin his life but sends the message.

Heck yes, when you are dealing with combatants that use suicide bombings as a tactic and places of worship for firing positions and civilians as well as civilian clothing for cover they have violated nearly all of the provisions of the Geneva Convention, then they no longer can be considered protected.
Been there and yes it is very easy in that type of environment to stay in survival mode. Last week my best friend from high school was killed there by a roadside bomb, as far as I am concerned turning Iraq into a glass bowl would be all too acceptable.

That young Marine was doing his best to do his job and stay alive. Maybe a nice cold beer and some time away from the line.

In theory, I agree. But the reality is, nobody else is being held accountable for their actions. I believe we're holding this guy to another standard simply because we can.

I don't agree at all with what they guy did and could never condone it. But given the same circumstances, I can't say I wouldn't have done the same because I don't want to die. And the risk of not killing these guys, is they will kill you even from the dead (booby-trapped bodies).

This guy possibly faking death might have only needed a moment to activate some IED that would have reduced everybody in that Mosque to a red stain on the wall. That is a very real and distinct possibility no matter how much you love or hate this war. There is no way for that guy to know that. Our enemy there does not take prisoners - we do. Our enemy there will saw your head off with a dull blade whether you are wounded or not. In fact, some of our enemy could care less whether you are a combatant or not.

If the soldier did this to a clearly innocent civilian, this would be an entirely different story. But he didn't. He shot an enemy combatant under the worst of conditions that after typing all this, I would deem to be in self-defense. The more I think about it, the more I believe he was correct in what he did. Why put your life in the hands of another who thinks martyrdom includes taking you with him?

In past wars, we put our hands up and got sent to POW camps. In past wars, the enemy put their hands up and we hauled them off to POW camps. In this war, they will gladly blow themselves up just to take you with them. It's a completely different set of standards where only one side is following international law.

I think this marine will be given a real hearing and or possibly trial.

I suspect that he will be cleared or have a bad mark put in his record.
I thought I heard a piece yesterday where he was saying something like "this one is playing dead" right before shooting him.

I wouldn't necessarily want my son or brother shooting this person dead at this point, but I definitely wouldn't want him putting down his gun and administering care either.

In an atmosphere where booby traps and civilian suicide attacks are going on I would want my son or brother to preserve his life carefully.

With the exposure to the media and the public, I think this will get a genuine investigation and if the soldier acted inappropriately given his training and circumstances he will be punished.

I going to trust the system on this one.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

No.


Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

I don't know.

Perhaps I would.


What consequences should be taken if any?

He should be tried under which ever law the US forces are operating under.

It doesn't matter what the solder's motives were, or how much strain he was under. If he was too stressed out then a psychological evaluation of his mental health should be taken into consideration, but the truth is, he is an adult human being, in the uniform of a democratic nation. He is a representative of that nation, as well as a representative of democracy and freedom. He is there to bring liberation to the people of Iraq, not to execute the ones he doesn't like.

I don't see what the problem is. We have these laws (the Geneva convention &tc) for very good reasons and our loyalty to those laws should not be based on whether or not we feel threatened or whether or not the enemy abides by them. We are responsible for ourselves and for our actions.

Its no good making excuses for this marine. If we don't hold our soldiers accountable then we shouldn't deploy them to bring peace stability and justice to other countries.

The bottom line is that if the US soldiers don't set an example of law abiding justice, then they will fail in their mission.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

Yes




Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

I served in the Marines from 92-96 and was in the reserves until last year, in that Marines position with all the extenuateing circumstances I would have done the same thing.



What consequences should be taken if any?

None, he should be given a commendation in my opinion.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

From what we know now, Yes. Although I’m not an expert on the governing principles laid out in Geneva Convention, surely they protect soldiers for actions like this if it can be determined his motive was defensive. He may have saved lives.

Tactics like this have been used in the past where the enemy not only waits for the next squad of soldiers to come by, but waits for medical care and then takes the medic out. Knowing that taking out medics reduces the number of lives saved.

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

Considering this just happened the day before, without question. Who knows, maybe they realized the guy didn’t stand a chance of surviving anyway.

What consequences should be taken if any?

I agree with Loreng59, a week or two of furlough with a few cold ones.

Naturally, people who have had to face war will instinctively side with the Marine. People who have not will probably say this was a war crime. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

We are faced with an enemy whose asymmetric methods included planting IEDs into animal carcasses on the roadside and strapping massive amounts of C4 on its snipers in an effort to not be taken alive.

Protections for the wounded and those in other non combatant status like under surrender flags are covered only as long as that status is not abused. If they’re abused for military advantage then that status cannot protect and anybody in that status is subject to being attacked. Just as mosques and hospitals are protected structures until or unless they are used as firing platforms or weapons caches.

The bottom line is this: the Marine may have been in the wrong, and a just investigation would bear this out. But without the facts presented in a wider scope than a camera lens, I will not second guess the snap decision of a marine in a firefight. I'm not trying to justify criminal behavior, but we trust these young studs to make life or death decisions without the luxury of time or consensus. Adrenaline, stress, fear and fatigue all factor into that decision, as does instinct.

If there was an ounce of doubt in my mind as to the safety of myself or my men, I would have done the same thing. I would bear full responsibility for my decision, remembering the old adage, 'it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six'.

Hey Vampiel, old BW here from AF..

Having been a vet in GW 1, I cannot believe they want to fry this guy. All bets are off in wartime. This man was an enemy combantant, armed or unarmed. His buddy had just been hurt the day before with a booby trap in a similar situation. Sorry folks, but unless you have been there, you don't knwo what the hell is going on. A police officer may understand.

Meanwhile, the same say, a woman, angel of mercy, gets murdered, and the US news nets run with this story, and she gets barely a mention. Enough said.

The answers..

YES

YES

No consequences. War is hell .

Put yourself in the position of the Marine(s) while answering the questions.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

No. Having downloaded the video and watched it a few times, I'm going to have to say no.

I understand what had happened the previous day, but these are trained soldiers. This was reckless behavior at the least. His weapon is on auto, so it is not just one shot. It this man had a detonator, shooting him might set it off. At the very least, this soldier endangered the lives of the soldiers around him. Immediately after shooting the individual, he does not check to see if there is still a threat, or if the man was indeed going to detonate something. He turns his back on the body and casually walks away.

It seems to me that this soldier had other options, like attempting to clear the room. This soldier recklessly endangered his unit, shot an unarmed man, and casually walked away.

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

This was not a decision made in an instant during the heat of battle. These soldiers were not under fire at the time, the soldier did not say, "He's [expletive] playing dead." and then shot him. He says it, someone else says something, then he repeats it, fires multiple shots, and casually walks away.

What consequences should be taken if any?


He should be tried. The enemy's failure to abide by the laws of war does not in any way excuse our military from abiding by them. This trained soldier had options. He did not choose to use them. I do not believe he should get off with a slap on the wrist.

As a prelude to actual argument, let me first lay down some source material. I am relying on the Society of Professional Journalists' Reference Guide to the Geneva Conventions as my source.

Convention I, Article 12:


Convention I, Article 13:


Since the USMC Rules of Engagement for these operations are not publicly available, I will assume Geneva standards apply, that no other lawful orders were issued to this particular Marine rifleman, that the combatant in question was a local inhabitant, and that the reports of tactics such as feigned or booby-trapped wounded were either thought or known to be true by that particular rifleman.

In a legal sense, from the Marine's statements and those of his squad members, I tend to think he was justified. Article 12 unequivocally states that wounded combatants shall not be murdered but Article 13, Paragraph 6 just as clearly reserves these protections for those combatants that operate under the laws and customs of war. An argument can be made that the insurgent's use of civilian clothes in itself places them outside Geneva protection. Article 13, Paragraph 6 extends these protections to local inhabitants who "on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces", which weakens that argument. In either case, using tactics that purposefully blur the distinction between combatant and civilian, capitulated and combatant, and incapacitated and belligerent clearly place these forces outside Geneva protection. Spontaneous statements by the rifle squad such as 'he's breathing' and 'he's faking it' clearly show, in my opinion, that the action was predicated on earlier incidents and places the blame for the incident on the illegal tactics employed the insurgent forces.

This question is impossible to answer from the comfort of my home office. The presumption in "the world" is that people are not trying to kill you. In a forward combat area, that presumption is turned on its head. During the final week of Desert Shield, myself and some other members of my Air Force squadron were flown to an airfield in southern Iraq the day after it was cleared by the grunts. That night, I was half-asleep when the claymores on the perimeter began exploding and small-arms fire erupted. I grabbed my newly issued M-16, loaded a clip, scrambled to the nearest position, and fired a clip blindly into the night. The enemy turned out to be a pack of wild dogs unlucky enough to be tempted by the scent of our food. A responsible person will not launch a firefight against an unknown enemy in your typical suburban neighborhood. Place those same individuals under the sense of expectation that is present in a forward area...

He should be investigated. Some of the question I would want answered:

Has that particular rifleman had any other incidents of this nature?

Did the KIA have any wounds that were obvious to the rifleman before the incident?

Did the rifleman have specific orders on the procedure for determining who was in fact wounded or surrendered?

Did the rifleman witness firsthand or by account the use of feigned dead, wounded or surrendered combatants in attacks on US forces? Were specific directives issued to the soldier in dealing with these suspected incidents?

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

I have been on the fence regarding this issue since I first read about it. In my opinion, the Marine did cross the line, but the line is very diffuse. In the heat of battle (the "fog of war"), all sorts of less than savory practices occur. It could very well have been unclear at the time of the incident what the "right" answer was. The Marine did not have complete information to the situation nor did his comrades. We can look at it now with a lot more context and make judgements, but at the time in that context things may have been unclear.

The fact is: it is war. The usual conditions of civil society no longer apply. It is not only permissable to kill someone else but encouraged. Soldiers are supposed to follow the UMCJ as well as the Geneva Conventions, but there are many, many situations where the "right" answer is morally ambiguous. The correct course of action can sometimes only be ascertained with hindsight.

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

Maybe. Having never been in a situation where I was killing people and having people try to kill me as my job, I cannot say exactly how I would react. I tend to be a more contemplative person so maybe not... It's hard to say.

What consequences should be taken if any?

As I mentioned above, I believe the soldier crossed the line, but I believe this could be somewhat mitigated by the moral ambiguity associated with war and the context of the battle. Nevertheless, I suppose I'll take a hard-line and say that since he did cross the line, he should be charged and tried. I have no idea what an appropriate punishment would be, but I'm sure there's a lot of precedent. Politically, the US military needs to be seen to be taking real action here so that at least some of the rising anti-US resentment in Iraq can be reduced.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

I guess I will be playing Devil's advocate. No, he was not justified whatsoever in the shooting. Listening to NPR, I have heard several news stories referencing this situation. A heated battle at the mosque left several Iraqi insurgents dead or wounded. The wounded insurgents were then left to die as the American soldiers moved on. Later (I don't know how much later), another group of soldiers came by after hearing that the mosque had been taken again by the insurgents. The soldiers entered to find the dead insurgents and one wounded guy. The video captured the incidents of that situation.

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

There was no battle, and I have no way of knowing how I would behave in such a situation.

What consequences should be taken if any?

The soldier should be reprimanded, possibly discharged from service. I do not think he should be tried for murder, despite the apparent violation of the Geneva Conventions. What makes the particular incident most disgusting is the soldier's complete lack of emotion when he says, "He's dead now." I have not seen the video, but NPR did air the audio which was graphic enough. The soldier in question yells, "This guy is f***in' faking dead." Another asks, "He's alive?" A loud gunshot, followed by the soldier saying, "He's dead now." Because the insurgent was unarmed and wounded, there should be a serious investigation into the mental health of the individual. I believe it was temporary insanity, which is why I believe he should be discharged from service immediately.

Edited to add: here's a link to an MSNBC story concerning the situation: MSNBC - U.S. probes shooting at Falluja mosque

Every one of us in the uniform of the United States receives periodic training on the laws of land warfare, including the laws prohibiting the killing of wounded enemy. However, due to other circumstances I feel he was not entirely responsible for the events that occurred. All reports I have read, heard or seen make mention of the fact that this same Marine had been shot in the face the previous day but had been treated and returned to duty. Such a wound, even if not life-threatening, would certainly be severely traumatic. Why was this young Marine not being evaluated at a Combat Stress Clinic after receiving such a wound? I would hold his Chain-of-Command responsible for the most part in this situation.



Fighting out of uniform is a violation of the Convention, but only for forces of a national army. National liberation/resistance movements, such as the majority of the insurgents, are not signatories to that treaty. Our Founding Fathers were not signatories of any similar agreement either. Remember, they were referred to in terms that were that period's equivalent of 'terrorist', as were the various European resistance groups by the Nazis. We must not fight with the same barbarity as the enemy or we merely become what they have always claimed we were, thus proving them right and rallying even more recruits to their cause.



I agree whole-heartedly. Unfortunately, we now live in an oligarchy, and loyal useful members of the ruling party are not likely to be held accountable when there are powerless patsies available.



I cannot condone, nor empathize, but I can understand this poor kid's situation. The reported facts are as follows, the wounded Iraqis are disarmed and their wounds treated, they are left in the mosque for later pick-up by follow-on elements, all five are alive. The next day gunfire is heard in the area and Marines return to the mosque to investigate. One squad enters the mosque ahead of second squad with cameraman. Gunshots are heard inside. Second squad enters with cameraman. All five wounded Iraqis are still present, still unarmed. Two Iraqis are now dead of apparently fresh gunshot wounds, third dead of previous wounds. As cameraman enters events that have been reported take place.

As members of a nationalist liberation movement, or group resisting an occupation force, the Iraqi partisans are not bound by international law. The point is moot, however, as our young Marine was in violation of US law.
The Geneva Convention is a treaty, therefore it is US law.
(US Constitution, Article IV, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.)



I agree entirely. This young Marine should be evaluated for signs of CS and PTSD immediately, and his superiors investigated for returning a man to duty less than a day after he was shot in the FREAKIN' face.


edited to correct format problems.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?
Anyone watching the video with both eyes open cannot believe this was a justified shooting. The man laid there motionless, injured. One Marince yelleed t
"this one's not dead' The other raised his rifle and put a bullet in his head from about four feet away then commented 'he is now'.
The few, the proud...indeed,
Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

The prupose of liberating a people is to show them justice. Justice is by all reasonable definition done with a judge and jury, not with a summary execution. This will play out big in place like Al-Jazeera (sp?) and cause even more resistance.
What consequences should be taken if any?
Well considering that the Americans killed a bunch of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and bugger all happened I imagine this will end the same way.

As you correctly pointed out later in the post, there is a way for the soldier to be sure - for the insurgent forces not to abuse the protections provided for the wounded or surrendered. Dontreadonme stated it in a different way:



The Geneva Conventions bears this out - all four Conventions extend their protections to specific groups "provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." This is no technicality. If one belligerent systematically blurs these distinctions for tactical advantage they no longer apply.



Not exactly true. Organized insurgent forces are required to wear devices, though local inhabitants are allowed to participate in a spontaneous uprising.



I'm in doubt that the majority of the Fallujah insurgency are local residents acting spontaneously but that is arguable. That being said, tactics such as car bombings and feigned surrenders are not. As pointed out previously, these tactics exploit civilians, the wounded and those trying to capitulate and are the real cause, in both a legal and a moral sense, of the kind of apparent tragedy witnessed in the Marine incident.



The enemy's status regarding participation in the Conventions is not relevant to a power's responsibility in dealing with them, as long as the enemy forces actually apply the same protections.





These protections are not based on right or wrong, but on classification of status. Failure to adhere to the classification system renders those protections impossible to enforce by the opposing power.



They are bound by the laws and customs of war when determining their protections.

I waited to answers these questions until I was able to figure where my anger laid. At first towards the marine for such an act, then I knew I would have done the same with these insurgents that play possum, traps bodies. Five guys in this mosque one with a blanket over him, obviously not shot, one faking he was dead, who would want to take a chance? And then where is the out rage against the insurgents breaking the Geneva code of wartime conduct? They play possum: violation. They surrender, then shoot: violation. They place traps on bodies: violation. They beheaded prisoners: violation. The insurgents would rather die and receive martyrdom then surrender, how does a Marine protect himself against these people?

So now I lead to blaming the insurgency. But why? Just because they are in violation of Geneva's code? If I put myself in their heads, which is hard to do, I would act the same. Following my faith to the full intent defending my faith from the invasion of the western pagans. So I don't blame the insurgency.

I settled my anger on the media. The media will stop at nothing for a story, including jeopardizing the Marines (like Geraldo). Embedded reporting with reporters looking to be the next Dan Rather with their war coverage exposing the evils of war and gaining the trust of the American people, have done nothing but sold themselves short, betrayed the marines, jeopardized American relations in the Middle East and have put the lives of individuals in the world endanger. This embedded report, Kevin Sites, has done nothing more then step on the world to give himself a leg up. As he says, "As sensitive as this is, we want to make sure the world has an accurate picture of the events." How is this accurate? Does he show these men firing from the Mosque? Does he show the trapped bodies? Does he show insurgents surrendering then firing? NO! He shows one US Marine unsure of what five sitting insurgents will do firing a gun at the one insurgent who is faking his own death. FAIR? You call this fair and balanced news? It makes me sick to think that this man is just trying to portray an accurate picture of the war. He failed miserable and has put everyone's life endanger.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

Yes.

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

Yes.

What consequences should be taken if any?

Remove embedded reporters.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

No from what i heard the CNN Embeded reporters say was "This guy isnt dead... [bang] he's dead now" this is obviously a violation of the conventions

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

No. He didnt pose any harm

What consequences should be taken if any?

Give the guy dishonorable discharge and try him under a military court

Let's clarify this a little.

1. CNN Embedded reporter. It is actually a freelance photographer named Kevin Sites who is hired by NBC News. Check out what he has to say here: Kevin Sites Blog.
   
   
   
2. reporters say was "This guy isn't dead...". Actually this is what is said: Marine 1: "He's (expletive) faking he's dead!”
   Marine 2: “Yeah, he's breathing.”
   Marine 1: “He's faking he's (expletive) dead!”
   
   
   
3. [bang] "he's dead now". Actually "He's dead now" was spoken by another Marine, not the reporter.
   
   
   
4. this is obviously a violation of the conventions. Actually the violation is shooting a wounded unarmed man. Not shooting a wounded man. The question now that should be asked is was the insurgent armed? Prior to the entrance into the Mosques, these five insurgents were firing at the Marines. They had access to weapons. Where all the weapons accounted for? Also it is violation to fake your own death and then turn around to shoot.
   QUOTE(Geneva Convention @ Part 1, Article 6 Paragraph 2)
   Prisoners of war shall continue to have the benefit of such agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, except where express provisions to the contrary are contained in the aforesaid or in subsequent agreements, or where more favourable measures have been taken with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the conflict.
   Faking death is clearly a contrary to surrendering.

Just wanted to give you this link here; let's see if you see any similarities between Russian resistance movement and modern-day insurgents in Iraq.
From everything that has been said here I can only conclude that because "partisans" (russian insurgents) did not follow the code of Geneva convention (which didn't even exist at the time), harsh punitive measures instituted by Germans against insurgents and, eventually, civilian population, can be justified. Hey, those German soldiers deserve a few cold ones, too...

P.S. Hey, before I am accused of blasphemy: nobody compares Nazi Germany and modern-day United States. We know how much different United States of today and Nazi Germany of 1940s are. However, do occupied nations care?

The insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi's. The partisans were Russians in Russia. I guess what you are trying to say is that if the insurgents in Iraq obeyed the Geneva convention, then US would occupy and control Iraq? Or because they choose not to obey the Geneva convention, the US troops will choose not to obey the Geneva convention, too? The Iraqi people are removing the insurgents from other countries who only wish to rule them like Zaraqwi. The insurgents are fighting against the Iraqi's and the coalition in order to set up their own system of rule which would be worst then any democracy. Which side is best?

Oh, contraire: Few Foreigners among Insurgents

The data doesn't seem to fit your bias there, yehoshua.

In my estimation the Marine, if he's smart will get off, be it justice or not. Because if he is smart, all he has to do is state that he saw a threatening movement or gesture from the insurgent.
That's how we are trained to react, until we are able to get up on the body and ascertain that he is either dead, or no longer a threat, ie, not booby trapped, then you use extreme caution.
When fighting in a urban environment, no are is considered clear and safe unless that area has been continuously occupied by friendly forces. If the Marines hadn't been at the mosque since the day prior, the mosque must be treated as a hostile area until cleared again.

I'll state again, given the insurgent trick of booby trapping bodies, wounded and dead, and the propensity for these fellas to arrange their own rendezvous with Allah. I can't take much fault for the young Marines actions.

Just wanted to add some insight as to what happened to this Marine in particular.



Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

Given the nature of the insurgency, particularly the battle in Fallujah and the Marines personal experience, yes.

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

In that same situation, under the same circumstances, given the previous experience just yesterday, it's hard for me to guess what I would have done. Knowing what type of reporter the cameraman was, perhaps I would have asked him to go help the man and stayed back. "You first".

What consequences should be taken if any?

Taken out of the combat area. The Marine went through hell allready and the press are forcing him to re-live it.

I liked Vampiel's response - it's the first one on this thread that attempts to vindicate the Marine in question I can sympathise with.

I tend to disagree, however we should all be aware that the purpose of any investigation that takes place is not to punish the guilty but to establish whether a crime has been committed at all. We should all remember that this whole thread is essentially speculative.

That said, I can't see how an investigation won't be carried out, and I think it would be a travesty if one isn't. The "insurgent" is definitely dead, and we now know what the Marine didn't before he shot him - the dead man wasn't armed, and his body wasn't booby-trapped.

So anything that might lead us to understand why the Marine did what he did is not justification for a legitimate action, but mitigation for the commission of a crime.

For example, I haven't read of any fingerprinting or the insurgents' weapons and the dead man to prove that he took part in the firing on US forces from the building before he was wounded.

Since we know the insurgents are sanguine about taking hostages and using whatever resources are necessary, do we know for sure that the dead man was the civilian inhabitant of the building that had been hijacked by insurgents as a place of cover from which to attack the Marines? I'm sure that will be part of any investigation that takes place, and I'm also pretty sure that the dead guy will be found to have been shooting at the Marine & his buddies before they took the building. But it does worry me a little that nobody seems to have asked themselves these sort of questions either at the time or since.

A parallel might be suicide bombings - we know that desperate and foolish young women occasionally strap explosives to themselves then run screaming towards soldiers, killing or injuring them. Does this mean that soldiers are completely justified in shooting any screaming woman they see on their patrols? Even if they don't see or care that the woman is being chased by (to paraphrase Harry Callahan for family viewing) a naked man with a butcher knife and an, *ahem*, enhanced state of arousal?

In such circumstances, a soldier who shot a woman being chased by a rapist because he thought she was a suicide bombers would still have broken the spirit of the law. Even in war, killing someone innocent is wrong (if not illegal - I don't want to go into the niceties of the Geneva conventions) even if you think they are guilty. If you kill someone who isn't shooting at you first, you'd better make damn sure they were going to.

Do I believe I would have done the same thing in battle? Honestly, I have no idea at all. I can't say that I wouldn't, though I would like to think I would be able to retain mastery of myself - I don't doubt that this soldier (or any other) who had time, or just taken time, to think dispassionately about the particular circumstances (as they have come to light so far) would not have pulled this particular trigger on this particular occasion.

That said, in terms of what the consequences should be, I think this Marine should be removed from active duty. He's obviously going to be in poor mental shape (even those defending him agree that's probably why he did what he did), so the first thing to do is help him cope with what he's seen and done. After a period of "penance", if you will, and if he still wants to serve, then he should be restricted to non-combat roles.

My main reason for saying this is that, with what we and he must now know about what he did which he either didn't know or ignored at the time, he will find it very hard indeed to shoot a real booby-trap bomber, putting the lives of himself and his colleagues, not to mention any accompanying journalists, in jeopardy.

For example, perhaps he would be valuable in the training arena? I think if he uses his experiences to impress on new recruits the need to keep a cool head at all times, using this event as an illustration of what happens when you don't, then some positive good might be able to come from what is a pretty bad/sad situation for all concerned.

In summary, I don't think his actions can be justified, but the mitigating circumstances are such that I don't think his punishment should be more severe than just taking him permanently out of a combat role - if nothing else, he's demonstrated he isn't entirely suited to it.

My last question, which may need to be a separate thread - does anyone think that the presence of a camera influenced the Marines' behaviour in that room? If so, was it for good or ill?

Good thoughts Julian.

Maybe I should have added that an investigation should be brought foward and one has.

Putting on the eyeballs and experiences of the Marine, I dont hold the opinion that it was murder in cold blood that was his intention, but that of self defense and the defense of his squad.

As I said in my prior post, he should be taken out of a combat role - so I agree with you. But I do not believe he should be convicted of murder.



That's a good question, one that I cannot answer. Maybe a soldier who has had experience with cameramen is better suited to answer.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

Yes, I do. It's a very simple answer that, in my opinion, doesn't need a lot of explanation. We are at war. The terrorists in Iraq are using terrorist tactics to kill not only other Iraqis, but our soldiers. They use dead bodies to plant explosives for goodness sake. I am at a loss to understand why some are so quick to demonize this soldier. Didn't Kerry receive a Silver Star with a Combat V for basically the same thing? He shot a wounded VC that was cowering behind a hootch. How is this different?

The big difference is there was no camera filming John Kerry when he shot the wounded VC. The age of the embedded reporter is changing the face of battle, which I believe is a detriment to our soldiers. We now have to be so careful as to not slip up on camera. Imagine you are in a hostile environment, people trying to kill you at every turn, and now you have to deal with a camera watching your every move so Monday morning armchair pundits can criticize how you handle yourself in battle.

To touch on Julian and Sleeper's comments about the embeds.......I've had media attached to my platoon before.
So here's my take. When we were stood down, they were nice enough guys to have along. They were respectful, asked questions, tried to get our insight, points of view that are rarely seen in news reports. Often, if they have Sat phones, they make time available for soldiers to make a call home for a special occasion (anniversary, birth, etc....).

Nowdays, the embeds go through rudimentary training, so they can be expected to take appropriate action during a firefight, so as not to get killed. But, honestly, in my experience, we did nothing different with media attached when the bullets started flying, then we would have without.

You simply don't have time or effort to spare to 'look good for the camera'. Rare has to be the person who would risk sacrificing his life for momentary stardom on the evening news.
As with anything, you will have media persons who may be pro-policy or anti-policy, and some bias may come through which pictures or video is used, along with commentary. But all things considered, I like citizens back home finally getting a chance to see what we do in the military. Being in the Infantry, I used to find it so difficult to try and explain to friends and family what it was that I did for a living.

Embeds give a window for civilians to see sacrifices and hardships that our troops endure.........and the occasional mistakes.

I would like to add something to my other portion of the debate. If you were to look around the room it showed everyone up on the walls fearing. It is in my personal opinion he had no gun due to the simple fact that marines walked into the building with the people and i heard no refrences to them having guns.

True, Juber, but if that mosque had not been secure the entire time by friendly forces, they have to take the attitude that the bodies, wounded or dead, could have been booby trapped. After all that we have seen take place and the likelihood of Habib the insurgent wishing to kill a few more infidels as he lay waiting to go to Allah, caution is the watchword of the day.
I'm not implying that shooting the body was the correct course of action, but so much is not known yet, and so many variables are in play that it seems rash to me to convict the Marine based on grainy video footage.

I cannot imagine how I would feel actually having to willingly walk into a place where the bullets can come from out of no where you could ever even guess and even the dead can kill you. Walk by a car and BOOM-- dead--if lucky--if not waiting to die body shredded.
friends dead--and unlike the Hollywood version i doubt they just drop. Seems like there would be some screaming. Cant imagine having to watch people die like that and be able to do nothing to stop it. Having to stay on edge at all times cause mistakes are final--if not for you then probably someone you know.

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

What consequences should be taken if any?

Ijust do not know. No experience with combat and what soldiers are taught.

As a 15 year Judge Advocate who has taught law of war and been both a prosecutor and defense counsel, I offer my opinions:

Do you believe the Marine was justified in the shooting?

While I do not have all of the facts, I think our Marine may be in some legal trouble. The "heat of battle" argument is mitigation not exculpation. From what I have viewed, he killed a helpless person out of combat in violation of potentially three of the four Geneva conventions as well as in violation of one of two UCMJ Articles (118 Murder or 119 Manslaughter). His body language is contradictory of a threat posed and the statement "he's faking" is not helpful to him. Wounded may appear dead but are not dead.

Just on what I have seen it is a bad shoot.


Do you believe you may have done the same thing in the heat of battle?

No. Not much more to say, I would follow the law of the US and the Law of Armed Conflict.

What consequences should be taken if any?

Obviously a much more detailed investigation must be done for 3 major reasons:

1) If the soldier did nothing wrong (unlikely outcome at this point), to clear the soldier and to protect the Marine Corps

2) If it is a bad shooting, to establish the evidence to prosecute the soldier.

3) To review the methods of teaching law of war and the rules of engagement.


Were I a betting man, I would suspect that Charges will be eventually preferred against the Marine and it will be sent to a preliminary investigation (Article 32, UCMJ hearing). Where it goes after an Article 32 is unpredictable at this point. The Article 32 hearing gives the Commander cover from Congress, from his own war crime alegation (refusal to act) and saves face for the Corps. It would, in a pervese way, aso protect the soldier if the charges are dismissed in that the matter had been heard by a quasi judicial officer and no further action taken.

JW

Jag, I don't doubt your legal analysis for a second. It makes perfect sense to me.

But my question is, can the soldier be held to the Geneva Convention standards when in an area that does not abide by them? A non-uniformed combatant in a civilian structure tried to kill our armed forces and was wounded. Also, the same combatants use their "faking" and "surrender" as a tool for suicide/homicide. It just seems unfair to convict a person for a violation the enemy can't be held accountable for.

Secondly, was the first group of Marines that wounded the guy and left him there in violation as well? If this Marine can be convicted for a violation, didn't they violate the same by leaving the guy there to die instead of giving him medical treatment?

Obviously, this is conjecture and there might not be a fact contained anywhere in this entire thread. But based on the video and what we've hear, this seems to be the case. Had somebody not violated international law the day before, maybe there should have been no wounded guy laying there waiting to get capped.

The following or not following of the Geneva Conventions is a National Command Authority action. Reprisals are only allowed in certain circumstances and the execution of prisoners is not one of them.

Arguably the Insurgents are bound by the Conventions as a levee or as partisans to the former regime -- which is a signatory. Of course perfidy and trickery would deprive someone of the protections, but that does not appear to be the case here. The person was wounded and out of combat.

Finally - even if they are not following the conventions - we do, and are bound by common Article 3 - basic humane treatment. And even if we are not following the conventions he still probably runs afoul of the UCMJ.



Different standard. We have to give them the same treatment we give our guys. If they were waiting for pickup based upon triage procedures, then they have no problems. We have NO duty to risk ourselves to retrieve their wounded, however, once they fall within our control, we assume duty of both treatment and protection.

If we left them there to die, then we would indeed have issues. Our medics are trained to treat everyone and base the treatment decisions upon medical need not uniform.



Sadly, that may be the case.

B

Oh, okay yehoshua. The problem isn't that he shot an unarmed wounded person, the problem is that it was reported about. Geez, who the hell does the media think it is, reporting about situations that affect the world like the War on (yes, on) Iraq? Obviously our priorities must be not with ensuring that situations like this don't happen again, but by making sure that when they do, no reporters are there to report on it.

I am in no way an expert on anything remotely military-related. While I do understand the danger of people faking their deaths, I think this whole "well if he hadn't killed the unarmed, wounded man he could have killed them all!" is more than a little... absurd. Exactly how was this unarmed wounded man a threat to all these heavily armed soldiers again?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

So was the Marine justified? No, no, no, never ever ever. Unless I learn that the Iraqi prisoner was genetically modified to be able to spit poison or something, he was absolutely no threat whatsoever and the Marine had no business killing him. None.

Temporary insanity comes up, but I'm pretty sure that insanity makes you crazy, not malicious. There are all these insurgents out there killing our soldiers, and I will never label them terrorists. I'm almost certain the majority of them just wanted to live their lives until we came over and started bombing the crap out of them to punish them for the actions of their undemocratically-elected leader... who is now captured and who were are still punishing the Iraqi people for the actions of. There are people over there using the war as an excuse to wage religious war, and those people truly are malicious and terrorists (the beheading of Margaret Hussan (sp?) comes to mind). But for your average Joe, who was living his life until we dropped bombs on his house and killed his family, and now understandably wants us the hell out of there, I will never label him a terrorist or "insurgent." Do our soldiers deserve their fate? Never. All the blame for their deaths I lay squarely at the feet of our esteemed President, whom if he hadn't sent them over there and created the massive anti-American resentment with his arrogance and blindness and sheer stupidity ("they hate our freedom!"... not because we've killed thousands of them), they would most likely be alive.

Would I have done the same thing "in the heat of battle"? What battle was going on in this mosque again? In any case, no I would not have. I would have seen a wounded unarmed man for the non-threat he was.

As for consequences, with my military ignorance I have no idea. The guy was not a threat, no matter the hypothetical situations people on this thread have concocted about this. And I have a major problem with the "he's faking his death" justification... how the hell do people know this??? If you're injured and have had no medical attention, possible infections and god knows what else, well yes you're going to be passing out and unconscious and such. This does not mean he was "faking his own death." He was unarmed, exactly for what reasons would he fake his death again? So he can attack this armed soldier in a room full of them and they can riddle his body with bullets? Please. I have seen no evidence that this prisoner even had reasons to fake his death, much less that he was doing so.

Suzy, I think you need to at least take an objective look at the situation our young Marine found himself in. You need not agree with the war, but at least take into consideration the mindset of those we are fighting against, and imagine yourself in that Marines shoes.


You may have missed the numerous examples of insurgents boobytrapping dead bodies of their comrades, detonating explosives as they lay wounded to take out more infidels, and the use of the white surrender flag, then opening fire. You realize that in accordance with their view of their faith, they have no problem sacrificing their life in martyrdom to go on to an afterlife populated with 72 virgins, or white raisins, depending on your reading of the Koran......
Do you feel the same anger towards the insurgents at their use of mosques and hospitals for military purposes? Do you vent rage at the indiscriminate killing of their own countrymen, most of whom are innocent bystanders? The beheading of a woman who had dedicated her life to helping people, which oddly hasn't had the media exposure this Marine has garnered......?


I don't mean any disrespect, but you don't know what you would have done. You haven't seen your squad mates killed and maimed by perfidy and trickery. You haven't been in that situation, after days of combat, in an urban environment with three dimensional threats. And you hadn't been wounded the previous day.
The Marine may have indeed been in the wrong. But were his motives? Had you been in his squad, you may agree with his caution. An explosive device or a grenade could have easily taken out every Marine in that room. And they knew that, because they've seen that. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.
It's easy to sit in front of the computer and cite the Laws of Land Warfare and the Geneva Conventions, and be totally, legally correct. And feel morally justified in that thought.
It's quite another point of view when your life is constantly in danger, or worse, when you're responsible for other soldiers or Marines. Do you exercise extreme caution? Do you trust your gut? Do you do what you think will protect your men, and deal with the consequences later?

The investigation will bear out the facts, and if the Marine is in the wrong, I'm sure he will face his punishment with the stoic knowledge that he thought he was doing the right thing at the time. I find myself feeling sympathy for his predicament, because I'm not sure what I would have done in that exact situation.

But in Fallujah, caution is the watchword of the day.

The US military says marines in Fallujah have shot and killed an insurgent who engaged them as he was faking being dead, a week after footage of a marine killing an apparently unarmed and wounded Iraqi caused a stir in the region.

"Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent who while faking dead opened fire on the marines who were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets," a military statement said.

Link

The camera man who took the footage has released an open letter about the incident. You can find it here.

http://www.kevinsites.net/

That shed's alot of light on the situation. The Marine clearly was out of line. The reporter word's the situation well and make's a good point.