Marine to Be Court-martialed For shooting Injured Insurgent.

[EVILxxx]

This is the jist of the story so far as I've heard it...
A squad of marines were patrolling through a Mosque that had been cleaned out during fighting the day before. As they were searching the corpses one of the marines shouts "He's fucking faking it he isn't dead!" and shoots the terrorist.
Now these marines have just spent the last week getting shot at. Furthermore, the insurgents have been known to play dead and when the marines/soldiers get close enough they kill them.
I think he acted accordingly to save his life, as well as the lives of the men in his squad.
I have a terrible feeling that this poor guy is gonna be crucified by the media. It's ok that these guys are running around decapitating civilians, heaven forbid a marine has a a combat reflex after 6 days of intense urban combat.
I may just write to the whitehouse about this one.

[Lynn7]

I heard that there will be an investigation as there should be in all these incidents but it seems pretty certain that this guy will not be charged with anything. Many people have been saying that becasue these guys have been faking dead and then killing soldiers it is only logical that our soldiers would be fearful. I agree. If I had to go into places where someone could blow my head off I would be on my gun too. Brave guys-they deserve all the support they can and I hope the media will be fair. War can be ugly.

A lot of people who live in Fallujah are so grateful that the US came in- they were upset they waited so long. It seems these guys have been terrorizing the residients for the last 8 months, enforcing Taliban style rules on the people. women who arent covered head to toe are shot etc.

[EVILxxx]

I am not so optimistic. I have a feeling certain people will want to crucify this kid. Many examples have been made on lower levels( Abu-Gahrab) to appease the anti-war radicals. Time will tell.

[JCR]

Oh as if dubya gives a fuck about the anti war radicals! This is about winning hearts and minds people, and you cannot be seen to shoot unarmed men. You can all make excuses, but the 96% of the population of this planet who are not usa citizens ain't buying them!

Oh and Lynn I seem to recall us having a debate regarding the likelyhood of free and fair elections in iraq in january. Just for my own amusement do you want to try and tell me they're still going to happen? Ha ha. (Sorry but I have a point.)

[EVILxxx]

So taking into account all i have just said, you still feel this guy should be judged and convicted. . . . wow.
And I'm pretty sure Bush does care about all the anti-war types, it is 95% of Europe, you know.

[JCR]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
So taking into account all i have just said, you still feel this guy should be judged and convicted. . . . wow.
And I'm pretty sure Bush does care about all the anti-war types, it is 95% of Europe, you know.

Well the video is on www.ogrish.com and although "I would hate to judge before the facts are in" (to quote dr strangelove) it is fairly compelling.

[JohnTheHenchman]

This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. The guy acted on gut instinct, and you have to act quickly in these situations.

[chilli pepper]

Bullshit, absolute bullshit. These people arm dead bodys with bombs subsequently killing plenty of marines and this guy gets court martialed for instinctively protecting himself, FUCKING BULLSHIT.

[Jim H]

I have mixed feelings here. I think if he is to get in trouble, it should be relatively low, not like 20 years hard labor or anything. But at the same time, he was under extreme duress... One thing no one has mentioned is that this soldier was shot IN THE FACE less than a week earlier. Maybe he should have had a little bit of time off? I don't know.

[Tweek]

you cannot be seen to shoot unarmed men.

But how could he know the guy was unarmed?
If the guy WAS armed, he'd have been a dead man.
Plus, he could have been carrying a bomb

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Jim H
I have mixed feelings here. I think if he is to get in trouble, it should be relatively low, not like 20 years hard labor or anything. But at the same time, he was under extreme duress... One thing no one has mentioned is that this soldier was shot IN THE FACE less than a week earlier. Maybe he should have had a little bit of time off? I don't know.

Excellent observation. I'd bet he was rather punchy after receiving that wound. He may have needed to hang in the backfield for a while and adjust to combat situations again. Also, I agree with the post above it from chili pepper. Insurgents are very crafty and would arm the dying or severely wounded to ensure maximum casualties to the US troops. So the line of thinking from this soldier wasn't entirely wrong.

I can't help but notice how I'm in agreement with people who have had some education on combat here. It's because I see the logic in the statements, as opposed to the usual 'America doesn't give a shit' nonsense.

:rolleyes:

[The Postmaster General]

I can't figure out why there is always a journalist there. Can't the military adopt some sort of "no camera" rule. They have one at Wal-Mart, and you never see about any atrocities going on in there.

[QUENTIN]

I'm about as anti-war as you can get, and I think Iraq is one big clusterfuck of a horrible mistake that gets worse everyday. I'm very critical of many of the U.S. Soldiers who are committing atrocities there (if you support the soldiers at Abu Ghraib, you're a senseless jingoist who is totally apathetic to human beings)...but I actually don't really see anything wrong with what was done. The fact that the guy was in for less than a week, got shot, and asked to go back out the next day and this happened may raise some questions but... The Iraqi soldiers have been known to play dead and then kill GIs as they pass. As part of the Geneva Convention, you cannot play dead. So there are two scenarios: the soldier was faking dead and was shot accordingly, in which case I think the American soldier made a good judgment call (as far as the rules of war go) in protecting himself and his buddies. He called out "He's faking it! He's fucking faking it!" or thereabouts, which to me seemed like he was alerting the other troops, as in "He's got a bomb!" or "There's a sniper over there!" etc... so this seems in line with, he was protecting himself by shooting someone who posed an immediate threat.

Scenario two says the Iraqi soldier was just unconcious, lying still but alive. Perhaps the "He's faking it!" was to justify shooting him, make it look like he posed a threat as an excuse to shoot him, but while possible this seems a lot more far-fetched. The soldier may have very well have just been unconcious, but how is the American soldier to know that? Turn him over and put himself in a more dangerous situation? If it were an Iraqi civilian, I'd be pissed, civilian lives before soldiers because they are not part of the fight, but it is a soldier. Soldiers on different sides are enemies and it makes more sense to ensure the life of yourself and your side by possibly shooting an unconcious enemy than it does to go out of your way and put your life on the line to assure the safety of the enemy.

Maybe, because now anything this guy does will be critiqued and he would have to be monitored closely, the guy should just be honorably discharged, but I don't see anything wrong with what he did and I don't think he should receive any punishment.

[EVILxxx]

If he is discharged because of this it won't honorable. The only way he would be discharged is if he was convicted of a wrong-doing, in which case he would be dishonorably discharged and, more than likely, thrown into jail for the better part of his life.
I predict that the liberals will not be compassionate towards this young man.
And by liberals I mean the crazy ones. . . not you guys on the board :D

[electriclite]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
So taking into account all i have just said, you still feel this guy should be judged and convicted. . . . wow.
And I'm pretty sure Bush does care about all the anti-war types, it is 95% of Europe, you know.

All this kid is going to get is a slap on the wrist. An airforce pilot flew into cable wires in Italy that caused a suspended cab to drop civilians to their deaths and he was never charged. So you're telling me they're gonna give hell to a soldier during wartime for killing a supposed terrorist?

Don't buy it, even if the "anti-war radicals", as you put it, put up a stink.

[JCR]

Originally posted by Tweek
But how could he know the guy was unarmed?
If the guy WAS armed, he'd have been a dead man.
Plus, he could have been carrying a bomb

NO NO NO NO

I could not give a good fuck if the dead guy was armed or not- I've watched the tape several times and it is a major propaganda victory for al qaeda- the usa is shooting a man that appears to be unarmed in the tape. USA won the war but it means fuck all if you can't win the peace. The soldier deserves to get in the shit not mainly because of his actions, but because he was stupid enough to let a tv crew film him do it.

You may wanna defend this guy, but I believe his actions may have cost usa lives by people taking revenge, so defend that.

[<3mekthx]

I've watched the tape several times and it is a major propaganda victory for al qaeda

Agreed.

The soldier deserves to get in the shit not mainly because of his actions, but because he was stupid enough to let a tv crew film him do it.

It's not like this was some elaborate premeditated murder. This was a split second decision. Calling him 'stupid' is simply silly.

You may wanna defend this guy, but I believe his actions may have cost usa lives by people taking revenge, so defend that.

It probably has/will cost us some lives as the Abu Grahb pictures did. I do not blame this solider though.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
So taking into account all i have just said, you still feel this guy should be judged and convicted. . . . wow.
And I'm pretty sure Bush does care about all the anti-war types, it is 95% of Europe, you know.


you are, of course, working under the monstrous presumption that we aren't the country who instituted something as utterly moronic as 'freedom fries'.

i personally think the guy should be held responsible for his actions, but there should be his mental state taken into account, as in any case.

if i were a judge in this case, i would give him manslaughter, straight to psychiatric evaluation and therapy rather than jailtime.

<waits for barrage of cynical pro-war comments to follow>




Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by darchangel
you are, of course, working under the monstrous presumption that we aren't the country who instituted something as utterly moronic as 'freedom fries'.

i personally think the guy should be held responsible for his actions, but there should be his mental state taken into account, as in any case.

if i were a judge in this case, i would give him manslaughter, straight to psychiatric evaluation and therapy rather than jailtime.

<waits for barrage of cynical pro-war comments to follow>




Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

*begins barage*:D

Look Angel (please don't take this in a negative way) you have not the slightest incling of what it is like to be in combat. You have not the faintest clue of what it is like to have bullets whiz by your ear, and you knowing had it been a few millimeters to the left you would no longer have a head and your family would have to bury their child. You haven't the smallest notion of what it is like to see one, two, ten of your friends killed. Put yourself in this mans shoes, or even put yourself in his parents shoes.
See my point? :cool:

[darchangel]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
*begins barage*:D

Look Angel (please don't take this in a negative way) you have not the slightest incling of what it is like to be in combat. You have not the faintest clue of what it is like to have bullets whiz by your ear, and you knowing had it been a few millimeters to the left you would no longer have a head and your family would have to bury their child. You haven't the smallest notion of what it is like to see one, two, ten of your friends killed. Put yourself in this mans shoes, or even put yourself in his parents shoes.
See my point? :cool:


i do see the point; that's why i said i'd take his psychological well-being (or lack thereof) into consideration.

i think there should at least be an investigation...the 'faking' man could have been seriously wounded or in a coma, not trying to lure him in for a sneak attack. what if that was the case?

if we dismiss it without so much as an investigation, that gives military forces a clear signal that the US doesn't care if they kill wounded/dying/defenseless people, and after seeing some of those pictures of US soldiers posing for goof photos with Iraqui corpses, that just freaks me the f*ck out.

if soldiers begin to use the 'John Wayne' mentality, then we're going to end up being the army who shoots first and asks questions later...i don't want that kind of guilt for even being ASSOCIATED with a country that allows those kinds of military practices...it makes us no better than any other terrorist group who kills without hesitation.

however, if the soldier was seriously traumatized by the heavy combat prior to this incident (which seems evident from what other schmoes have been saying), he should not be punished; rather, he should be allowed to come home and begin therapy to try and help some of the psychological damage caused by his time in service.

so i DO see your point...the question is, do you see mine?

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[jeo4]

It is an excellent point that the soldier had suffered psychological issues and needed some down time before being set into combat situations again. Another question I have is what were this guys orders? It's obvious he was warned about this sort of thing from his reaction. So was he told to shoot to kill? If not, then there may have been a real disconnect in his mind when the Iraqi moved and he shot.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by darchangel
i do see the point; that's why i said i'd take his psychological well-being (or lack thereof) into consideration.

i think there should at least be an investigation...the 'faking' man could have been seriously wounded or in a coma, not trying to lure him in for a sneak attack. what if that was the case?

if we dismiss it without so much as an investigation, that gives military forces a clear signal that the US doesn't care if they kill wounded/dying/defenseless people, and after seeing some of those pictures of US soldiers posing for goof photos with Iraqui corpses, that just freaks me the f*ck out.

if soldiers begin to use the 'John Wayne' mentality, then we're going to end up being the army who shoots first and asks questions later...i don't want that kind of guilt for even being ASSOCIATED with a country that allows those kinds of military practices...it makes us no better than any other terrorist group who kills without hesitation.

however, if the soldier was seriously traumatized by the heavy combat prior to this incident (which seems evident from what other schmoes have been saying), he should not be punished; rather, he should be allowed to come home and begin therapy to try and help some of the psychological damage caused by his time in service.

so i DO see your point...the question is, do you see mine?

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

I absolutely see your point and do think some kind of investigation should be carried out. All I'm concerned about is it turning into a witch hunt, or this man becoming a scapegoat.
I would also like to say that this mans defence isn't necessarily gonna be that he was "crazy", he was defending himself and his men.
I don't know if the man was in a coma although there is a good possibility he was wounded in someway. I don't think they just noticed him breathing, because I'm sure they see plenty of dying people when they clear those buildings out.
You said if you were a judge you would give him manslaughter. I don't think that applies to a combat situattion such as the one they are in.

Another question I have is what were this guys orders? It's obvious he was warned about this sort of thing from his reaction. So was he told to shoot to kill? If not, then there may have been a real disconnect in his mind when the Iraqi moved and he shot.

I have not seen the footage but I have heard it on the radio. Unless it was edited somewhat what is heard is "Look that one isn't dead, he's fucking faking". Then a gun shot is heard. I don't think the person speaking was the one who fired but I can't be sure. So from what I understand he wasn't ordered necessarily.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I absolutely see your point and do think some kind of investigation should be carried out. All I'm concerned about is it turning into a witch hunt, or this man becoming a scapegoat.
I would also like to say that this mans defence isn't necessarily gonna be that he was "crazy", he was defending himself and his men.
I don't know if the man was in a coma although there is a good possibility he was wounded in someway. I don't think they just noticed him breathing, because I'm sure they see plenty of dying people when they clear those buildings out.
You said if you were a judge you would give him manslaughter. I don't think that applies to a combat situattion such as the one they are in.


did i say he was crazy? no. i said he may have suffered severe psychological trauma. BIG difference.

if he killed a wounded, unarmed man (and i'm not saying he did, i'm saying IF he did), it is grounds for murder, regardless of whether or not is a combat situation.

during Vietnam, Lt. William Calley rounded up over 350 unarmed citizens and had them killed in what was later called 'The Mylai Massacre'. Calley was afterwards charged with murder, even though the Vietnamese were 'the enemy'.

if this soldier was not undergoing psychological trauma and this insurgent was gravely wounded and unarmed, the same standards could logically also be applied to him.



Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[EVILxxx]

did i say he was crazy? no. i said he may have suffered severe psychological trauma. BIG difference.
I know that isn't what you meant.

if he killed a wounded, unarmed man (and i'm not saying he did, i'm saying IF he did), it is grounds for murder, regardless of whether or not is a combat situation.

during Vietnam, Lt. William Calley rounded up over 350 unarmed citizens and had them killed in what was later called 'The Mylai Massacre'. Calley was afterwards charged with murder, even though the Vietnamese were 'the enemy'.


I am familar with this incident and it really has no connection to this situation. First you are talking about non-combatants. Second this man wasn't "rounded up". He was on the ground with a bunch of dead bodies probably surronded by rifles and grenades. Third these 350 civilians weren't a threat. I am not sure of all the details but the testimony of the people present (including the news crew) is enough to satify me.

[Criminal Rock]

i think there should at least be an investigation...the 'faking' man could have been seriously wounded or in a coma, not trying to lure him in for a sneak attack. what if that was the case?

If the enemy moved, then I’m sure he's not in a coma... just to clarify.