Illegal Killing?

[kevin]

"In fact, in my humble opinion, we aren't even dealing with humans."

--careful....no matter how much you hate someone's actions or think them barbaric, they are still human (even if their actions aren't). not realizing that often leads to more barbaric actions.

i dont think what the marine did was right or wrong, but was prudent. tough situations.

 

[Godspeed]

"In fact, in my humble opinion, we aren't even dealing with humans."

--careful....no matter how much you hate someone's actions or think them barbaric, they are still human (even if their actions aren't). not realizing that often leads to more barbaric actions.

Agreed. Just tough to consider them human beings when they resort to such actions.

 

[nittany03]

Agreed. Just tough to consider them human beings when they resort to such actions.

To quote Buster Kilrain from The Killer Angels, "there's many a man alive no more value than a dead dog." Human yes, always, but there are many over there who deserve the bullets we're giving 'em. One side does its damndest to save human lives, and the other thinks killing 40-year-old women and booby-trapping dead bodies is just a great idea. There are some bad eggs in our military (Abu Ghurayb) to be sure, but it's tough watching shipmates take the moral high ground and get gunned down for it. If the Corps had used the insurgents' tactics, Iraq would be a parking lot and our troops would all be home by now. Yet we're better than that and it's a shame more people don't understand that fact.

 

[Fly Navy]

I read that first and thought of the Civil War book "Killer Angels" and was like "WTF is nittany on CRACK? That's not in there!"

 

[nittany03]

Actually the first sentence is lifted almost direct from the book (and the movie), but the rest is just my improvised rant.

 

[Fly Navy]

Haha ok. It was your improvised rant that I confused.

Great book by the way, I'm reading it for the second time, coincidentally.

 

[El Cid]

To quote Buster Kilrain from The Killer Angels, "there's many a man alive no more value than a dead dog." Human yes, always, but there are many over there who deserve the bullets we're giving 'em. One side does its damndest to save human lives, and the other thinks killing 40-year-old women and booby-trapping dead bodies is just a great idea. There are some bad eggs in our military (Abu Ghurayb) to be sure, but it's tough watching shipmates take the moral high ground and get gunned down for it. If the Corps had used the insurgents' tactics, Iraq would be a parking lot and our troops would all be home by now. Yet we're better than that and it's a shame more people don't understand that fact.

I agree, not a lot of people take the time to inform themselves about the reality of what is going on in Iraq. People just take headliners as the whole story. It would be nice to hear the whole story for a change. Instead of "Marine shoots unarmed militant" we could hear "Marine saves five in his unit and a civilian reporter by clearing machine gun nest" hmmm I guess that's to hard, huh?

 

[Cate]

I agree, not a lot of people take the time to inform themselves about the reality of what is going on in Iraq. People just take headliners as the whole story. It would be nice to hear the whole story for a change. Instead of "Marine shoots unarmed militant" we could hear "Marine saves five in his unit and a civilian reporter by clearing machine gun nest" hmmm I guess that's to hard, huh?

Well, uh, yeah. "Marine saves five in his unit and a civilian reporter by clearing machine gun nest" makes a crappy and ineffective headline. Usually, papers include a subhead with pertinent information like that, but people rarely read it. And if people choose not to read the subheads/ledes/articles, the paper can't be blamed for people not knowing. I will admit that the media must make a better effort to report the news free of spin in either direction; in return, the readers have to actually read the freaking articles instead of just skimming the subheads and assuming that a) they are now informed and b) the media hates the military.

 

[Fly Navy]

Well, uh, yeah. "Marine saves five in his unit and a civilian reporter by clearing machine gun nest" makes a crappy and ineffective headline. Usually, papers include a subhead with pertinent information like that, but people rarely read it. And if people choose not to read the subheads/ledes/articles, the paper can't be blamed for people not knowing. I will admit that the media must make a better effort to report the news free of spin in either direction; in return, the readers have to actually read the freaking articles instead of just skimming the subheads and assuming that a) they are now informed and b) the media hates the military.

I agree, but not wholly. The media can be very sly with their headlines, and they KNOW it. For instance:

"20 people killed in Iraq." vs. "20 enemy killed in Iraq." Sure, they both do technically say the same thing, 20 people died, but I guarantee you that many will first think "20 US soldiers killed in Iraq" or "20 civilians killed in Iraq". I see this all the time. In fact, in many of the articles, you sometimes won't find out that it was enemy soldiers killed until further in the article.

Like you said, people are guilty of not reading the articles... but the media is guilty of spinning their headlines.

 

[Cate]

Like you said, peple are guilty of not reading the articles... but the media is guilty of spinning their headlines.

Now, what did I just say?

I will admit that the media must make a better effort to report the news free of spin in either direction

Hmm?

10 chars

 

[Fly Navy]

Hey, I was up sick last night (after getting off AIM) and only got 3 hours. I'm not very... mentally aware right now

 

[Slammer2]

Heres a link I found to the reporter's website. He writes a letter trying to explain why its necessary for him to change the world.


Reporter responds

 

[Flash]

They have no problems killing unarmed civilians.

I have no sympathy.

Shouldn't have shot him. Should have cut off his head.

Having been gone for a while I just saw this thread and am a little disgusted. I am not disgusted at the Marine in the story but with some of the opinions on this thread. As members of the US military we all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and follow all lawful orders among other things. Among those orders are ones saying that we are suppose to follow the guidelines of a little thing called the Geneva conventions, of which we are signatories. While they are not perfect they provide guidelines on how military personnel should act in a war zone. To ignore them because they are inconvenient is a poor excuse. Why do we try and follow these seemingly stupid rules? They try and prevent the worst abuses of war, a noble but sometimes futile effort.

Am I to pretend that stuff like this does not happen with more regularity than most of the public would care to admit? No, it has happened many times in the past and will continue to happen in the future. But punishing those who do commit abuses will help limit others from doing the same things.

just remember guys-- whether you think that what this Marine did was right or wrong-- very few people know what happened immediately preceeding the video footage, and immediately following it. the camera operator caught the 'right' moment on tape-- but no one knows what happened in the second before.

Very true, I hope it comes out in whatever proceedings/trial they have for the Marine.

I could go on forever but I will close out with something I heard repeatedly as a kid "Just because someone else does it doesn't mean you have to, if someone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge would you?". Just because the insurgents act like barbarians doesn't mean we should, we don't need to sink to their level. We are better than that.

 

[gaijin6423]

I think, perhaps, that the point has been missed.

If the Marine in question did, in fact, knowingly shoot and kill an unarmed Iraqi who was technically and legally classified as a non-combatant, then yes, he did break the ROE. And if that's the case, then he should be punished.

However, I think the major gripes that a lot of the people (myself included) are as follows:

1. The matter is one that is highly dependent on both the Marine's judgement, the situation, and any number of other things. To question the Marine in question's actions, without knowing the full facts and to not give that Marine (who has most likely been separated from his platoon--his family--since the incident, and been forced to deal with his concience alone) the benefit of the doubt, is appalling in itself. If the facts prove that the Marine was at fault and acting maliciously, then the Marine will be acquitted, and vice-versa. Until then, I think it is important to remember that this young man could have been any of us or any of our siblings, and I for one wouldn't hang my brother or sister out to dry.

2. The media. People talk about how the media shouldn't be allowed in combat zones, etc. Personally, I think it's a good thing to have them there, most of the time. They provide a civillian's perspective to ongoing operations, and in most cases, they tend to present a fair and heroic picture of what we're doing in Iraq and other places. That sort of thing works more wonders than all the recruiting posters or videos ever made. The real problem comes about when the media is so desperate for a story that they'll report anything, regardless of how irresponsible it is to do so. If you want an example, look at Giraldo Rivera (sp?) during the opening stages of the war. That is the kind of stuff that doesn't need to happen, but people push the issue and it does.
And when a reporter gets caught trying to send signals on camera that reveal the unit's location and future targets, that puts people's lives in danger.

Personally, I've got quite a few friends over in Iraq right now, with more on the way. I've already had a few give their lives, and I'd prefer not to have any more do so, especially not because a reporter either gave away secure information or prevented them from doing their jobs by second-guessing their decissions.

 

[Cate]

It's also important to remember that the media are there with the cooperation of the military. While individual units/commanders/troops/as you will have voiced their personal objections, the Big Guys In Charge, on behalf of The Military as a whole, welcome embedded reporters as long as they comply with the rules that they've laid down. Pool footage is submitted to local military authorities for review before it's sent out to the networks. Anything that could endanger the troops or the missions is cut - they've been particularly careful of this since the Geraldo incident. The vast majority of the footage, though, is allowed to go out, no matter how good or bad it makes the US look, because both the military and civilian sides want an honest portrayal of the current situation.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, officials at the Pentagon looked at the story the networks had put together and said, "Listen, we'll need you to sit on this while we formulate a response." And believe it or not, the networks sat. In the case of this Marine, his commander looked at the tape and said, "Listen, we'll need you to conceal that Marine's identity for his own safety until this gets sorted out." And his identity was concealed, and the rest of the tape was allowed to go out unaltered. This isn't just an issue of reporters running around looking for dirt; it's also an issue of the men in charge making the decision to allow the public to see what's going on, even when it isn't particularly flattering.

God willing, a full investigation will show that the Marine had perfectly good reasons for doing what the tape showed him doing, and that will be that.