SPEAKING OF WAR CRIMES

SPEAKING OF WAR CRIMES


Kevin Sites is a freelance journalist on assignment with NBC News in Iraq, and he is currently acting as the imbedded journalist covering the fighting in Fallujah. His video report, which was released this week and shows a U.S. Marine killing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque, has started a global wildfire.

Not surprisingly, those who are sympathetic to George W. Bush's war in Iraq have chosen to sidestep the issue at hand, and instead are screaming for Sites' head on a sacrificial platter. Unfortunately, deflecting the attention onto Sites does not erase what his camera recorded: a war crime, by any interpretation of the established laws of war. Sites did what the mainstream American media won't do, and simply recorded the uncensored story at hand (as competent journalists do). Judging by their reaction, Bush sympathizers don't appreciate "no spin" that has no spin.

Earlier that day in Fallujah, a Marine unit had captured the mosque and the group of wounded Iraqi militia inside the mosque. These Marines had finished treating the wounds of the Iraqis, and then left them to be collected by another Marine group, presumably for transfer to a prisoner collection area. When the second group of Marines arrived, the video shows them walking around the wounded Iraqis, who were lying on the floor of the mosque. A Marine is heard saying that one of the wounded Iraqis was pretending to be dead. In response, a fellow Marine is seen aiming his rifle point-blank at the Iraqi, shooting him in the head, and casually remarking, "Well, he's dead now".

No yelling, no screaming, no fighting, no chaos inside the mosque. The wounded Iraqis were lying on the floor, obviously unarmed. Bush sympathizers, in trying to justify what is shown on the video, speak of previous (and verifiable) incidents when Iraqi militia had boobytrapped their dead comrades, or incidents when wounded Iraqis had laid in wait for any American soldier to get close enough to be shot. These incidents have, in fact, happened. But the Bush sympathizers typically lose sight of what their argument's alternative says. By their argument, fearing such an incident in this specific case would be saying that the U.S. Marines, when leaving prisoners for another group to collect, are not intelligent enough to absolutely ensure that all weapons of any type have been taken from the wounded Iraqis. This argument has the first group of Marines treating the wounded Iraqis, and then just walking away, saying, "Gee, I sure hope they don't have any weapons".

With a generous portion of latitude, let's assume that this second group of Marines just happened upon the mosque and its group of wounded Iraqis, rather than having been sent there to collect the prisoners. If that were the case, these Marines have no business being in combat (or they have a death wish). As shown on the video, they are not storming the mosque in a battle, there are no shots fired, they are not attacking the mosque in any semblance of guerilla warfare tactics. They simply walk into the mosque. Obviously, they were sent there, and equally obvious by their lack of tactics is that they knew what to expect inside the mosque (and it wasn't a firefight).

Another argument being used in an attempt to justify the killing of this Iraqi prisoner is that a war is stressful, and this Marine may have been under extreme stress at the time. I would like to take this opportunity to personally congratulate this Marine on his exemplary command of combat stress, as the video shows what appears to be an extremely calm and composed person shooting this Iraqi. There is not even a hint of stress in the entire incident, nor in the situation as a whole. But combat stress is different from the stress of everyday civilian life, right? It would be easy right now to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, and to say that I have no idea what combat stress is like. Unfortunately, I do know. I wish I didn't.

The predictable backlash from Bush sympathizers is aimed at Kevin Sites, rather than the Marine who did the killing. They say that Sites is "aiding the enemy". They say he is no better than "the terrorists". Pray tell, how in the world does a journalist aid the enemy by reporting the uncensored news? Are we supposed to believe that "the enemy" had no idea that American troops were capable of this type of incident? I guess we're supposed to believe that Iraqis in Fallujah haven't heard yet about the torture at Abu Ghraib. Does uncensored news really aid the enemy? Only if the enemy is a large group of Americans who have become accustomed to whitewashed spin-cycle "news"; a healthy dose of uncensored news is the very aid that they need.

Don't bother calling me unpatriotic or un-American. When I checked last, the American military was to be exemplified by their adherence to the laws of war, regardless of the enemy's lack thereof. I've been in combat - have you? I know the Rules of Engagement - do you? I know what the Geneva Convention says - do you? I don't want the next video to be of Iraqi militia killing unarmed and wounded American prisoners, excusing it away by citing "combat stress".....do you? The more this incident is justified, the more permission is given for the same treatment of wounded American prisoners. I hope you can justify that.


Steven A. Hass
Newzmaniac.com
--

From former SEAL Matthew Heidt:

Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers. Here is your situation Marine. You just took fire from unlawful combatants shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these kind of idiots, and like taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fireteam's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking english to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist that was just shooting at you from a mosque playing possum. What do you do?

You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what.

What about the Geneva Conventions and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand you first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experiences gained on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary which is a double No No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same... Marines get hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

Does this mean that every unlawful killing in Iraq can be justified by saying "oh well, he COULD MAYBE be some suicidebomber" Paco?

I'm threatened by George Bush, Paco. He scares the hell out of me and has done several things that could threaten my life and well-being. Does that give me the right to shoot him?

Actually it boils down to a larger question. What in the world is the military doing there in the first place? You invade and occupy a foreign country and then wonder why the people are shooting at you?! As that annoying chap on TV would say; "give me a break!"

That's the problem with imperialism, Polaco.

Look at this way...if somebody were to invade your country you'd no doubt be an insurgent. You'd likely end up fighting side by side with Bush supporters. If it happened here I'd end up fighting side by side with...well likely only people who share my views because our leaders are fifth columnists, but you get my meaning I'm sure.

I find it almost funny that Iraqis who fight back are somehow bad though. What the hell did Georgie think would happen?

I was reading the book "Hitler Strikes Poland". The Germans routinely refered to all those who fought against the occupation as "terrorists".

Turn you speakers on and click here:

--

--

Nice websites. However, we're talking about the war in Iraq, not Sept. 11.

That people are still confusing those two things is troubling.

Wow, couldn't see that coming!


That people insist on holding their eyes shut tight while desperately groping for a blindfold is troubling.
Wake up people, the war against Saddam ended a year and a half ago!

Video footage from a CNN cameraman who accompanied the troops showed a sign on a wall with the words "al Qaeda organization" in Arabic.

--

Al Qaeda, hmmm, rings a bell. Nothing to do with 9-11 though I'm sure, since there's no connection between 9-11 and the fighting in Iraq. Must be thinking of someone else.

the al-Qaida organization in Iraq slaughtered two ‘National Guards’ on Thursday afternoon

There's that Al Qaeda reference again, I'll have to look that up some time.

The Islamic extremist Al-Sunnah Army has threatened to attack polling stations and assassinate candidates because democracy is a “Western infidel” institution.

But surely, they're only defending their nation from an invading Army, as anyone would do.

--

For Al Qaeda, Iraq may be the next battlefield

You think?

--

Fallujah=War Crimes Central

Quite frankly, the whole Fallujah assault of "collective punishment" is a war crime.

Snuff Films and War Crimes in Iraq: Executing Injured Prisoners in Fallujah

"The recently broadcast NBC footage taken by an American journalist embedded with a Marines unit attacking Fallujah was unambiguous. In a badly damaged mosque, a US soldier has indeed shot dead from a close range, execution-style, an injured person who, according to the journalist himself, was severely injured, unarmed and did not pose any imminent threat.

In fact, several other Iraqis were reportedly found in Fallujah with single-bullet marks in their heads indicating a similar fate. It can be accurately concluded that US soldiers are still committing war crimes in Iraq with frightening ease and nauseating impunity."

US Snipers Slaughter Civilians Crossing Euphrates as AP Photographer Flees Fallujah

"I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river.''

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands.''

"I kept walking along the river for two hours and I could still see some U.S. snipers ready to shoot anyone who might swim. I quit the idea of crossing the river and walked for about five hours through orchards.''

'I got my kills ... I just love my job'

"Let Them Drink Sand!" -- War Crimes in Fallujah

"If there is anything that should fuel the outrage of the antiwar movement, it is surely the destruction of Fallujah and the war crimes being inflicted by US commanders on its civilian population, who are now being denied the most basic and essential source of life, water."

There is no credible evidence of al Qaeda in Iraq before the US illegally invaded. They came in after...a tribute to Bush's failure to close the borders...but there is no evidence they were there previously. Saddam's Iraq, brutal as it was, was very likely the most al Qaeda free country in the world.

Come on, Just the Facts...you have a name to live up to. [/quote]

I do not dispute this.

War is hell. If crimes have been commited, prosecute. That's what courtmartials are for.

The rest is drivel.

Remember that ol' Spencer Tracy movie about the Nuremburg trials?

Oh! How the Americans milked that for what it was worth!

Every crime can be linked back to the fact that there was never enough troops on the ground in order to maintain civility.
It is just as though the U.S. did this intentionally!
--

They fired everyone of authority and now sit back and blame Iraqi's for the turmoil. Israel does the same thing in Palestine. They cripple the citizens, they blow up all the police stations, they destroy all the infrastructure, then they blame Palestinians for the lack of law and order!

Calm

Courts-martial be damned. The US proved at Abu Ghraib that they wouldn't investigate up the chain of command. Instead they mete out a punishment to the lowest person they can.

That's not acceptable. If they won't investigate properly, won't try to find all of the guilty, then the rest of the world has an obligation to.

And the worst news .....

The Iraqi soldiers being used are Kurds from the north. They are not too well liked by the rest of the population. The Kurds represent only 20% of the population and yet the US gave them veto power over any constitutional changes.

This is only gonna increase the violence and the U.S. knows it.

Calm

They might know it, but they don't care.

A cartoon "He Found God"

--

Your fear of George Bush and your perception that he threatens your well being is called a phobia. I suggest you see a doctor who will prescribe the appropriate medication and hospitalization.

In the mean time, if the fear is too much for you to overcome, I invite you to attempt this delusional assassination of your neighbor and ally. I'm sure the U.S. Secret Service will provide you a place of rest in lieu of the hospitalization.

Phobias are unfounded, Paco...this is based on things he has done since coming to power.

From the Washington Post...

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 21, 2004; Page A25

Zarqawi and some subordinates traveled in and out of Iraq starting in 2001, after leaving Afghanistan and having fought the Soviets in the 1990s. U.S. intelligence analysts have watched his movements since the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. Since Zarqawi's declaration of loyalty to bin Laden was posted on an Islamic Web site, intelligence officials and others have sought to determine what it means for his current position in Iraq and his intentions for the future.

There are literally hundreds of newspapers and intelligence (other than U.S. claims) that say Zarqawi left Afghanistan after being injured by coalition forces and receiving medical treatment from Saddam in Iraq before we went in there.

So all that evidence is not credible?

Nevermind. Don’t bother. I don’t expect a rational answer.

what do you think we've been saying all this time, ffs?

i can't believe you argue with everyone for two pages and then turn around and regurgitate the very point you've been arguing as if it was your own original and epiphanaic idea.

I travelled to the US many times when Reagan was in power. Does that mean that the NDP were secretly supporting him and are now supporting George Bush?

The fact is that there is no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda. Members of the Bush regime have admitted that in the mainstream press, just as they have admitted there were no WMD.

You talking to me? If so, one of us must have just woke up in, or just returned from, the twilight zone. I've never argued this point. I said it's not a war crime. Doesn't mean it's not a crime. And I said the nature of this war is a mitigating circumstance, but not an excuse.

Now, what have YOU been saying all along, (FFS)?