Marine Urinated On Haditha Victim

[Libra Girl]

Marine urinated on Haditha victim

The US marines say they came under fire after a roadside bombing
A US marine angered by the death of a comrade has admitted that he urinated on the body of an Iraqi civilian killed by his unit in Haditha in 2005.
Sgt Sanick Dela Cruz also said his squad leader shot five of the Iraqis as they stood with their hands in the air.
Sgt Dela Cruz was speaking at a hearing for one of the four officers charged with dereliction of duty for failing to investigate the killings.
Three other marines have been charged with second-degree murder.
Iraqi witnesses say the shootings were in retaliation for a roadside bomb that had killed Lance Cpl Miguel Terrazas as his convoy drove through Haditha, 240km (150 miles) north-west of Baghdad, on 19 November 2005.
'Bad thing'
Sgt Dela Cruz told the military courtroom at Camp Pendleton in California on Wednesday of the distress he felt after discovering the explosion had ripped Lance Cpl Terrazas, known as TJ, in half.



US inquiries into Iraq deaths
"I know it was a bad thing what I've done, but I done it because I was angry TJ was dead and I pissed on one Iraqi's head," he said.
He also testified that after the explosion Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich had shot dead five men as they stood by a white car with the hands in the air.
"They were just standing, looking around, had hands up," he said.
"Then I saw one of them drop in the middle."
"Looked to my left, saw Sgt Wuterich shooting."
Afterwards Sgt Dela Cruz said he himself had "sprayed" the bodies with gunfire.
"I knew they were dead, I wanted to make sure," he explained.
Immunity
Sgt Wuterich then shot each of the men in the upper body and head, Sgt Dela Cruz testified.

He told me that if anybody asked, [we should say] they were running away and the Iraqi army shot them

Sgt Sanick Dela Cruz
"He went to every single one of them, sir, and shot them," he added.
"He told me that if anybody asked, they were running away and the Iraqi army shot them."
Sgt Wuterich's lawyer, Neal Puckett, said Sgt Dela Cruz's account was "false" and that he had told investigators up to five different versions of the events.
"It's unfortunate that in exchange for his freedom he's being forced to testify against his brothers," Mr Puckett told the Associated Press.
In April, the Marine Corps dropped all charges against Sgt Dela Cruz and granted immunity in exchange for his testimony.
If found guilty, the three marines charged with second-degree murder could face life imprisonment.
The Haditha inquiry is just one of a number the US military has been conducting into incidents of alleged unlawful killings by US forces in Iraq.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6641843.stm

 

[thomaska]

"And here with the late news, our anchor Libra Girl".....

 

[Libra Girl]

Ah... I guess it's already been covered then. lol

 

[earth_as_one]

Yes the event occurred a while ago, but resulting war crimes trial is a current event. This seems to be the only string referencing trial testimony.

Just to bring anyone who doesn't know about the Haditha massacre up to speed here is a BBC news item:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY9CG3t0sVg&NR=1

Testimony Continues In Case Of Marines Accused Of Killing Iraqis

POSTED: 9:02 am EDT May 10, 2007


CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. -- Testimony is expected to continue Thursday in a military hearing in a case that involves several Marines, including a Connecticut man, accused of killing Iraqi civilians.

A Marine sergeant testified Wednesday that Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, a native of Meriden, shot several Iraqis without provocation in November 2005 in the town of Haditha.

That Marine said Wuterich told him several times to lie, and to say they were shot by the Iraqi Army while running away
Wuterich is among four Marines charged with murder, accused of killing 18 civilians. His attorney said the man who testified Wednesday has changed his story several times, and that his account is false.
The testimony came at a preliminary hearing Wednesday for a Marine lawyer who's accused of failing to properly investigate the deaths. The hearing is part of an Article 32 investigation, the military's equivalent to a grand jury proceeding....
http://www.nbc30.com/news/13292577/detail.html

Since the military trial is in the US and doesn't appear to involve Iraqi eye witnesses, I doubt the victims will have justice.

But many war crimes have been committed against the Iraqi people, and the list of criminals starts at the whitehouse. What difference does a symbolic roasting of a few people at the bottom make? I doubt anything that happens in this trial will change anyone's opinion about the war.

Lessons of Iraq war underscore importance of UN Charter - Annan

[SIZE=-1]16 September 2004 [/SIZE]– Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes that the Iraq war in 2003 demonstrated the need for the international community to address the issue of preventive action in the context of Charter principles and showed the importance of joint efforts on matters of use of force, a United Nations spokesman said today.
Responding to media questions about the Secretary-General's comments in a BBC interview, spokesman Fred Eckhard told a press briefing in New York that in his remarks the Secretary-General had reiterated his well-known position that the military action against Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter. In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=Iraq&Cr1

So far no world leader has gone to trial or been held responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. In fact most of the leaders responsible for this carnage have since been re-elected. What does that say about ultimate responsibility?

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003​

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours [/FONT]

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall

Video (Real) Video (Real)

</B> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Audio[/FONT]

En Español





8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.
The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep. Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

10 days earlier:

SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003​

Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC​

Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix​

Mr. President,


For nearly three years, I have been coming to the Security Council presenting the quarterly reports of UNMOVIC. They have described our many preparations for the resumption of inspections in Iraq. The 12th quarterly report is the first that describes three months of inspections. They come after four years without inspections. The report was finalized ten days ago and a number of relevant events have taken place since then. Today’s statement will supplement the circulated report on these points to bring the Council up-to-date....

...We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed...

...
To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including 4 training missiles, 2 combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines have been destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme.

Two ‘reconstituted’ casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete.

The legality of the Al Fatah missile is still under review, pending further investigation and measurement of various parameters of that missile.

More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to restate what Iraq had already declared, some will require further study and discussion.

There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on...

...Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

The real criminals responsible for the Iraq war will likely have statues built in their honor.

 

[thomaska]

And here's some stuff you won't see unless you look for it. Because it just doesn't fit into the media's view of the military or its agenda:



Convincing evidence that corroborates NewsMax.com's accounts of the Haditha insurgent ambush has compelled the prosecution to take extraordinary steps to bolster their crumbling case.
The stunning announcement that all charges are being dropped against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, formerly accused of murder in the Haditha incident where 24 Iraqis were killed during an insurgent ambush against the Marines, is indication that the prosecutors have a very weak case against all the defendants, lawyers for the some of the accused say.
Crumbling Case


"Dela Cruz provided several sworn statements to the government," Mark Zaid said. Zaid is one of the attorneys representing defendant Sgt. Frank Wuterich adding that as part of its obligations the government turned over statements to Wuterich's defense team. "Unless there's something new that he is suddenly going to come forward with, it's not entirely clear that it's damaging to my client at all," Mark Zaid, one of the attorney's representing Sgt. defendant Frank Wuterich, told NewsMax.com.

For more:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml?s=lh

But the mainstream media won't run this stuff, and most of you will just shrug off testimony that doesn't support your vision of bloodthirsty Marines raping and pillaging their way through the unwashed masses of "innocent" Iraqis.

 

[Libra Girl]

And here's some stuff you won't see unless you look for it. Because it just doesn't fit into the media's view of the military or its agenda:

For more:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml?s=lh

If this is indeed true, as the link portrays, then it is the most shocking betrayal upon our soldiers, by the pentagon.

 

[Curiosity]

Libra Girl

There is shocking betrayal of much of the military every day in the media within the U.S. and Canada and no doubt many other nations.

I don't know how their families (who have literally allowed their loved ones to be put in harms way) can stand reading the news every day - or seeing what the media choose to put on television.

There is very little support and the military are presented as blooththirsty warmongers who shoot children and the elderly.

I am surprised after VietNam anyone would want to serve at all - ever. The public treat them as if they are demons.

Marine urinating on victim - is just one of thousands of stories which are fed on a daily basis.

 

[earth_as_one]

Well if NewMax reports this witness who has mounds of evidence backing up NewMax's version of events then these soldiers must be innocent. What was New Max's version of events anyway?

When is the girl who claims she witnessed American soldiers slaughter her family going to testify? When are the rest of the Iraqi eye witnesses going to testify? When will the video of the freshly killed dead bodies be shown? If the only evidence in this American military trial comes from Americans soldiers, how likely is it that Iraqis will have justice?

I really don't see the point of a "trial" which completely ignores eyewitness accounts and video recordings of the aftermath. Sounds to me like the prosecution isn't trying too hard and will probably accept that killing innocent civilians in this fashion is part of what it takes to get the job done.

The way I see it, these soldiers and this trial aren't the real problem anyway. They are symptoms of problems. The real problems are a war justified by lies and misinformation and Iraqi civilian expendability. Probably a million Iraqis have died as a result of an illegal war, yet no one is responsible. I doubt Americans would have let Saddam Hussein off the hook so easily.

 

[Curiosity]

Earth

What makes this 'girl' any more credible than the military (in your mind that is).

If Iraqis feel they are at 'war' with the U.S. military - we'd like nothing better than to bring them home to sanity.

There is none in Iraq - they can keep that hell hole.

And no it isn't oil - the U.S. has not extracted one quart from that nation and it has cost the taxpayer of the U.S. plenty for nothing except lies and more terror.

 

[earth_as_one]

C, evidence of a war crime in this case is about as blatant as it can get.

One of the soldiers has even testified that he and other soldiers killed unarmed people who had surrendered and then went to nearby houses and killed more unarmed people. He even admits to pissing on their splattered brains. A little girl claims she witnessed American soldiers enter her house and kill her family. She claims she survived by pretending to be dead. Video evidence shows dead babies in the arms of their dead mothers and execution style killings, supporting their testimonies.

The American military trial which has a jury of fellow American soldiers will never hear the lone survivor's testimony, the testimony of other Iraqi witnesses or see the video evidence which supports their testimony. I rate the chances of justice being served as slim to none. These soldiers will recieve little to no punishment for their heinous crimes. This incident is only remarkably in that it led to a sham trial. Most other incidents which have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead civilians will never even get a sham trial.

Iraqis already have a low opinion of American soldiers. I doubt this incident caused any of them to change their opinion.

America's leaders will keep American soldiers in Iraq for as long as it remains profitable. I see no evidence that these war criminals are affected by the deaths of American soldiers or Iraqi civilians. By the way, Iraq wasn't always a hellhole. Before the war, Iraq was peacefully suffering from crippling economic sanctions. There were no insurgents, no car bombings, no foreign soldiers committing war crimes and no civil war. The US led invasion turned Iraq into the hellhole it is today.

President Bush's ultimatum speech referenced above is aptly titled "Denial and Deception". That about sums this war up.

 

[Walter]

War is heck.

 

[earth_as_one]

War is heck.

I've heard that.

 

[earth_as_one]

Human behavior in a war zone cannot be judged by the same standard as in a peace zone. Soldiers cannot second guess themselves or they wind up dead. No soldier should fear serving their country with honor and distinction. They should fear dishonor.

A soldier's actions must be judged according to a strict military code. A military tribunal should consist of experienced, objective veterans. In the case of international wars, juries should also be international.

Sentence should be based on degree of dishonor resulting from malicious intent, negligence, incompetence...

Few soldiers approve the above alleged behavior. Malicious intent, incompetence and negligence appear to be factors in this case.

If these soldiers are judged guilty, an appropriate sentence might be community service... as directed by Haditha's civilian leadership.

 

[missile]

If there are such things there left standing,the cleaning up of the public urinals would seem to be appropriate.

 

[earth_as_one]

Life of cleaning urinals in Haditha... would be a fate worse than death.

 

[tracy]

Libra Girl

There is shocking betrayal of much of the military every day in the media within the U.S. and Canada and no doubt many other nations.

I don't know how their families (who have literally allowed their loved ones to be put in harms way) can stand reading the news every day - or seeing what the media choose to put on television.

There is very little support and the military are presented as blooththirsty warmongers who shoot children and the elderly.

I am surprised after VietNam anyone would want to serve at all - ever. The public treat them as if they are demons.

Marine urinating on victim - is just one of thousands of stories which are fed on a daily basis.

See, I don't get that at all. I realize the media run the bad cases and all that, but every single person I know "supports the troops". Those yellow stickers, wrist bands, ribbons, etc. are all over the place around here. My marine friend even jokes about it. We were talking about the possibility that his flight might be oversold and he said the airline would always put soldiers on first and they'd just bump another passenger (like a Canadian perhaps ). We went to SeaWorld and the show started with a tribute to the military. People even bought us drinks when we were at a bar near my place one night. Maybe it's because there are some big bases nearby or something, but I've always been surprised at how open Americans are about loving their soldiers.

 

[earth_as_one]

I would not be pissed if I was bumped off an overloaded plane to accomodate soldiers. I'd considerate it something out of my control, like the weather. I think its fair that veterans get preferential treatment for health care, employment opportunities, free education...

Perhaps someone can explain what support the troops means, if these soldiers are guilty of war crimes? Does it mean pinning a medal on them and sending them back on patrol in civilian areas?

 

[earth_as_one]

I do what I can to support Canada's military. I have delivered training to Canada's military during which I put in an extra effort to make sure they got more than what they paid for. I fully intend to give Canada's military a break on costs as well.

Those are the tangible ways I can support the troops. Putting a yellow sticker may be a nice gesture, but it doesn't put food on a table...

So its awfully silent out there. Can anyone tell me what supporting the troops means in the case of soldiers who dishonor the uniform by committing war crimes?