Marine kills unarmed Iraqi - Murder? I don't think so.

Published on November 16, 2004 By cactoblasta In Current Events

I'm sure we've all seen the dramatic footage from NBC and its worldwide affiliates of the US marine shooting an unarmed and seriously wounded Iraqi (from style of dress and surrounding equipment almost certainly a rebel). The fading to black with the inclusion of full audio was particularly dramatic, and certainly got my attention as I worked on the news last night.

But is a war crimes tribunal really necesary for the young man who pulled the trigger? Some who've probably pigeonholed me as a member of the "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show" set (I love that description of a non-conservative) might consider my attitude to be a little strange.

But personally I think there are several possible explanations for the shooting. The first, and due to the audio available possibly the least likely, is that it was a mercy killing. ie that the marine felt that the best thing to do for the poor terrorist was to end his suffering. Unlikely yes, but without further evidence we can't yet be sure.

Secondly he may have done it as a result of his own recent injuries. Anyone who's studied the effects of war on a psyche will be aware that personal injury can do harmful things to a mind, and perhaps he was inflicted with some sort of randomised veangeance disorder. So whilst it might be murder, the circumstances seem to negate the need for jail-time or anything serious apart from being sent home for treatment. This too seems a little unlikely for my mind, but not impossible and certainly more rational than the next explanation I could come up with.

The final possibility worth considering is that in cold blood he made the rational decision to inflict pain and suffering and murder the young man in the full view of a film crew and several marine (probably supportive, but still) witnesses. I consider this unlikely. There was no order to shoot, and there were hardly overtones of the death prison. Whilst only a full investigation will uncover the truth, I would be greatly surprised and a little disappointed if a tribunal decided to make him a scapegoat for a common wartime event. Abu Ghraeb was a lot different to a combat patrolman losing it momentarily, and I don't think the punishments should be similar for what are two entirely different phenomena.

What do you think?

Comments (Page 1)

Psikotik

on Nov 16, 2004

The 3 reasons you list for why he may have done this don't matter. The killing of a unarmed, injured man goes against the UCMJ, Geneva Convention and what this country stands for. There is no justification for what he did, and he should face the full consequences of his actions.

voodoostation

on Nov 16, 2004

The spin I'm perceiving from the news outlets is the soldier killed the insurgent as an act of retribution for being shot in the face the day before. Completely erroneous and dangerous direction to take the story, in my opinion. Was this a case of cold blooded murder? I don't believe so either. This is war, this is a combat zone, this squad was clearing this mosque (for the second time in two days) and previous incursions into buildings had already yielded booby-trapped corpses. Now if you walk past a bunch of dead bad guys and one of them moves, what would be your reaction. Personally, I would have emptied my clip, but that's just me.

cactoblasta

on Nov 16, 2004

Considering how trigger-happy I get in psychological shooter games like Doom 3 and its ilk, I can only imagine how bad it is in real life where it's real bullets and real traps. I appreciate the opinion of an actual soldier voodoostation.

Psikotik - as I'm sure you're aware from the various law courts in the world, there are always extenuating circumstances. I consider a combat situation to be a very extenuating circumstance, especially as he only fired a few shots. A psycho could have made the corpse 'dance' or sliced him up with a knife. This guy did neither. So I don't think he deserves to be hit with the full force of the law.

Psikotik

on Nov 16, 2004

This is war, this is a combat zone, this squad was clearing this mosque (for the second time in two days) and previous incursions into buildings had already yielded booby-trapped corpses

They weren't clearing the mosque, they were investigating whether insurgents were in the mosque again. There had been no boobytrapped bodies in the mosque in the first assault, the boobytrapped body was a few blocks away and the two soldiers who entered the mosque from the rear had already established the insurgents were injured and unarmed before the shooting took place. The five men in the mosque were left there from the previous days fighting.

Psikotik

on Nov 16, 2004

Psikotik - as I'm sure you're aware from the various law courts in the world, there are always extenuating circumstances. I consider a combat situation to be a very extenuating circumstance, especially as he only fired a few shots.

He didn't just fire a few shots, he walked up to him and put a bullet in his head. As for the "trigger-happiness" playing Doom, you are playing a game and were not trained to work in a combat zone. These men are supposed to be.

cactoblasta

on Nov 16, 2004

Are you sure he walked up to him? From the video I saw the shooter was at least 5-10m away before the fade to black. And the shots came pretty soon after that fade.

voodoostation

on Nov 16, 2004

If you were to put a bullet anywhere else it just wouldn't be as effective. "Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs."

MythicalMino

on Nov 16, 2004

war is war....and war is hell.....do you think for one second that if that marine was the one laying there, and that insurgent was the one walking past would have helped him up and offered to give him medical attention? No....in fact, the insurgent would possibly had grabbed the closest rusty knife and went towards the throat to proudly display the head of the marine....

To be honest....Rules for War is a joke....

Psikotik

on Nov 16, 2004

That's what I said in my first post. That's what makes us better than them.

messybuu

on Nov 16, 2004

It's funny. On one hand, the U.S. is obliged to follow rules that place it at a disadvantage to the terrorist, but on the other, the same people bitch at how the U.S. isn't effectively stopping the insurgents and the beheadings.
Of course, innocent people dying is much worse than terrorists being mistreated.

MythicalMino

on Nov 16, 2004

and this is the point i was attempting to make....Vietnam vets were treated so badly due to this same type of issue....besides....i seem to have read that Kerry did the same thing (ran down a wounded enemy, shot him)....does that mean he should be charged to the fullest extent to the "law"? Like I said...in war....it is either us or them....I would much rather it be them. If this marine DIDN'T kill him, and he was booby-trapped, or armed while faking death...and he killed one of our guys, Bush would be blasted for the death.....

Psikotik

on Nov 16, 2004

i seem to have read that Kerry did the same thing (ran down a wounded enemy, shot him)

The kid Kerry shot was carrying an RPG, the Iraqi was unarmed.

MythicalMino

on Nov 16, 2004

an enemy is an enemy is an enemy....and a wounded enemy is still an enemy.....and a wounded enemy is even more dangerous than a physically fine enemy. That wounded man could very well have been "carrying" under his cloak or robe (or whatever). Bombs can be hidden....all in the name of Allah....

Besides, the kid that Kerry took out was wounded, right? AND trying to retreat, right?

cactoblasta

on Nov 16, 2004

Try and keep the Kerry-bashing to a minimum guys. The election's over and it's time to let humiliated sleeping dogs lie.

Solitair

on Nov 17, 2004

What do you mean by a war crimes tribunal?

The soldier has rightly been taken off duty while this incident is investigated. The investigation will determine what exactly happened and whether the soldier needs to be charged. That's the law working as it should.

If the soldier did indeed shoot dead an unarmed injured enemy then he would have seriously broken US rules of engagement as well as the Geneva conventions and would have to stand trial. Extrenuating circumstances would be unlikely to change this, especially if the enemy were already confirmed to be unarmed. It may possibly change the level of the punishment though. Soldiers have got away with just discharges for similar shootings.

paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!