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 2)

notsohighlyevolved

on Nov 17, 2004

I think one thing should be remembered - their is a very fine line that separates a professional army from a group of people with guns. Technology aside, it basically comes down to the professionalism exhibited in combat situations.

Being a professional soldier, and by inference a professional military is not predominately determined by how many or how quickly you kill. It is determined by allowing context, command and discernment to determine how many and how quickly you kill.

It appears that this "incident" was not only an affront to humane behaviour but also to military professionalism.

Dr Guy

on Nov 17, 2004

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

that had already been fired, hence making him unarmed at the time of the shot. Same situation.

T_Bone4Justice

on Nov 17, 2004

notsohighlyevolved, great post and I agree with you. Something else to keep in mind is that this soldier will be given a lawyer and a fair trial. His lawyer will and can present any mitigating, extenuating, or aggravating circumstances in his defense to the Court. Those circumstances may not let him off of the legal hook, but it will certainly have an effect on the severity of his punishment if he is found guilty. It could make all of the difference in the world. Holding ourselves to the same standard (and in some cases to a higher standard) than our enemies, allows us to claim the moral high ground. This is helpful with showing civilians that our cause and our philosophies are just. It also helps to curb the occurrances of civilians supporting, encouraging, or joining the insurgency. It is in our own long-term interests to do so and any military leader worth his/her salt will tell you the same thing. It does not mean we care more for the terrorists or the enemy than we do our own brave soldiers...it means we live by a higher standard.

Daiwa

on Nov 19, 2004

It is very straightforward in my view.

What happened was not a war crime, it was war.

The Marine was fully justified, based on lethal tactics previously used by the terrorists (discussed ad nauseum elsewhere).

The military's investigation should determine that the Marine was acting appropriately, fulfilling his duty to protect his fellow soldiers and accompanying civilian(s) (the reporter).

No lawyer, no court-martial.

Next terrorist, please.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Texas Wahine

on Nov 19, 2004

Next terrorist, please.

There's my second Insightful for the day. Your entire comment was right on, IMO.

notsohighlyevolved

on Nov 20, 2004

No lawyer, no court-martial.

Next terrorist, please.

Jesus Christ! We've seen the results of "taking the gloves off" - 3000+ people in a skyscraper dead!

Vietnam should have taught us that it's not just the danger of not being able to look around and distinguish friend from foe, but also of looking into the mirror and not being able to make that very same distinction.

One thing to come home dead, one thing to come home a hero, but its another thing all together to come back home a murderer.

cactoblasta

on Nov 20, 2004

I think there should be a investigation, but it shouldn't a sham either way - he shouldn't be made a scapegoat, but nor should he be let off scot-free. There must be consequences, and I don't believe he should be returned to active duty either way. If he's not rational enough to keep it out of the view of a camera it's only a matter of time before he does something really stupid.

MythicalMino

on Nov 21, 2004

is it true that he felt he was threatened, and that his unit was threatened by a man, who has been very recently, shooting at either him or his brothers in arms?

If so...who CARES if the camera was there!!!!!! To me, that marine did the right thing....he eliminated a threat (doesn't matter if he was later discovered to not have a weapon)....he was looked upon as to being a threat.

Remember in Saving Private Ryan, the Americans spare the life of the German....then, in the last battle, that same German show NO mercy???? Why can't ppl understand what happened there? If you are a marine, and you are in on a battlefield, and your prior experience is that these guys are lying and blowing ppl up with booby-trapped bodies, saying they are surrendering, then to turn around and shoot, or again, blow themselves up (taking some americans with them).....I would hope that COMMON SENSE would be used, and shoot.....not wait to see if you see an explosion.

cactoblasta

on Nov 21, 2004

Remember in Saving Private Ryan, the Americans spare the life of the German....then, in the last battle, that same German show NO mercy????

That was a movie you know.... don't you? It's not evidence at all of, well, anything, least of all the duplicity of Iraqis. I'd rather hear about your research into military strategy and US Army policy on encountering wounded hostiles. I'm sure someone on high has made a policy statement about what a professional soldier is supposed to do. Compare that with common practice in Iraq and you might be onto a legitimate defence, although it might be one that places the blame on the Army leadership or the circumstances of the war.

MythicalMino

on Nov 21, 2004

I wasn't using it as evidence, exactly....it was more....relatively speaking, maybe.....in that, that type of stuff happens....and American soldiers are usually the ones to get the screwy end of the deal. It has been nearly 10 years since I was on active duty....I honestly don't remember the exacts of how to deal with wounded hostiles....but that key word, "hostiles", should tell you soemthing.....they are hostile, and will try to kill you. In war, my personal opinion, it is kill, or be killed. Especially when you are fighting an enemy that has no honor (really, to "surrender", then fire under the white flag, or to fake death, or booby-trap yourself....or one of your dead soldiers....deep contrast there.....the terrorist are booby-trapping their dead, while marines refuse to leave their even their dead behind).

An interesting note, when I was in basic, one of the drill sgts had told us about the .50 cal, that it was not to be used to fire at humans, but rather, only on equipment.....and this is something that I have always remembered.....he then went on to say, "but that gun he is carrying, that is equipment. That kevlar, his clothes, any gear he may be carrying....that is equipment."

When you are a soldier, and you are in combat, on a battlefield....you either do what you need to do to survive.....or you simply don't survive. I have heard the phrase lately: "Would you rather be judged by twelve, or carried by six?"

That pretty much sums it up for me.....that marine did what he felt needed to be done to insure his safety, as well as the safety of his fellow soldiers. When you have miliseconds to decide what needs to be done....instincts take over. He reverted to what he was trained to do....make war...kill, or be killed. What is actually happening over there, is that American Soldiers are renowned for their generosity and mercy (speaking in general terms here, how they are trained)....and the terrorists are taking advantage of that....but, perhaps not anymore.

I like the idea that i read somewhere, that maybe the US needs to just pull out of the Geneva Conventions, and say that they will uphold their standards of warfare, until the enemy shows no regard to standars either. I mean, really....why should we continue to put ourselves at a constant disadvantage....and ppl saying that the US needs to be held to a "higher" standard....BULL....

Just one question....has Kerry made any comment about the marine? I would be interested in reading or hearing what he has to say about the whole thing.....especially after his War Criminal Campaign after he came back from Vietnam..... To be honest with you, I would hope he would say the man did what needed to be done....I would have a bit more respect for him (but still could NEVER vote for him).

Daiwa

on Nov 21, 2004

That was a movie you know.... don't you? It's not evidence at all of, well, anything, least of all the duplicity of Iraqis.

Cacto -

Come on. You understand the point he was making. He was not offering that as "evidence" of anything, just reminding people of one of the harsh realities of war. You can't trust an untrustworthy enemy who has no qualms about using that trust as a weapon against you. We can get all high & mighty sitting in the comfort of our homes blogging away in complete safety, but that Marine faced a potentially lethal threat and dealt with it. As he should have, for the safety of himself, his fellow soldiers and the civilians for which he had responsibility.

The following is opinion and you are welcome to disagree if you are so inclined. The people who want to make something of this, while shrugging off the tactics of the terrorists, not to mention the ungodly premeditated mutilation of innocent civilians, either have an agenda or have become so blinded by their emotions that they can't deal with reality. No soldier should be wantonly killing innocent civilians, but that's not what happened here.

Cheers,
Daiwa

cactoblasta

on Nov 21, 2004

The following is opinion and you are welcome to disagree if you are so inclined. The people who want to make something of this, while shrugging off the tactics of the terrorists, not to mention the ungodly premeditated mutilation of innocent civilians, either have an agenda or have become so blinded by their emotions that they can't deal with reality. No soldier should be wantonly killing innocent civilians, but that's not what happened here

Well, yes, that's largely what I argued in my article. Personally I seriously doubt he did it out of bloodlust. And of course people will turn current events to suit their agenda - the anti-war fanatics to claim the US army is brutal, the blind right-wingers to claim that left-wingers are evil for requesting investigations, the terrorists to add legitimacy to their own actions. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it. If you really have a problem with me expecting better supporting evidence than a movie then perhaps you'd find yourself more welcome at Democrats Underground or a Liberal Party conference.

Daiwa

on Nov 22, 2004

I'm not trying to get you hot under the collar, Cacto, or saying it shouldn't be discussed.

I do think you understand the point he was using the scene in Private Ryan to make.

And inviting me to move over to DU... Ouch.

Cheers,
Daiwa

MythicalMino

on Nov 22, 2004

like i said....the Private Ryan scene....that was to show relevance of the realities of war. Would it have been better to use the Black Hawk Down movie, when they drag the guy through the streets? The fact of the matter is this.....In war, you must do what you need to do to survive and come back home....or you just don't come back home....at least not breathing.

I would rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6.

And thanks Daiwa for actually understanding what I said and meant.....I thought it was clear.....

Texas Wahine

on Nov 22, 2004

I would rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6.

Funny you should mention that . . . it's something I hear a lot from the other wives.

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!