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 3)

cactoblasta

on Nov 22, 2004

Sorry if I snapped. But it just irritates me when people compare real life to movies, particularly Spielburg movies. How stupid and ill-informed do you think I am that the sum of my knowledge of the horrors of war would come from B-grade American movies? Make comparisons to the death camps of the Burmese railroads or the terror-caused mass civilian deaths of Panama, Cambodia and Dresden and you treat me with at least a minimum of respect. Make comparisons to a movie and you may as well say that all readers are too stupid to understand the point you're trying to make.

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

Do you really believe this? Would there be any limits on what you would do to avoid death? I'd rather be carried by six than shoot a child who's throwing rocks. I'd rather be carried by six than gas a group of Jewish prisoners. If we want to be the good guys we do have to ascribe to a higher moral code of some sort. Of course if you, like our resident icecream expert believe in evil for its own sake then I guess contemporary morality doesn't apply. But I'd like to think that a nation who consistently speaks in terms of good and evil would have the courage to judge, whether for or against, a soldier who shot an injured, unarmed man.

He may not deserve to be guilty, but we have a responsibility to ourselves to find that out rather than ignoring it for the sake of avoiding casualties on our own side.

MythicalMino

on Nov 22, 2004

I have never said it doesn't deserve an investigation.....not once have I said this.....but i believe the marine was justified....it is WAR.....

Now, as to your other blatant misunderstandings....was I speaking of kids throwing rocks? Was I speaking of gasing Jewish prisoners? I really don't believe I was.....

Sorry you were so insulted by my referral to a "B grade movie", especially a movie that WW2 vets ascribe as to being as close to the real thing as you can get.....you obviously still want to "misinterpret" what I am saying....so be it....the real funny thing is....we are basically agreeing on this....go figure.

I give up

Daiwa

on Nov 22, 2004

Update -

Having read Kevin Sites's firsthand account of the events Link, I must revise my opinion of the incident.

It seems possible that the Marine did over-react under the stress. That doesn't change the fact that he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but I now believe we need to reserve judgment until the investigation is complete.

The Marine is innocent until proven otherwise, but it is reasonable to question the circumstances. When all is said & done, I think the totality of those circumstances led the Marine to believe the terrorist to be a threat.

Cheers,
Daiwa

MythicalMino

on Nov 22, 2004

When all is said & done, I think the totality of those circumstances led the Marine to believe the terrorist to be a threat.

And this is what I stand on.....

Splateaux

on Nov 22, 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.

This isn't quite true.

There are many things that could have made the killing justisfied in the eyes of the UCMJ, Generva Convention, etc... These are things that will be investigated.

One of these things might be:

Let's say the enemy (in this case the rebel Iraqis who don't have a UCMJ, nor do they feel inclined to follow the Geneva Convention) has made a habit of "playing dead" until American forces are close, and then blowing themselves up. Does this sound like a tactic they would probably employ? From the amount of suicide bombings we've seen, I think that it might. Well, let's say that his platoon has run into a few situations where people have done this... and you found someone "playing dead".

What do you do?

There are probably many other situations that could make his actions justified. None of us were there, and we're basing our judgements on just a little bit of information.

If it's found that he did just kill the man with no cause, then yes, he should spend the rest of his life making big rocks into small rocks.

MythicalMino

on Nov 24, 2004

What do you do?

Walk up to the man, kneel down before him and beg forgiveness for being an American....hold a 3-day long summit about the cruelties and injustices done to terrorists...ask him if he needs anything.....oh wait....by then, he might have already been blown all to hell....

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!