NationStates Jolt Archive

Nov 15, 2004 — LONDON (Reuters)
...Sites said the wounded had been left in the mosque for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. No reason was given why that had not happened.

A second group of Marines entered the mosque on Saturday after reports it had been reoccupied. Footage from the embedded television crew showed the five still in the mosque, although several appeared to be already close to death, Sites said.

He said one Marine noticed one of the prisoners was still breathing.

A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's fucking faking he's dead. He faking he's fucking dead."

"The Marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast," Sites said. No images of the shooting were shown in the footage provided to Reuters.

The report said the Marine, who had returned to duty after being shot in the face a day earlier, had been removed from the field and was being questioned by the U.S. military.

Sites said the shot prisoner "did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way."

http://www.treefort.org/~cbdoten/rvntanks/sp071632.jpg anyone?

Two units that were not involved in Friday’s fighting advanced on the mosque, one moving around the back and the second, accompanied by Sites, from the front. Sites said he could hear gunfire from inside.

Sites was present when a lieutenant from one of the units asked a Marine what had happened inside the mosque. The Marine replied that there were people inside.

“Did you shoot them?” the lieutenant asked.

“Roger that, sir,” the second Marine replied.

“Were they armed?” the lieutenant asked.

The second Marine shrugged in reply.

Sites saw the five wounded men left behind on Friday still in the mosque. Four of them had been shot again, apparently by members of the squad that entered the mosque moments earlier. One appeared to be dead, and the three others were severely wounded. The fifth man was lying under a blanket, apparently not having been shot a second time.

One of the Marines noticed that one of the severely wounded men was still breathing. He did not appear to be armed, Sites said.

The Marine could be heard insisting: “He’s f---ing faking he’s dead — he’s faking he’s f---ing dead.” Sites then watched as the Marine raised his rifle and fired into the man’s head from point-blank range.

“Well, he’s dead now,” another Marine said.

When told that the man he shot was a wounded prisoner, the Marine, who himself had been shot in the face the day before but had already returned to duty, told Sites: “I didn’t know, sir. I didn’t know.”

Self-defense could be accepted
The Marine who shot the man was removed from the field and returned to headquarters. The investigation will address why the wounded men were left behind for 24 hours, why four of them were shot Saturday and whether the killing observed by Sites was illegal.

© 2004 MSNBC.com

unless you have been in combat yourself, I don't think you or any of us are really qualified to judge those Marines..... but a Marine Court Martial and the JAG office will.

I think it's important to point out, that this may be a result of the tactics used by the insurgents. I've seen reports that they've fired on marines after drawing them in with a white flag, and also by pretending to be wounded

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3992137.stm

We moved on to a high-rise building and spent an hour and a half there, having initially gone to the roof because we spotted some Iraqis trying to surrender.

As soon as the translator stood up to take the surrender we came under heavy and sustained automatic and sniper fire from three different directions.

http://www.treefort.org/~cbdoten/rvntanks/sp071632.jpg anyone?

a classic image... but do you know the back story behind it?

The man about to be shot was a confirmed Viet Cong Major of Intelligence, who had been directly responsible for the death of the relatives (brother I believe and that brothers entire family) of the man about to shoot him.

Time Life series on the Vietnam War goes into the details

a classic image... but do you know the back story behind it?

The man about to be shot was a confirmed Viet Cong Major of Intelligence, who had been directly responsible for the death of the relatives (brother I believe and that brothers entire family) of the man about to shoot him.

Time Life series on the Vietnam War goes into the details
Yes, actually, I do know the story behind it, I was just pointing out that it could become another one of those very powerful pictures, irrelevent of what actually happened.

true.... this incident could be a problem for the US and the Iraqi government because many will try it based on the story, not knowing the actual reasons behind what happened.

a classic image... but do you know the back story behind it?

The man about to be shot was a confirmed Viet Cong Major of Intelligence, who had been directly responsible for the death of the relatives (brother I believe and that brothers entire family) of the man about to shoot him.

Time Life series on the Vietnam War goes into the details

Is that supposed to justify it?

John Kerry shot an unarmed wounded man. He then was elected senator and ran for president. John Kerry was never charged with a war crime. I think this marine will be. It is a shame. The man he shot was a terrorist.

I think this marine will be. It is a shame. The man he shot was a terrorist.

I though the election was over.

Anywho, the man the marine shot Was a terrorist?

Is that supposed to justify it?
yes
:sniper:

Is that supposed to justify it?

I am willing to wait until the JAG office investigates it (as it already has started to do so, reference to the Marine story)... and yes, I would kill the man who killed my brother if I had the chance.... if you wouldn't well then I respect your integrity, but I think most of us would. (reference to the Vietnam story).

As far as the Marine goes, apparently according to the report, he was shot the previous day by the Iraqis, and should not have been given the opportunity to act as he did. But I certainly understand his rage.... would most of us shoot an enemy, armed or not, if they had shot YOU the previous day.... I think the answer to that is probably yes.

I am willing to wait until the JAG office investigates it (as it already has started to do so, reference to the Marine story)... and yes, I would kill the man who killed my brother if I had the chance.... if you wouldn't well then I respect your integrity, but I think most of us would. (reference to the Vietnam story).

As far as the Marine goes, apparently according to the report, he was shot the previous day by the Iraqis, and should not have been given the opportunity to act as he did. But I certainly understand his rage.... would most of us shoot an enemy, armed or not, if they had shot YOU the previous day.... I think the answer to that is probably yes.
Which like it or not isn't legal and quite frankly stupid. You kill an innocent and unarmed man who did nothing to harm you (for all you know, he was just a conscript).

Which like it or not isn't legal and quite frankly stupid. You kill an innocent and unarmed man who did nothing to harm you (for all you know, he was just a conscript).

there are no conscripts serving on either side in the Iraqi situation at this time... the Iraqi conscripts already were released 2 years ago (when the Army was disbanded) and anybody fighting at this point is volunteer.

like I said before, unless YOU have been in combat, you or anyone else (myself included) is not qualified to judge this Marine, or his reactions or motivations... but the JAG is.

In the US, and all Western European nations, plus Japan, Canada, New Zealand and the rest of the Western world, a man is innocent until proven guilty.... including this Marine, and including that Iraqi... but it was a combat situation, and the blood was up. At worst, in a civilian court in similar circumstances the Marine would be charged with 2nd Degree murder or considered not guilty for reason of temporary insanity.

Tying a prisoner up, torturing him and then killing him is a definite war crime...that did not happen here, a squad of Marines (maybe just this one man) killed wounded while his adrenaline was up and while he was dealing with the afteraffects emotionally of being shot. This incident might be in the gray area between crime and war.

Let's not jump to conclusions. I'm in the military myself, in a job where I have to know a lot about the way terrorists operate. The Marine may have been afraid that the wounded man had a bomb strapped to him, or that he may have had a hidden weapon. Terrorists and insurgents are known for using those kinds of tactics. Plus, I'm sure the Marine was scared. Wouldn't you be scared if you were in that position?

Without having been there, and without having seen what happened, we are not fit to judge him. Let's wait till all the evidence comes out. So far, all you're going off of is a news report without any pictures.

(Not that what I say will cause anyone to be rational. No one ever changes their mind about anything.)

there are no conscripts serving on either side in the Iraqi situation at this time... the Iraqi conscripts already were released 2 years ago (when the Army was disbanded) and anybody fighting at this point is volunteer.

like I said before, unless YOU have been in combat, you or anyone else (myself included) is not qualified to judge this Marine, or his reactions or motivations... but the JAG is.

In the US, and all Western European nations, plus Japan, Canada, New Zealand and the rest of the Western world, a man is innocent until proven guilty.... including this Marine, and including that Iraqi... but it was a combat situation, and the blood was up. At worst, in a civilian court in similar circumstances the Marine would be charged with 2nd Degree murder or considered not guilty for reason of temporary insanity.

Tying a prisoner up, torturing him and then killing him is a definite war crime...that did not happen here, a squad of Marines (maybe just this one man) killed wounded while his adrenaline was up and while he was dealing with the afteraffects emotionally of being shot. This incident might be in the gray area between crime and war.

I agree with you that we should wait until the truth truly comes out before persecuting this soldier. I also agree that we cannot truly judge him until we have been in his shoes. But from the transcript where he is saying "He's fucking faking," I would say that this was just a cruel act of hatred. Now I can understand the hatred, but there is no way we can allow this to go unpunished. We are already having difficulty winning over the people there, and what happens when one of our soldiers shoots an unarmed Iraqi and gets away with it?

The report said the Marine, who had returned to duty after being shot in the face a day earlier, had been removed from the field and was being questioned by the U.S. military.

This could be an indirect reason..I know I'd be more than alittle pissy if someone shot me in the god damn face. Not to mention its not like the insurgents in Fallujah havent been using the Mosques for bases. This guy probably snapped in the field and took it out on a POW. But as said before we should wait until everything is figured out.

As for the guy who shot the VC chief..does it make it justified? Well compared to what the other side was doing as well..that line of justified actions was crossed awhile ago.

That story doesn't check out. If he had been shot in the face a day before, I guarantee you he would not be back on active duty. He would need serious surgery, and it would take him weeks at least to recover. I mean serious, think about it; in the face-- one day?

That story doesn't check out. If he had been shot in the face a day before, I guarantee you he would not be back on active duty. He would need serious surgery, and it would take him weeks at least to recover. I mean serious, think about it; in the face-- one day?

that bothers me too.... but that is what the story said... so I suspect we are missing some of the important details... it will all come out eventually.

Could have been a grazing wound.

a classic image... but do you know the back story behind it?

The man about to be shot was a confirmed Viet Cong Major of Intelligence, who had been directly responsible for the death of the relatives (brother I believe and that brothers entire family) of the man about to shoot him.

Time Life series on the Vietnam War goes into the details

Actually, the man shooting the other man was a (if I remember correctly) South Vietnamese military official, who personally executed the other man (who was a part of the Viet Cong) because he killed a South Vietnamese officer and his entire family. I'm also pretty sure that the photo won a Pulitzer prize (or something to the like). It was used by many anti-war demonstrators during rallies, even though they really didn't know the story behind it. (Please tell me if I'm totally off, but I'm pretty sure that's the story.)


War's a pretty messed-up "place". People become different when they have bullets flying over their heads constantly. No average human-being is really made to handle that kind of stress. Sometimes people just get paranoid. Maybe the guy was just weird to begin with, who knows...

a classic image... but do you know the back story behind it?

The man about to be shot was a confirmed Viet Cong Major of Intelligence, who had been directly responsible for the death of the relatives (brother I believe and that brothers entire family) of the man about to shoot him.

Time Life series on the Vietnam War goes into the details

dududu..da!

Vietnam War: after the Video/Pic is made public...The Military says:<<killed the brothers entire Family<<
that kinda excuses the man caugh on camera.

Iraq War: after the Video is made public...The Military says: <<was shot on the face the day before<<
that kinda excuses the man caugh on camera.

This story stinks of liberal propaganda so bad it's pitiful. Supossedly a US Marine gets shot in the face and returns to battle within 24 hours, runs straight to the enemy bastards mosque of choice, with a REPORTER mind you, and kills this one blink away from death moron, who if the shoe or sandal were on the other foot, would behead the Marine, violate the corpse, and justify it in the name of whatever he is told to at that moment in time.

A more believable story would have been " Embedded photographer shoots picture of wounded Soldiers face, Wounded Soldier shoots embedded photographer in the face."

The media is what you make of it. Honestly, can you respect the very media that time after time make up bullshit about the very people that protect thier ass and allow them to provide coverage to volital news events?

Please, ANYONE, Provide me with a link, a website, a news station, ANYTHING that shows embedded news reporters protected by non US or non US ALLIES, reporting foul play by those protecting them.

I agree with you that we should wait until the truth truly comes out before persecuting this soldier. I also agree that we cannot truly judge him until we have been in his shoes. But from the transcript where he is saying "He's fucking faking," I would say that this was just a cruel act of hatred. Now I can understand the hatred, but there is no way we can allow this to go unpunished. We are already having difficulty winning over the people there, and what happens when one of our soldiers shoots an unarmed Iraqi and gets away with it?

Unfortunately, this is what happens when you cry wolf.

There is a history of fighters in Iraq faking surrender, wounds, or other need for help. This guy probably should have been sure before he hauled off and shot someone, but I really can't blame him. And saying "he's fucking faking," to me, demonstrates that this guy really was afraid that he was being ambushed, just like so many soldiers before him.

"There is a history of fighters in Iraq faking surrender, wounds, or other need for help. This guy probably should have been sure before he hauled off and shot someone, but I really can't blame him. And saying "he's fucking faking," to me, demonstrates that this guy really was afraid that he was being ambushed, just like so many soldiers before him."

I would have to agree with this. Also I would have to agree that we are not qualified to judge him. I suppose some (or most of you) would have been happier if the wounded man had been faking and went and blown away a couple of marines, so then you could bitch about how we shouldn't be over there because we're losing too many soldiers. It's fucking war man, kill or be killed.

"There is a history of fighters in Iraq faking surrender, wounds, or other need for help. This guy probably should have been sure before he hauled off and shot someone, but I really can't blame him. And saying "he's fucking faking," to me, demonstrates that this guy really was afraid that he was being ambushed, just like so many soldiers before him."

I would have to agree with this. Also I would have to agree that we are not qualified to judge him. I suppose some (or most of you) would have been happier if the wounded man had been faking and went and blown away a couple of marines, so then you could bitch about how we shouldn't be over there because we're losing too many soldiers. It's fucking war man, kill or be killed.

Again: new posters should not be allowed to post until they have at least 200 posts. :)

Again: new posters should not be allowed to post until they have at least 200 posts. :)

Funny. Is that the best you can do?

Funny. Is that the best you can do?

YES! :D

Is that supposed to justify it?

Not at all. It's suppsoed to indicate that was a totally different set of circumstances. For one thing the shooter in that photo was a Vietnamese, not an American.

John Kerry shot an unarmed wounded man. He then was elected senator and ran for president. John Kerry was never charged with a war crime. I think this marine will be. It is a shame. The man he shot was a terrorist.

I'm not sure of the story behind this... do we know that the wounded men were terrorists? I mean, they could be civilians who got caught up in the crossfire. Correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.treefort.org/~cbdoten/rvntanks/sp071632.jpg anyone?

http://www.inminds.co.uk/my-lai-3.jpg

Thats the one I always remember when it comes to war crimes/killing unarmed etc. They weren't 'insurgents' though.

I'm not sure of the story behind this... do we know that the wounded men were terrorists? I mean, they could be civilians who got caught up in the crossfire. Correct me if I'm wrong.

From what I've heard they were wounded insurgents left behind by a previous group of Americans to be taken out, but the next group in were not aware of this.

It's quite sad to see people trying to defend this action. The video footage is pretty conclusive, and US forces have behaved in this way during other wars. The man is unarmed, no threat, a prisoner and in a mosque. The marine casually executes him and none of them seem to care. There is no justification for this kind of action and if an enemy had behaved in this way towards a US soldier then there would be outrage from all of you.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B0CB975D-B5E4-49C3-84B4-1ACAB9574347.htm

I've seen the footage today on TV news. It's beyond me how anyone, of any nationality, can not be revolted from his guts by that.

It's quite sad to see people trying to defend this action. The video footage is pretty conclusive, and US forces have behaved in this way during other wars. The man is unarmed, no threat, a prisoner and in a mosque. The marine casually executes him and none of them seem to care. There is no justification for this kind of action and if an enemy had behaved in this way towards a US soldier then there would be outrage from all of you.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B0CB975D-B5E4-49C3-84B4-1ACAB9574347.htm

...well I guess YOU'LL never be president, "TRAITOR"! :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes:

John Kerry shot an unarmed wounded man. He then was elected senator and ran for president. John Kerry was never charged with a war crime. I think this marine will be. It is a shame. The man he shot was a terrorist.
Bullshit. The election is over, it's ok now. You don't have to keep on with the lies about Kerry.

I know this has been said, but nobody has the right to question the actions and judge a soldier in combat except other soldiers who have seen combat.

...and no one has the right to question or judge a crack-whore except for somebody who has been a crack-whore. :rolleyes:

...and no one has the right to question or judge a crack-whore except for somebody who has been a crack0whore. :rolleyes:

Yeah, good comparison.

From what I've heard they were wounded insurgents left behind by a previous group of Americans to be taken out, but the next group in were not aware of this.
Do they EVER know what's going on?

Yeah, good comparison.

Thanks! :D

Fact is, nobody can walk any distance in anyone else's shoe. I am just so sick of this attitude that soldiers, and incidentally cops as well, are such a seperate and special class of people that ordinary people are unfit to judge them, or even to have opinions of them. People are people, and anyone on any jury should be able to put himself into the mindset of the accused, no matter how different that is from their own life, or else there is no point in having trials or juries. And yes, he will be tried in a court martial, so really all that repeating, ad nauseum, what you said means is, "shut up about this; unless you've seen combat you have no right to an opinion." Really. Where oh where are the freedoms our soldiers fight for?

Thanks! :D

Fact is, nobody can walk any distance in anyone else's shoe. I am just so sick of this attitude that soldiers, and incidentally cops as well, are such a seperate and special class of people that ordinary people are unfit to judge them, or even to have opinions of them. People are people, and anyone on any jury should be able to put himself into the mindset of the accused, no matter how different that is from their own life, or else there is no point in having trials or juries. And yes, he will be tried in a court martial, so really all that repeating, ad nauseum, what you said means is, "shut up about this; unless you've seen combat you have no right to an opinion." Really. Where oh where are the freedoms our soldiers fight for?

You're absolutely wrong. You can walk a few miles in their boots. I suggest you pick up a rifle and stand a post with the Marines. I think the fight is in Mosel now. Have a good time.

You're absolutely wrong. You can walk a few miles in their boots. I suggest you pick up a rifle and stand a post with the Marines. I think the fight is in Mosel now. Have a good time.

No, I'm absolutely right. Even a private on the front lines cannot walk in the boots of the guy marching next to him. But the supposition that a person can judge the actions of another that he has never been and can never be is at the root of our judicial system, or any judicial system. Despite this, he will be judged in a court martial, yet this does not deminish in any way the right of anyone to have an opinion, and to express it. Have a nice day.

No, I'm absolutely right. Even a private on the front lines cannot walk in the boots of the guy marching next to him. But the supposition that a person can judge the actions of another that he has never been and can never be is at the root of our judicial system, or any judicial system. Despite this, he will be judged in a court martial, yet this does not deminish in any way the right of anyone to have an opinion, and to express it. Have a nice day.

I agree, and I think having the military exempt from judgement and opinion allows them a lot of freedom from accountability, and makes room for abuses to occur and then be hushed up.

It's quite sad to see people trying to defend this action. The video footage is pretty conclusive, and US forces have behaved in this way during other wars. The man is unarmed, no threat, a prisoner and in a mosque. The marine casually executes him and none of them seem to care. There is no justification for this kind of action and if an enemy had behaved in this way towards a US soldier then there would be outrage from all of you.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B0CB975D-B5E4-49C3-84B4-1ACAB9574347.htm


excuse me, but that happens nearly every day, the terrorists behaving that way towards the US, and the outrage IS there. Quoting from and linking to al jazeera, which is not known for its unbiased and tolerant attitude by the way quite the opposite really, shows just how far you will go to conduct "trial by media" for something you have no idea about, have never experienced and most likely never will. The terrorists HAVE shown themselves willing to booby trap their dead and wounded, and to kill and maim US soldiers at every opportunity, whether they are wounded, walking , fighting or sitting in a pub drinking beer. Remember, these "insurgents" have also shown themselves quite willing to use carbombs against children waiting in line for candy. But then again, you may NOT know that as those of you so willing to bash the US forces always seem to ready ignore inconvenient facts.

It's quite sad to see people trying to defend this action. The video footage is pretty conclusive, and US forces have behaved in this way during other wars. The man is unarmed, no threat, a prisoner and in a mosque. The marine casually executes him and none of them seem to care. There is no justification for this kind of action and if an enemy had behaved in this way towards a US soldier then there would be outrage from all of you.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B0CB975D-B5E4-49C3-84B4-1ACAB9574347.htm Kinda like the many civilians beheaded by these same insurgents?

unless you have been in combat yourself, I don't think you or any of us are really qualified to judge those Marines..... but a Marine Court Martial and the JAG office will.
On the contrary. I believe we all have the right to judge the actions of others. We may be wrong, we may be misguided, but this attitude of "You can do anything you like but you can't judge me" is totally wrong. It leads to people doing whatever they like and exempting themselves from any control by society.

I've been told by Americans in particular not to judge them. Sod it, I'll judge who I like and praise or condemn where I see fit.

From what I've heard they were wounded insurgents left behind by a previous group of Americans to be taken out, but the next group in were not aware of this.
And what's with this word "Insurgents"? It's a bit like "Assult rifle" and other emotive terms.

For the most part, they're residents. Natives of Iraq who don't like their country being invaded.

If they were Americans defending an America which had been invaded you'd call 'em "Freedom fighters".

And what's with this word "Insurgents"? It's a bit like "Assult rifle" and other emotive terms.

For the most part, they're residents. Natives of Iraq who don't like their country being invaded.

If they were Americans defending an America which had been invaded you'd call 'em "Freedom fighters".

It's apparent you haven't been to Iraq. My brother is there (working for the US and Iraqi Government, not fighting in the military) and EVERY DAY different Iraqi people thank him and basically treat him, as he says, "like a rock star." Yes, there are some groups, especially groups loyal to Hussien, that hate that fact that Americans and other forces are there, but then general feeling of the Iraqi people is positive. It's the various media services that show the negative aspects of troops being there at all.
Although nothing excuses outright murder of anyone, especially an unarmed man, just know the facts before assuming that "natives of Iraq" thought that there country was even invaded. Because most of them didn't. Most of them are grateful fo what has happened.

And what's with this word "Insurgents"? It's a bit like "Assult rifle" and other emotive terms.

For the most part, they're residents. Natives of Iraq who don't like their country being invaded.

If they were Americans defending an America which had been invaded you'd call 'em "Freedom fighters".

well, for one thing, a lot of those insurgents aren't Iraqis, but men who have come to Iraq to kill Americans and anyone else who doesn't believe the way they do.

And what's with this word "Insurgents"? It's a bit like "Assult rifle" and other emotive terms.

For the most part, they're residents. Natives of Iraq who don't like their country being invaded.

If they were Americans defending an America which had been invaded you'd call 'em "Freedom fighters".

I doubt I'd call ANYONE who behaved like this freedom fighters

November 15, 2004

Mujahidin terrorised Fallujah, residents say
By Times Online and AFP in Fallujah



Mutilated bodies dumped on Fallujah's bombed out streets today painted a harrowing picture of eight months of rebel rule.



As US and Iraqi troops mopped up the last vestiges of resistance in the city after a week of bombardment and fighting, residents who stayed on through last week's offensive were emerging and telling harrowing tales of the brutality they endured.

Flyposters still litter the walls bearing all manner of decrees from insurgent commanders, to be heeded on pain of death. Amid the rubble of the main shopping street, one decree bearing the insurgents' insignia - two Kalashnikovs propped together - and dated November 1 gives vendors three days to remove nine market stalls from outside the city's library or face execution.

The pretext given is that the rebels wanted to convert the building into a headquarters for the "Mujahidin Advisory Council" through which they ran the city.

Another poster in the ruins of the souk bears testament to the strict brand of Sunni Islam imposed by the council, fronted by hardline cleric Abdullah Junabi. The decree warns all women that they must cover up from head to toe outdoors, or face execution by the armed militants who controlled the streets.

Two female bodies found yesterday suggest such threats were far from idle. An Arab woman, in a violet nightdress, lay in a post-mortem embrace with a male corpse in the middle of the street. Both bodies had died from bullets to the head.

I don't mean to sound callous, but if they were restricting their attacks to just troops the argument could be made that they are just fighting to end the occupation, but that's not what they are doing, and it's not their longterm goal.

I doubt I'd call ANYONE who behaved like this freedom fighters.
Probably not, but could you see calling them "Protectors of the True Faith"? Freedom is something we value and fight for. Religion is something they value and fight for. Just because it doesn't fit within your context doesn't make it impossible or untrue.

I thinnk their approach is abhorrent and their goals undesirable, but underestimating their rationale for fighting and dying won't do any favors to US troops. You've got to KNOW your enemy to defeat your enemy. Name-calling doesn't do it.

Probably not, but could you see calling them "Protectors of the True Faith"? Freedom is something we value and fight for. Religion is something they value and fight for. Just because it doesn't fit within your context doesn't make it impossible or untrue.

I thinnk their approach is abhorrent and their goals undesirable, but underestimating their rationale for fighting and dying won't do any favors to US troops. You've got to KNOW your enemy to defeat your enemy. Name-calling doesn't do it.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything I've ever posted on this site. At any rate I think their rationale, goals, and their willingness to achieve them are obvious by now.

a classic image... but do you know the back story behind it?

The man about to be shot was a confirmed Viet Cong Major of Intelligence, who had been directly responsible for the death of the relatives (brother I believe and that brothers entire family) of the man about to shoot him.

Time Life series on the Vietnam War goes into the details
Also he was an armed enemy soldier out of uniform behind enemy lines. His summary execution is in line with the Geneva convention.

But the supposition that a person can judge the actions of another that he has never been and can never be is at the root of our judicial system, or any judicial system.

But the judicial system works on evidence and circumstance. The judicial system takes into account relative factors(was the guy legally insane?did he do it in self defense?was the body booby trapped) these are questions not answered by the article, or reported by the photog. What folks are saying here is no one has a right to judge another until all the evidence is known. If this guy killed the Iraqi for no other reason than to see him die then frankly he should be put in Levinworth for the next 40 years of his life for Murder Two. But if this guy who was wounded the day before and saw his comrade killed several days ago then frankly he's got enough pent up rage to have legally snapped in combat(and my ass if anyone here considers it wrong because every nation on the planet has an instance in which its soldiers have gone after revenge for fallen comrades. It may not be right but its understandable.) and he should be considered for the lesser charge of manslaughter...but frankly if this guy presented a threat in even the smallest form then I hold no sympathy for the insurgent and good riddence..these guys booby trap their wounded and dead to the point where US troops wont even go near the bodies of those who are kidnapped dead.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-11-14-woman-body_x.htm

But until a formal inquiry is conducted and completed non of us has the right to make a preliminary judgement on this marine. Comment on the death of the guy all you want but keep in mind what the insurgents were doing in Fallujah..they really shouldnt be wept over.

http://www.treefort.org/~cbdoten/rvntanks/sp071632.jpg anyone?

The mother f***er in that picture deserved to have his brains blown out. He had just been caught in the act of murdering a soldier's wife and small children. Good riddance to the bastard.

a classic image... but do you know the back story behind it?

The man about to be shot was a confirmed Viet Cong Major of Intelligence, who had been directly responsible for the death of the relatives (brother I believe and that brothers entire family) of the man about to shoot him.

Time Life series on the Vietnam War goes into the details

The man about to shoot him was Nguyen Ngoc Loan. The VC captain had just killed Loan's friend's wife and two small children.

I agree with you that we should wait until the truth truly comes out before persecuting this soldier. I also agree that we cannot truly judge him until we have been in his shoes. But from the transcript where he is saying "He's fucking faking," I would say that this was just a cruel act of hatred. Now I can understand the hatred, but there is no way we can allow this to go unpunished. We are already having difficulty winning over the people there, and what happens when one of our soldiers shoots an unarmed Iraqi and gets away with it?

Actualy to me the fact that he screamed "He's fucking faking" seems to indecate that it was an irational reaction due to being either scared or startled and then panicking, which when it happens to some one holding an assult weapon that had been recently shoot would probably be a bad thing.

but nobody has the right to question the actions and judge a soldier in combat except other soldiers who have seen combat.but nobody has the right to question the actions and judge a cop (NYPD,LAPD,etc) in the street except other cops who have seen the street.
:rolleyes:

...that had been recently shoot would probably be a bad thing.shot in the face less than 24 hour ago....dont forget...its wery wery important :D

shot in the face less than 24 hour ago....dont forget...its wery wery important :D

I don't know if thats sarcasm or not, but all I'm saying is that from he sounds of things it was more of a matter of him panicking than anything else. I recently heard the exchanged brodcast on NPR and to me he sounded more scared or startled than angry, and like I said scaring or startling someone that has an assult rifle is probably not a good thing, that said what I think needs to be investigated is why they just left those insurgants lying there wounded and unguarded.

I don't know if thats sarcasm or not, but all I'm saying is that from he sounds of things it was more of a matter of him panicking than anything else. I recently heard the exchanged brodcast on NPR and to me he sounded more scared or startled than angry, and like I said scaring or startling someone that has an assult rifle is probably not a good thing, that said what I think needs to be investigated is why they just left those insurgants lying there wounded and unguarded.

Well, they were guarded...

unless you have been in combat yourself, I don't think you or any of us are really qualified to judge those Marines..... but a Marine Court Martial and the JAG office will.

Do not hold the men to a higher standard than you would hold yourself eh?

Im not sure that man will be able to function in society or on the front line after this event. Its ashame what we are doing to America, what we are doing to ourselves. Terrorist are one step closer to victory.

... why they just left those insurgants lying there wounded and unguarded.They were left there to die a slow dead....One of them lasted too long for his own good.

I don't know if thats sarcasm or not, but all I'm saying is that ....all I'm saying is that I dont see any Army in the world sending back a soldier to figth the next day after he was shot on the face...I say its a Lie...

We are at war...and the first victim is the thruth... thats what i am saying.

Also he was an armed enemy soldier out of uniform behind enemy lines. His summary execution is in line with the Geneva convention.he was not armed, and he was barely breathing...

he was not armed, and he was barely breathing...

He's talking about the VC in the picture.

He's talking about the VC in the picture.
My mistake.

Do not hold the men to a higher standard than you would hold yourself eh?

Im not sure that man will be able to function in society or on the front line after this event. Its ashame what we are doing to America, what we are doing to ourselves. Terrorist are one step closer to victory.

No, I don't, having not been in combat, I can only imagine, but not actually emotionally understand (the way a combat veteran would) what the stresses and fears are like. Personally, I judge myself according standards higher than I hold others too. But that is neither here nor there to this discussion.

Millions of Americans are combat veterans, from Somalia stretching back to a very few old codgers still around from World War I. Studies show that combat veterans are more successful in dealing with civilian stresses than veterans who did not see combat. They have a lower percentage chance of dependency issues, homelessness or similar problems. The ones that are still physically whole (more or less)...

Americans have fought wars since there were Americans, and if anything, our society is less militarized than at any time in its history. Only a few million are in the military (reserves included), a lower proportion (as there are about 300 million of us) than in any time in our history (even during the 19th century a large number were in the militia).

I am guessing you didn't live during the Cold War period.... if so, you would know that during that time we lived under the ever present knowledge that a war could destroy not only our political and economic structure, but very possibily the ecology of the nation itself and possibly even the world. Even so, this country had a military twice the size it has now, and had that from 1950 - 1995..... but yet we are still a democratic republic with more personal freedoms than in any time in our history.

The War on Terrorism is small potatoes compared to that. We just have to make sure that the Feds remember that we have freedoms as well as a need for security.

. . .

But until a formal inquiry is conducted and completed non of us has the right to make a preliminary judgement on this marine. Comment on the death of the guy all you want but keep in mind what the insurgents were doing in Fallujah..they really shouldnt be wept over.

Wrong. We all have the right to make any kind of judgement we like, other than a legally binding one or one backed up by physical punishment. What is there for you not to get about that? Such rights are what those guys fight and die to protect, supposedly.

I just want to add to this, for anyone who thinks this guy was some kind of innocent. We gave plenty of warning and time for those people to get out of there, and if that guy had wanted he could have left. He did not have to be in the mosque that the terrorists were launching the attacks from. And another thing, the only reason that (some of) you think that the iraqis do not want us in their country is because you only watch the news on TV and don't really know about all the people that are actually glad we are there, because lets face it, "Iraqi civilians are happy we are here" is not exactly something that would make ratings sky rocket, and as you know, ratings are all that matter in television.

all I'm saying is that I dont see any Army in the world sending back a soldier to figth the next day after he was shot on the face...I say its a Lie...

We are at war...and the first victim is the thruth... thats what i am saying.
Funny that because I just watched footage of a US marine leading a squad of men with dressing on his face consistant with a glancing bullet wound. He must have had make up on eh?
As to why they were left, you don't tie up men looking after the enemy wounded when you are trying to push on. I know it is no excuse but when your enemy is prepared to booby trap his own injured and dead then I would not approach a body until I had shot it a few times.

I just want to add to this, for anyone who thinks this guy was some kind of innocent. We gave plenty of warning and time for those people to get out of there, and if that guy had wanted he could have left. He did not have to be in the mosque that the terrorists were launching the attacks from. And another thing, the only reason that (some of) you think that the iraqis do not want us in their country is because you only watch the news on TV and don't really know about all the people that are actually glad we are there, because lets face it, "Iraqi civilians are happy we are here" is not exactly something that would make ratings sky rocket, and as you know, ratings are all that matter in television.

He was a POW of the USA, and he was severely wounded. Where the F are you getting this "he should have walked away" crap from?

Oh and who is it that says it sounded like the Marine was startled? Bullshit. How did the guy startle him? By lying there severely wounded and breathing with malice aforethought? Ut sounds to me like he, with a bunch of his heavily armed comrades, found some wounded enemies, not moving, and he decided to murder one of them.

He was a POW of the USA, and he was severely wounded. Where the F are you getting this "he should have walked away" crap from?wounded... yes... POW... no. He was not officially 'arrested' neither did he surrender. The walking away is in reference to his being wounded the first time. the marine reconized him from the first time they (Marines and Insurgents) were there. and no, there was no indication on how wounded he was. The clip shown barely makes the man out. for all you know, he probably had a gun in his hand...

Am I condoning the Marine's action? no. Am I condeming it... no. I'll let the review boards deal with that.

I'm amazed that after the Prision Scandal... the news service would still show shit like this... Now I wonder how many contract workers are going to be kidnapped and beheaded because the news services wanted ratings under the disguise of "the Public needs to know."

Ahhh, but it'll be American Contract workers taken... so I guess the Anti-American/Anti-Bush League out there doesn't really care.

wounded... yes... POW... no. He was not officially 'arrested' neither did he surrender. The walking away is in reference to his being wounded the first time. the marine reconized him from the first time they (Marines and Insurgents) were there. and no, there was no indication on how wounded he was. The clip shown barely makes the man out. for all you know, he probably had a gun in his hand...

. . .



The Iraqi was one of five wounded left in the mosque after Marines fought their way in on Friday and Saturday.

He was a POW taken by the USA. We were responsible for his safety.

Just dont forget that usa's army in iraq isnt there by invitation of any democratic goverment nor are they endorsed or backed up by the UN to start that war.

So yes shooting an unarmed severly wounded man (who has the right to feel that he must defend his country from foreign invaders whether that sentiment is "right" or "wrong" is beside the point) is from all perspectives a war crime.

But then lets face it..this is rapidly becoming vietnam part II for the US.

(ie. overhyped soldiers who dont know what the hell theyre doing there in the first place. Not to mention the feeling that the people of iraq dont even want them there...again right or wrong its beside the point)

my ever increasing in value €0.2 cnts

(im sorta playing "devils advocate" btw :D )

He was a POW taken by the USA. We were rosponsible for his safety.nope. The first time, they left him there... the insurgent was not taken into custody. Not a POW. the next time, no form of surrender, not a POW. Yes he was wounded. but did you see what was in his hand?

wounded... yes... POW... no. He was not officially 'arrested' neither did he surrender. The walking away is in reference to his being wounded the first time. the marine reconized him from the first time they (Marines and Insurgents) were there. and no, there was no indication on how wounded he was. The clip shown barely makes the man out. for all you know, he probably had a gun in his hand...


It shows pretty clearly that he had nothing in his hands.

It shows pretty clearly that he had nothing in his hands.hmm you must have seen a different film. The one I saw had him curled up on his side... back to the camera... the Marine bent over him, shouted "he's faking his death", then shot em. I'll admit, there might have been a different camera angle.

nope. The first time, they left him there... the insurgent was not taken into custody. Not a POW. the next time, no form of surrender, not a POW. Yes he was wounded. but did you see what was in his hand?

No. Did you?

He was captured by US forces and he was in their custody ... they moved him to the back of the mosque, which is where he was when he was murdered.

Are you honestly suggesting that we can shoot any captured enemy up until we serve them with... what... official arrest papers? Or that if we decide to let them walk off it's legal to shoot them in the back as we go?

No... what you're saying is we can leave a wounded captive for later pick-up, and then when we return we can shoot him as if he was not our captive. Brillient. No wonder they love us so much.

It's quite sad to see people trying to defend this action. The video footage is pretty conclusive, and US forces have behaved in this way during other wars. The man is unarmed, no threat, a prisoner and in a mosque. The marine casually executes him and none of them seem to care. There is no justification for this kind of action and if an enemy had behaved in this way towards a US soldier then there would be outrage from all of you.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B0CB975D-B5E4-49C3-84B4-1ACAB9574347.htm

... you expect us to trust al jazeera?
and he was a PERCIEVED threat because they did not know those guys were prisoner

Fact: The day before, the only people in that mosque were people shooting at the US troops. The US troops took over the mosque, tended to the wounded ENEMY troops, and left.
Fact: One hour before, several marines died and several were wounded from a booby-trapped body.
Fact: Marines had every reason to suspect ANYONE left alive in there was either going to shoot at them, or was booby-trapped.

I'll reserve judgement until after the investigation, but I don't see it immediately as a clear-cut war crime.

And I just bet the insurgents, terrorists, whatever, are not doing an investigation into the latest body booby-trapping incident, or their latest slaying of the civilian aid worker Margaret Hassan. By the way, the networks DON'T want to show footage the terrorists showed of their brutal killing of her.

hmm you must have seen a different film. The one I saw had him curled up on his side... back to the camera... the Marine bent over him, shouted "he's faking his death", then shot em. I'll admit, there might have been a different camera angle.
maybe...I only saw it once and in that I saw a wounded man on his back (on the floor, not against the wall as the 2 others) showing his empty hands. I don't even know if he was the same man.

No. Did you?Read my post. I said I didn't see his hands... the Marine did and the camera didn't we are only ASSUMING that it was empty.

He was captured by US forces and he was in their custody ... they moved him to the back of the mosque, which is where he was when he was murdered. No they did not move him. the marines Moved to the back of the Mosque, but they did not touch the bodies.

Are you honestly suggesting that we can shoot any captured enemy up until we serve them with... what... official arrest papers? Or that if we decide to let them walk off it's legal to shoot them in the back as we go?I didn't hear them shout "I give up" I didn't hear them moan... I certainly didn't hear any Marine shout, "Surrender." But again, I wasn't there and so I won't condem nor will I condone that Marine. I thought it was Stupid of them to leave the survivors there the first time. And they did leave him the first time. They left all the "Lightly wounded people" (CNN's words) because they were done fighting.

No... what you're saying is we can leave a wounded captive for later pick-up, and then when we return we can shoot him as if he was not our captive. Brillient. No wonder they love us so much. he was not captured. Watch the film... The marines entered the building. they were searching around and one Marine leaned over one of the insurgents shouted and shot. No bodies were moved... not by those Marines anyway. and another thing. the Marines entered the building a second time because the insurgenst retook the Mosque and was attacking from it... again.... Several DAYS LATER. So again. There was no POW from the first Mosque Fight and Unless you count Telepathy, the were no signs of surrender (given or asked for) on the second Encounter.

He was a POW of the USA, and he was severely wounded. Where the F are you getting this "he should have walked away" crap from?

BEFORE he was wounded BEFORE THE ATTACK
he could left BEFORE the attack

you are the F*ckin moron

BEFORE he was wounded BEFORE THE ATTACK
he could left BEFORE the attack

you are the F*ckin moron

You're not gonna last long here with that kind of language, youngster.

Yes, he was an enemy troop, BEFORE he was wounded and captured. So would you use that to justify killing ALL POWs? Think before you post, and good luck not getting banned.

maybe...I only saw it once and in that I saw a wounded man on his back (on the floor, not against the wall as the 2 others) showing his empty hands. I don't even know if he was the same man. From the angle I saw, there were two men against the wall one on his back, but the marine was looking at someone? slightly further away on his(?) side. but the angle of the camera could not give a clear accounting as to which body he (marine) was looking at.

No. Did you?

Read my post. I said I didn't see his hands... the Marine did and the camera didn't we are only ASSUMING that it was empty.

No, you seem to be assuming he had a weapon, but if he did, don't you think, for the sake of public relations, we would know about it by now?

He was captured by US forces and he was in their custody ... they moved him to the back of the mosque, which is where he was when he was murdered.

No they did not move him. the marines Moved to the back of the Mosque, but they did not touch the bodies.

I was thinking of the original Marines, but apparently I was mistaken. But either they had custody over them or they left them ARMED to be picked up later. Which do you suppose is true?

Are you honestly suggesting that we can shoot any captured enemy up until we serve them with... what... official arrest papers? Or that if we decide to let them walk off it's legal to shoot them in the back as we go?

I didn't hear them shout "I give up" I didn't hear them moan... I certainly didn't hear any Marine shout, "Surrender." But again, I wasn't there and so I won't condem nor will I condone that Marine. I thought it was Stupid of them to leave the survivors there the first time. And they did leave him the first time. They left all the "Lightly wounded people" (CNN's words) because they were done fighting.

Yes they did leave them the first time, having captured and disarmed them, in US custody. Yes they fucked up by leaving them alone. That does not change the fact that they were POWs. POWs rarely shout "I give up" after they have become POWs.

No... what you're saying is we can leave a wounded captive for later pick-up, and then when we return we can shoot him as if he was not our captive. Brillient. No wonder they love us so much.

he was not captured. Watch the film... The marines entered the building. they were searching around and one Marine leaned over one of the insurgents shouted and shot. No bodies were moved... not by those Marines anyway. and another thing. the Marines entered the building a second time because the insurgenst retook the Mosque and was attacking from it... again.... Several DAYS LATER. So again. There was no POW from the first Mosque Fight and Unless you count Telepathy, the were no signs of surrender (given or asked for) on the second Encounter.

No, he was a POW left abandoned from an earlier fight. Read the article. He had, as far as we know, nothing to do with the second fight, being as how he was close to death, according to the article.

... you expect us to trust al jazeera?
and he was a PERCIEVED threat because they did not know those guys were prisoner

Are you suggesting that Al Jazeera is lying about the fact that he is being charged? Should be pretty easy to varify. Or maybe they have doctored the BBC's tape? WOW! They're good!

And we don't yet know WHY they didn't know that, assuming it's true. So on only that I am not totally inclined to blame the killer. But what the fuck kind of army (or marines) leaves POWs unguarded, much less w/o telling eachother?

Anyway, the report says that the Iraqis looked to be near death. Doesn't take much for that particular Marine to perceive a threat, does it?

No, you seem to be assuming he had a weapon, but if he did, don't you think, for the sake of public relations, we would know about it by now?Not if there is an investigation going on... and two... who would publish it... other than Fox News that is.
I was thinking of the original Marines, but apparently I was mistaken. But either they had custody over them or they left them ARMED to be picked up later. Which do you suppose is true?They were the first Marines... they were also STUPID because they didn't check to see if there were any survivors after the first fight and thus take prisoners.
Yes they did leave them the first time, having captured and disarmed them, in US custody. Yes they fucked up by leaving them alone. That does not change the fact that they were POWs. POWs rarely shout "I give up" after they have become POWs.From all the reports I heard, they didn't check for survivors (that was STUPID of them.) the first time around. that's probably why the marine said "He's faking his death" because he reconized the wounded man from the first shoot out. If they did check, then yes they would have been POWs and the second shootout would probably have been different people... and possibly different results.
No, he was a POW left abandoned from an earlier fight. Read the article. He had, as far as we know, nothing to do with the second fight, being as how he was close to death, according to the article. So... the Americans leave him for dead, and so did the second group of insurgents... they would leave a survivor of a clash with the infedels to die a slow and horrible death? I don't think so. If he was still alive but unable to fight, they (insurgents) would have evac'ed him outta there... if he lived then he will fight again. if not, then he becomes a Martyr. but they wouldn't have left a wound comrade to die slowly. If he insisted he remains there, then they would've given him a gun to shoot the infedels up close. So either he was fighting that second fight... or he was dead before the second fight. that is for the Review board to decide. not NS Forums.

Not if there is an investigation going on... and two... who would publish it... other than Fox News that is.
They were the first Marines... they were also STUPID because they didn't check to see if there were any survivors after the first fight and thus take prisoners.
From all the reports I heard, they didn't check for survivors (that was STUPID of them.) the first time around. that's probably why the marine said "He's faking his death" because he reconized the wounded man from the first shoot out. If they did check, then yes they would have been POWs and the second shootout would probably have been different people... and possibly different results.
So... the Americans leave him for dead, and so did the second group of insurgents... they would leave a survivor of a clash with the infedels to die a slow and horrible death? I don't think so. If he was still alive but unable to fight, they (insurgents) would have evac'ed him outta there... if he lived then he will fight again. if not, then he becomes a Martyr. but they wouldn't have left a wound comrade to die slowly. If he insisted he remains there, then they would've given him a gun to shoot the infedels up close. So either he was fighting that second fight... or he was dead before the second fight. that is for the Review board to decide. not NS Forums.

Read it again. After the first battle the US forces left the five Iraqis behind to be picked up later to be taken to the rear. Has this been refuted in the media? And if this guy was part of the first battle, he KNEW they were POWs, and he has no excuse.

From the angle I saw, there were two men against the wall one on his back, but the marine was looking at someone? slightly further away on his(?) side. but the angle of the camera could not give a clear accounting as to which body he (marine) was looking at.
You know any place where I could check it again? BBC had a different version (more edited)

You know any place where I could check it again? BBC had a different version (more edited)
It has to be another man. I checked the pictures in Reuters and CNN and the man in reuters pic is in the middle of the room and the other one is closer to the wall. My mistake.
reuters
http://www.reuters.com/newsGalaxyPhotoPresentation.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6831510&index=0
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/16/marine.probe/index.html

He was a POW of the USA, and he was severely wounded. Where the F are you getting this "he should have walked away" crap from?

Um i'm getting it from the fact that he should have walked away before he became a severely wounded POW. How could you get anything else out of that?

Oh and who is it that says it sounded like the Marine was startled? Bullshit. How did the guy startle him? By lying there severely wounded and breathing with malice aforethought? Ut sounds to me like he, with a bunch of his heavily armed comrades, found some wounded enemies, not moving, and he decided to murder one of them.

I was the one who said it based on the recording I heard on NPR and think about it you walk into a room full of shot up enemy soilders, who have a record of booby traping their dead with bombs and of suicide tactics, and then one of those "dead" soilders started moving, I know that would sure as hell startle me. He might have though the guy had a bomb and was about to triggerit all I say that I can see how this could be a mistake made in the heat of a running urban battle. I am simply assuming that the man is innocent untill he is proven guilty the same as I do with any civil murder cases the news reports on.

Um i'm getting it from the fact that he should have walked away before he became a severely wounded POW. How could you get anything else out of that?

By assuming that you had the brains not to simply be arguing that it was his fault for being an enemy soldier in the first place. If that's the extent of your "reasoning" then you can use that as a justification for simply executing all POWs. Including Americans.

Maby the man was armed with an explosive vest. Its too hard to tell from the news footage. Is this man really a POW because surely he would fall into the same catgory as those that are being held in camp X ray

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

This is from the Geneva Conventions rules of war and treatment of POWs.
A)I suppose this would mean the nutball Musawi
B)This means military uniforms..civilian clothes dont count...so already they dont count as POws
C)They do this on a regular basis
D)They break this rule repeatedly. Early on in the Geneva Convention


In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages; ...


Call him a POW all you want..the UN by wording doesnt agree.

OK if he wasn't a POW he was a criminal who was in custody. Take your pick, either way he had rights... unless you wanna stand with Bush and declare such people, and all those exused of being such people, to have no basic human rights at all. Well, do ya? PUNK? :D

OK if he wasn't a POW he was a criminal who was in custody. Take your pick, either way he had rights... unless you wanna stand with Bush and declare such people, and all those exused of being such people, to have no basic human rights at all. Well, do ya? PUNK? :D

He isnt on US soil so he doesnt get protections of the constitution. He's in a country that's declared martial law firing upon US troops and soldiers of the national army..you do realize that even in this country should martial law ever be declared the constitution flies out of the window right? Thats one of those little provisions that came about during WWII and the Cold War. So I can only imagine what an Iraqi Martial Law might entail but I doubt even they consider him a criminal.

LOL, Cruelty!

Oh..and what of the rights of Margaret Hassasn? Whats that old saying? What goes around comes around?

LOL, Corpses!

He isnt on US soil so he doesnt get protections of the constitution. He's in a country that's declared martial law firing upon US troops and soldiers of the national army..you do realize that even in this country should martial law ever be declared the constitution flies out of the window right? Thats one of those little provisions that came about during WWII and the Cold War. So I can only imagine what an Iraqi Martial Law might entail but I doubt even they consider him a criminal.

So the "freedom" we've liberated them to allows them... well, us... to execute prisoners without a trial? THANKS, Dubya! :D

Americans are protected by the Constitution, in terms of actions taken by the U.S. government, while overseas. It's called having consulate protections. Non-Americans, according to Bush, are not even protected INSIDE the US. Hooray for freedom, huh?

Stop the sophistry. He was a prisoner, in custody of US forces, and he was executed without a trial. All your bullshit cannot justify that.

Oh..and what of the rights of Margaret Hassasn? Whats that old saying? What goes around comes around?

No the old saying is "two wrongs don't make a right".

Criminals commit crimes. Get it? Those who have the responsibility to bring them to justice should not commit crimes, even lesser crimes. Get it? Accused criminals have the right to trial, only to be punished if and when found guilty. Get it?

Stop the sophistry. He was a prisoner, in custody of US forces, and he was executed without a trial. All your bullshit cannot justify that.


Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
Once again the vaunted Geneva Convention doesnt agree with you.

But hey I could go further into the convention where it establishes what the difference between a civilian and a legit combatant are. But they arent legit combatants either...so it falls back to that first sentence of article 4...the very last part of it.."not protected by it."

Now this whole Americans are afforded constitutional protection overseas..you are subject to the laws of the nation you are in. The constitution of the US does not extend across the borders of the US, its embassies, military bases etc etc. As for the President and what he does during a time of conflict..nothing new that what Roosevelt, Wilson, or Lincoln did years past.

Oh and before..the whole judging the marine..thats based on moral grounds. Your opinions are nice and all but its one of those things when speaking before all facts known on this kind of issue especially with so many complications which could be evident to the story make a person who passes judgement either way look like an ass..but you wouldnt want to do that now would you?

By assuming that you had the brains not to simply be arguing that it was his fault for being an enemy soldier in the first place. If that's the extent of your "reasoning" then you can use that as a justification for simply executing all POWs. Including Americans.

I'm not saying it's his fault for being an enemy soldier, I'm just saying that this kind of stuff happens "in the field," as it were, and if he didn't want something like this to happen, then he shouldn't have been there. Plus I can't believe you're arguing for someone who is on the same side as the people who behead civilians - non-combantants.

I'm not saying it's his fault for being an enemy soldier, I'm just saying that this kind of stuff happens "in the field," as it were, and if he didn't want something like this to happen, then he shouldn't have been there. Plus I can't believe you're arguing for someone who is on the same side as the people who behead civilians - non-combantants.

1) "Shit happens" as a murder defence? Heck, I thought it was the left that was "soft on crime"!

2) It's good to hear that you can't believe that I am arguing for someone who is on that side. For I am not.

I am arguing for justice and the rule of law. If I heard, for example, that a cop had electrocuted the genitals of a serial child molester, one who was convicted, one for whom all twelve jurors had said that there was no doubt whatsoever, even the most unreasonable, of his guilt, I would still be calling for that cop to be prosecuted - perhaps not to the fullest extent of the law, depending on the cop's emotional state, but I would call for him to be prosecuted.

Why? Nitchze had something to say about it... something about the risk of becoming what you hate. And basically, as I said, the rule of law, and of justice.

They may behead innocent men and women, but is that the only way in which we should keep ourselves better than they are?

I say no.

Once again the vaunted Geneva Convention doesnt agree with you.

As I have said, stop the sophistry. (Do you need to look it up?) What I have said is the there are fundemental human rights. Whether the man was legally a soldier under the terms of the GC or not is not relevent to me. He was a human being, and it sounds to me like he was murdered.

I have not invoked the GC, you have. Although I use the term "POW" my arguments are not based on the GC. And btw, the U.S.A. is in violation of the GC, under the Bush Doctrine.

But hey I could go further into the convention where it establishes what the difference between a civilian and a legit combatant are. But they arent legit combatants either...so it falls back to that first sentence of article 4...the very last part of it.."not protected by it."

Please do. Here, let me help:

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Note that Article 3 says nothing about such noncombatent persons being required to qualify as armed forces members.

But perhaps you are thinking of article 4?

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that[b] such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces [b]who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Note that Article 4 section 1 does not require the armed forces of a party to the conflict, in this case the followers of insurgent leaders Omar Hadid and Sheik Abdullah al-Janabi, or perhap Baatists from Saddam's regime who have not given up, to wear insignia, etc. Nor does any other section, but only section 2, which deals with such people as "foreign fighters", requires this. In all accounts I have encountered, the dead man is described as an Iraqi.

Article 4 section 3 is very pertinent. Whether the Bush regime recognizes the Falluja resistence or not is irrelevent. The Convention was specifically worded to anticipate such self-serving refusals to recognize the status of enemy forces.

Some of these resistence fighters, or terrorists, if you prefer, were not Jyhadists or Baathists. Many are simply Iraqis who want America out of Iraq. Fallujah was not occupied by coallition forces prior to the current action, so if this one Iraqi was just a guy who picked up a gun when the US troops came, he was protected under Article 4, section 6 protects him... or was supposed to.

NOW HERE'S THE CLINCHER:

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

As I read the convention, there were plenty of possible protected categories that he may have fallen into. His status was never determined by a competent tribunal. It was determined by one man: "He's faking!" *BLAM* "Now he's dead!"

Don't try to outlawyer me, son. ;)

Now this whole Americans are afforded constitutional protection overseas..you are subject to the laws of the nation you are in. The constitution of the US does not extend across the borders of the US, its embassies, military bases etc etc. As for the President and what he does during a time of conflict..nothing new that what Roosevelt, Wilson, or Lincoln did years past.

Reread what I said. We are protected from THE U.S. GOVERNMENT by the US COnstitution no matter where we are. That does not protect us from the state we are in, if it is not trhe US, but the Constitution does not stop protecting us from our own state when we cross the border.

Oh and before..the whole judging the marine..thats based on moral grounds. Your opinions are nice and all but its one of those things when speaking before all facts known on this kind of issue especially with so many complications which could be evident to the story make a person who passes judgement either way look like an ass..but you wouldnt want to do that now would you?

Nor would you. But seriously folks, I suppose OJ is just another law-abiding citizen, too? Hell, HE'S one who has been found not guilty. How about Scott Peterson, a week ago? Yeah, no one would be so crass as to express an opinion on his innocence or guilt. How about Ken Lay? Would you buy stock from this man? Why not? All the facts are not in, he has had no trial, yadda yadda yadda...

On moral grounds... moral grounds are not moral unless they apply to all. If you can tell me that you never have an opinion of a case before it has been tried, you are a better man than I am... and 99.9% of us as well.

wounded... yes... POW... no..when he is at your mercy...he becomes a POW.

Call him a POW all you want..the UN by wording doesnt agree.not only would the UN Agree...

The UN also says the Iraq war is Ilegal...

I am simply assuming that the man is innocent untill he is proven guilty the same as I do with any civil murder cases the news reports on.Like the news about OJ Simpson?

nope. The first time, they left him there... the insurgent was not taken into custody. Not a POW. the next time, no form of surrender, not a POW. Yes he was wounded. but did you see what was in his hand?
What was in his hand?

And it's part of war. Every military in the world has done it. And don't say that is worse than beheading please. I'd hate to say 'get over it' but seriously it's just part of war. What if this guy recovored went back to his hometown and rallied people up. They ambush some marines and slaughter 30 marines. What would you say then?

I would have POW'ed him but ya...

Part of war.