Ouch...possible illegal killing of an insurgent in Fallujah.

[treis]

Had being the key word

From the CNN article:

The Marines told the pool reporter that the wounded men would be left behind for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been ** reoccupied by insurgents ** and attacked it again, only to find the same wounded men inside.

Four of the men appeared to have ** been shot again in Saturday’s fighting, ** and one of them appeared to be dead, according to the pool report. In the video, a Marine was seen noticing that one of the men appeared to be breathing.

It is unclear from the article whether the mosque had been re-secured at the time of the shooting or whether these men had re-surrendered.

We are still waiting on evidence to back up your previous assertion that “the Iraqi populace is on the side of the insurgents.”

[XT]

@DtC

He had surrendered two days before and been disarmed. He was already a prisoner in US custody.

Are you using a different source than the article I originally linked too to get this information from? If so, please link to it will you so we can all follow along. If you are using the article linked to in the OP, it doesn’t make such categoric statements.

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Everything I’ve seen is pretty clear. This mosque had been rousted two days before and the wounded had been disarmed and left behind (itself a violation, btw. The GC requires that wounded prisoners be attended to).

It also doesn’t matter. Both the GC and US Rules of engagement forbid the killing of any unarmed combabatant.

Verdict: GUILTY!

[Zagadka]

@treis

We are still waiting on evidence to back up your previous assertion that “the Iraqi populace is on the side of the insurgents.”

Well, I wouldn’t make a blanket statement like “the Iraqi populace is on the side of the insurgents.” Obviously, some are, and some aren’t. I think a fair bet is that most are somewhere in the middle - resent the occupation, but also resent the constant bombings and kidnappings and such. Riverbend is a good example of someone in the middle.

However…

Knight Ridder reports:

Sadoun Dulame read the results of his latest poll again and again. He added up percentages, highlighted sections and scribbled notes in the margins.

No matter how he crunched the numbers, however, he found himself in the uncomfortable position this week of having to tell occupation authorities that the report they commissioned paints the bleakest picture yet of the U.S.-led coalition's reputation in Iraq. For the first time, according to Dulame's poll, a majority of Iraqis said they'd feel safer if the U.S. military withdrew immediately.
[...]
Dulame's grim poll doesn't even take in the prisoner scandal's effects. It was conducted in mid-April in seven Iraqi cities. A total of 1,600 people were interviewed, and the margin of error is 3 percentage points. The findings, which must go first to coalition authorities, have not yet been made public.

According to Dulame, director of the independent Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, prisoner abuse and other coalition missteps now are fueling a dangerous blend of Islamism and tribalism. **For example, while American officials insist that only fringe elements support the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a majority of Iraqis crossed ethnic and sectarian lines to name him the second most-respected man in Iraq, according to the coalition-funded poll.**

(bolding mine)

Either way, they aren’t big fans of the US being there. I bet most of them are afraid of another dictatorship rising.

[msmith537]

@Fear Itself

Better shoot him just to be sure, Tigers2B1.

Maybe to be sure he doesn’t trigger a hidden explosive and blow the entire squad to shit?

I don’t believe that one can simply state that the soldier was absolutely wrong for shooting a wounded insurgent. First of all, they were not “in custody” like a birgler captured by the police. They were left behind as the Marines continued on. It is not out of the realm of possibility that someone could have come along and rearmed them or (more likely) booby trapped the soldiers in the hopes of taking advantage of American compassion.

Second, it seemed to me that they were still in combat conditions. It did not appear that the situation was stabalized and the soldiers took them out back and executed them anyway.

Finally, I am reminded of a line from Apocalypse Now where Martin Sheen says something to the effect of “blowing people in half with a machinegun and then offering them a band-aid”. There is a certain amount of hypocrisy in accusing a soldier in combat of wrongly killing an enemy soldier who another soldier didn’t do a good enough job trying to kill a few hours earlier.

Also, I was wondering if we could extend this debate to whether we should even be there in the first place?

[Zagadka]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Verdict: GUILTY!

Wow, a cynic with a guilty verdict so easily :dubious:

I dunno, but whether it was justified or not, it is still bad PR. Or good PR, if you’re an insurgent Iraqi.

One thing is for sure: I’m not trusting the freaking army to do a fair and balanced trial, not after the prisoner abuse stuff.

[msmith537]

I also know how to spell “burgler”

[XT]

@Zagadka

Well, I wouldn’t make a blanket statement like “the Iraqi populace is on the side of the insurgents.” Obviously, some are, and some aren’t. I think a fair bet is that most are somewhere in the middle - resent the occupation, but also resent the constant bombings and kidnappings and such. Riverbend is a good example of someone in the middle.

I’m…stunned. I’m actually in complete agreement with this statement by you Zag. The world is a strange and wonderful place sometimes.

-XT

[Zagadka]

@msmith537

Maybe to be sure he doesn’t trigger a hidden explosive and blow the entire squad to shit?

How many times do we have to go over that he had already been cleared of anything dangerous?

[Tigers2B1]

@Zagadka

Wow, a cynic with a guilty verdict so easily :dubious:

AKA The Hangin’ Judge

[XT]

@msmith537

Also, I was wondering if we could extend this debate to whether we should even be there in the first place?

Feel free, though its been done before. I didn’t set out any kind of rigid OP when I started this…I just knew we’d have a thread on it and wanted to get the ball rolling.

-XT

[TLC1]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Rolling into the death camps was a good moment.

Waiting another ten years to go into Iraq could very well produce exactly that. That would give them enough time to fill many more mass graves with thousands. Why can’t the opponents of the war see that?

[Zagadka]

@xtisme

I’m…stunned. I’m actually in complete agreement with this statement by you Zag. The world is a strange and wonderful place sometimes.

A glitch in the Matrix?

Maybe I’ll have to admit that you’re reasonable after all.

Nah.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

If the Marines had already disarmed this guy, then left him behind to bleed to death, that in itself is a GC violation. Once he is disarmed and is at the mercy of US troops he becomes our responsibility and that includes getting him medical care and making sure he doesn’t get shot by overstressed Marines amped up on fear and adrenaline.

[XT]

@Zagadka

How many times do we have to go over that he had already been cleared of anything dangerous?

Again, where are you getting this from? Do you have another source besides the article linked in the OP? Because in that article things aren’t nearly as cut and dried as you (and DtC) are trying to make it out to be…its fairly confusing in fact. No where does it say that the prisoners had been cleared the SECOND time they were captured, and it clearly states that the mosque had been reoccupied after it was originally cleared, though its unclear if it was re-occupied by a new group of insurgents or the wounded ones there just decided to leap back into the fight.

FTR (again) let me quote the relevant sections:

Friday, the Marines were fired upon by snipers and insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades from a mosque and an adjacent building. The Marines returned fire with tank shells and machine guns.

They eventually stormed the mosque, killing 10 insurgents and wounding five others, and showing off a cache of rifles and grenades for journalists.

The Marines told the pool reporter that the wounded men would be left behind for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents and attacked it again, only to find the same wounded men inside.

Four of the men appeared to have been shot again in Saturday’s fighting, and one of them appeared to be dead, according to the pool report. In the video, a Marine was seen noticing that one of the men appeared to be breathing.

A Marine approached one of the men in the mosque saying, “He’s [expletive] faking he’s dead. He’s faking he’s [expletive] dead.”

Where you guys are getting all this extra stuff from is a mystery to me. Perhaps YOU could parse through the fragments of data we have so far and tell me where you are getting it. Or, as I said earlier to DtC, if you have another source LINK TO IT SO WE CAN ALL SEE!

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@TLC1

Waiting another ten years to go into Iraq could very well produce exactly that. That would give them enough time to fill many more mass graves with thousands. Why can’t the opponents of the war see that?

:rolleyes:

[XT]

@Zag

Maybe I’ll have to admit that you’re reasonable after all.

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@xtisme

Again, where are you getting this from? Do you have another source besides the article linked in the OP? Because in that article things aren’t nearly as cut and dried as you (and DtC) are trying to make it out to be…its fairly confusing in fact. No where does it say that the prisoners had been cleared the SECOND time they were captured, and it clearly states that the mosque had been reoccupied after it was originally cleared, though its unclear if it was re-occupied by a new group of insurgents or the wounded ones there just decided to leap back into the fight.

FTR (again) let me quote the relevant sections:

Where you guys are getting all this extra stuff from is a mystery to me. Perhaps YOU could parse through the fragments of data we have so far and tell me where you are getting it. Or, as I said earlier to DtC, if you have another source LINK TO IT SO WE CAN ALL SEE!

-XT

There is no requirement that a wounded prisoner keep re-surrendering every time another batch of Marines wanders into his presence.

[XT]

@DtC

If the Marines had already disarmed this guy, then left him behind to bleed to death, that in itself is a GC violation.

You keep repeating this…do you have anything to back it up? Because, as I recall from GC threads in the past, ununiformed insurgents or irregular forces don’t have the same rights under the GC. In addition, there are provisions for things like this situation happening in a combat zone…i.e. no one expects combat soldiers who have a mission to perform to halt everything to take care of wounded enemy soldiers OR prisoners. Could you show me the relevant sections of the GC that we violated by not immediately halting everything and caring for these wounded enemy troops DtC?

Thanks.

-XT

[Rashak_Mani]

Just add my 2 cents… this Marine was caught on video… by bad luck. So one wonders if this kind of thing isn’t happening once in a while. I’ve seen other videos about trigger happy GIs and one where they shot dead a lying down in the open but wounded Iraqi from a distance and then cheer.

So much for the US army being highly trained and helping Iraqis. Soldiers who care nothing for Iraqi lives… fighting to win Iraqi minds and hearts ? A hard proposition anyway you defend it.

Even if this Marine is "innocent"... its in the open and it stains even more a nasty war... a conventional war being lost by conventional means.