Murderer Marine

Remove all ads!

When I quote this nut then I do so because I think he represents a trend - even though this is a part of a silly Op-Ed in a particularly silly newspaper. From all the pundits I read he speaks it out most clear, that's why I picked him.

Have a look at Hanson, Krauthammer, Safire or Boot and you'll see what I mean - you would have to find the links yourself though, but the names and Fallujah should do the job on Google.

When I wrote the US lead a war of attrition in Fallujah I referred to this attitude.

Peters wants them dead first, the more the better, but of course they shall be killed in accordance with international law ... ... after reading his rant, I doubt Peters honestly cares about that part.

But what he actually calls for is this: Exemplary punishment for the sake of showing strength, a reprisal. Now that is a concept that should be discredited by now, but that doesn't bother Peters - he must have skipped that part of the law of war.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 of the Fourth Convention states: “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed,” and “collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to “intimidatory measures to terrorize the population” in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices “strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice.”

The law of armed conflict applies similar protections to an internal conflict. Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 requires fair trials for all individuals before punishments; and Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment.

That means: It is a war crime to level a city to make an example because resistance fighters operated out of it - what infuriates me is not so much that the US actually do that, I can't judge that from what I know, but that Peters doesn't seem to care.

The claim that the Geneva Convention, emerging based on the experience of WW-II, wasn't made for this sort of conflict is nonsense - what makes the US war in Iraq so special? What horrors does it offer WW-II didn't have?
WW-II had everything - terrorism, assassinations, bombings and massacres - why can't these rules apply in Iraq today? What is it that makes the rules of the convention "irrelevant", "obsolete"? If it is that, the US may have been a little zealous then when hanging people for violating them - but I don't think so.

The fact that the Geneva Convention is in place is what pisses off the America Unbound fraction in the Pentagon who see human rights as hindrances to do whatever they want to do - like "robust interrogations" or "robust intervention".

With a grain of salt one can say that the "obsolescence" of the Geneva Convention lies in the US willingness to ignore it - an ignored law is at least dysfunctional. The neo-cons loathe the Geneva Convention because it gives their opponents a verifiable and credible chance to morally discredit the US, and produce bad press, which complicates what US politicy has relied on under their leadership: Military force.

Peters neo-con approach to Fallujah looks, sounds and smells like a reprisal - of course achieved while meeting international law, like Abu Ghraib *technically* wasn't torture ... Ever heared the word 'lip service' ?

But Peters get's better - he tells the apologists how to best rationalise the unavoidable civilian victims to sleep better:

Bold claim. Everyone who stayed in Fallujah has decided to do so - and so Peters simply declares them legitimate targets.

That would sound plausible, weren't there these people who weren't allowed to choose, like everyone male between 14 and 50 who wasn't let out of the city because of being - by age and gender - "insurgent candidates" - and were sent back into the city.
So if US troops hit some innocents, don't blame America, it was THEIR choice, they ... uhm ... technically ... picked the side of the insurgents ... all of them ... to give aid and comfort to Americas enemies ... you know, "we must accept the price." again.

Please gimme a break. What Peters, and his warmongering colleagues call for is this: The call is that in order to defeat terrorism America must become a terrorist herself.

I disagree: When America is down there to make a difference they'll have to live it to succeed.

[ November 18, 2004, 22:02: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Not to condone the marine's action, but I've heard rumors that the Iraqi insurgents have been strapping explosives to the dead and wounded to kill US and Iraqi soldiers.

It's easy to watch this on television and make judgments - but I think the soldiers feel that even the dead and wounded are dangerous. We'll see how this shakes out, but considering the battle they're fighting, and the tactics our enemy uses, maybe his actions are justified.

 

It is a disturbing episode, no doubt. I will not judge the individual, having not been in his position (or even present while it happened). I understand the position that finds the action unacceptable. I understand the position that humans under great duress take actions that they may not otherwise take. I also understand the third position that states he believed there was a genuine risk, for if he did not think there was a risk, then why shoot the man when he KNEW THE CAMERAS WERE ROLLING?

All of this is food for thought, and debate. Again, I refuse to condemn the man.

I do find it interesting (though not surprising) that some people here are going to great lengths to imply (or outright insist) that it is the policy of the US military to ignore the Geneva convention and kill carelessly. If that is the case, then why have prisoners been taken at all?

Carry on, and let's be gentlemen (and ladies).

 

As I said before that this marine *did* do it infront of the camera should speak volumes of what is going on when there is no camera around. However, I do not blame the soldier he is in hell and in hell you do not take any chances at all. Especially not by letting someone live who you have been told directly and indirectly wouldnt hesitate to barbecue your little sister and who you spend most of your time telling yourself is not human but just an enemy who needs to be killed. Unarmed or not. The blame solely lies on the government who sent the marine there and the people who support the sending. As I see it, anyone who supports the war is more guilty of any atrocity committed by US soldiers, heck by insurgents as well, than the poor sods pulling the triggers.

 

America must follow the Geneva Convention and can be held responsiable for war crimes its soldiers committ. But what if you're fighting an enemy that can not be held responsiable - as they have no focal government yet they are a 'faction' of sorts. This opposition does and will continue to ignore the Geneva Convention - the "give no quarter" type approach to warfare.

This is not justice that one side must obey the rules and can be punished for disobeying them yet the other side can not be punished. The Americans are 'granting all legal quarter' yet are recieving none, whereas the insurgents grant no quarter and abuse the quarter granted.

Is there anything laid out in the Geneva Convention of what parties can do if the opposition breaks the rules of the convention?

What if (and I mean IF) the insurgents had WMD capabilities? AND used them on US and Iraqi targets? How could the US protect themseles from WMD strikes without breaking the Geneva Convention?

 

The only punishment for breaking the Geneva convention is that it does not apply to your troops. Just as you touched upon there, the insurgents generally do not follow the convention and thus the US feels justified in not following. The problem then is that the US loses any semblence of a moral high ground they might have had and descends to the level of the people they fight and uses the very same tools as they are claiming to abhor and fight.

 

If you mean that they will not be punished by their own leadership, you are right but USA has the right to prosecute the insurgents who are violating the conventions.

 

@ Pac Man: Switzerland? (if only because they stay out of things like this?)

@ Jack: Good point - I don't think anyone can argue that the US is systematically killing everyone in Fallujah they suspect of being an insurgent. What concerns me more is whether the actions of the marine in the video reflect an indiscriminate or reckless approach. I don't blame people for doing what they believe they must, but irrespective of what conventions you follow or don't, killing a wounded and unarmed combatant who has surrendered to you is cold-blooded murder.

It might not strictly be in the Geneva Convention (and the US has interpreted this rather conveniently and liberally in Guantanamo Bay), but surely there should be routine protocols for handling a situation like this, since it will inevitably come up fairly frequently. I don't believe that firing a short burst at a guy on the ground is standard operational procedure, which is why this event needs to be looked at and understood before we all take our positions and start sniping back and forth. There is a strong prima facie case that this is a human rights violation/war crime, and we'd be naive to accept any "bad apples" theory when there was no comment or criticism offered (at least, not on the tape), but we don't have full possession of the facts as yet.

 

Oh-kay. Mitigating Circumstances time.

a) The Marine who shot the Iraqi was shot in the face the previous day, and so would have been in some state of shock.

b) One of the men in this Marine's squad was killed, and several wounded, when he checked a booby-trapped body. If this kind of stuff was going on, and the previous day it had killed one of my friends, PLUS I had been shot in the face yesterday, I would almost cretainly have shot the Iraqi.
I certainly wouldn't have gone over and checked his pulse.

 

Then he shouldn't have been send back to the field if he obviously still were in a state of shock.

 

I agree, but that's not the Marine's fault, is it?

 

Yes, since he should have not gone, whatevery his athourities say.

 

Oh no no no. You can only disobey if an order is illeagal and going to war is not illegal if youre a soldier. THat's INSUBORDINATION. You get court-martialled.

 

I mean, huh, what is when the footage just tells what we all saw: That the guy simply shot that wounded and that's it.

I find it amusing to see the appempts of justification to try to spin away what the pictures show:

• The mercy killing part is improbably because iirc some other unit left him there alive to be take care of by others. Puzzling to me.
• The "but there were booby trapped bodies" part is equally unconvincing - the normal solution, so was I taught in the army, is then to pull out the probably mined body from distance and under cover with a rope - no need to shoot him preventively.
• The "but comrades of him had been klilled and wounded" part sounds glorious, but think about it, it is an attempt to justify a killing in revenge. Convincing? No, not really.
• The unspoken "The Iraq give a **** about the laws of war" part is silly too, would "but they chopped off the heads of hostages" justify an American chopping off the head of an Iraqi?

I agree the US is certainly not systematically killing everyone in Fallujah they suspect of being an insurgent, but they may well do so randomly.
In urban fighting civillian casualties are unavoidable, heck, even in Stalingrad and Grozny civilians insisted to stay. A strategy of shelling and bombing suspected strongholds and buildings guarantees civilian casualties - and it guarantees pissed off people starting to dislike the US and support or join the insurgents - more, the insurgents have a great recruiting tool by helping the homeless and refugees the US assaults have created.

I wonder how Belfast would have detoriated had Britain chosen the US approach to counterinsurgency on the Irish. I promise you that scenes of burning british flags would have been common sight - in Boston. The brits just had one "bloody sunday", made eternal by U2, the US as far as I can recall, had a few dozens all over Iraq already.
But hey, I forgot, the US conflicts are unprecedented - the Arab bombers are MUCH worse and MUCH more evil and they are ISLAMIACS too and ... anyway.

Atm the US are trying to replicate the "Battle of Algiers" (this, for the france-bashers, was a french victory, one of many in Algeria), with poorer intelligence. Unlike the French the US don't have the advantage of having *frenchmen* there who lived there - and wanted to stay, spoke the langage and knew the ground and the country - resulting in excellent intel. More, a good deal of the french officers had experience in guerrilla war from fighting against Germany in the french resistance - and of course, France used brutal torture excessively to gather intelligence, another lesson they learned from that conflict - and one of the key points that eroded public support for that war in the motherland.

In Algeria France was actually in a better position to win than the US are in Iraq today. But even though France won Algiers it was unable to keep Algeria as a colony anyway.

For everyone interested, go to your public library and get the movie " The Battle of Algiers" - it may put you on a terr'ism watch list because it might be seen as defaitist or pinko propaganda but it gives you an impression of what is happening in Iraq.

[ November 19, 2004, 11:59: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

"...The unspoken "The Iraq give a **** about the laws of war" part is silly too, would "but they chopped off the heads of hostages" justify an American chopping off the head of an Iraqi?..."

If you are fighting terrorists, don't do what terrorist does, if so, you become what you fight: a terrorist.

 

Between choosing from being send to a warzone while I still haven't recovered from my wounds from the day before and don't give a sh*t about the orders, facing penalties if I need to, well, I don't really think it's a hard choise.

Plus, Bush wouldn't dare to put a soldier in prison for too long. By American politics, he isn't "supporting" the troops if he puts them in jail for more than 1 year.

 

Is it a war crime to hand out food in Falluja but then swab everyone's hands with a swab that turns colors if it comes in contact with gunpowder? That's what the U.S. is doing right now. Kind of seems like entrapment to me... On the other hand, it also seems like a pretty good way to catch insurgents, seeing as they have to eat too.

 

I don't know how many on this board have ever worked with marines. But I can tell you they are a close knit, loyal group. The comradeship of marines in a combat is well beyond anything I've ever seen anywhere else -- fraternities have nothing on Semper Fi. The closest thing I've ever seen is the loyalty of the legionnaires (and perhaps the swiss guards at the Vatican).

The average marine is fiercely loyal to his fellow marines -- to not do his share for any reason is a failure in the mind of that marine. The Marines work through pain and injury because they refuse to let their fellow marines down. The marine that was shot could have received convalescence, but in his mind he would have been walking out on his closest comrades (ironic to use a soviet term when describing US Marines) at a time they needed him. I doubt he was ordered back to combat, so insubordination would not have been a factor.

@Ragusa: Your last two posts have been very well thought out and very interesting. Some great points there. I only disagree with your assertion that the US Military view the Geneva Convention as a nuisance to be brushed aside when convenient. The military literally lives and dies by the Geneva Convention. It is taught to all members of the armed forces when they first join. Orders of Battle and combat doctrine incorporate the Articles of the Geneva Convention.

I was not in Falluja, I doubt any of us on this board were, I do not know if excessive force was used or efforts were taken to minimize collateral damage -- it is clear some military members did not follow the combat doctrine (I still contend those violation were done by very few individuals). Those violators need to be punished.

 

In the video it looks like the marine thought the mosque was a morgue not a hospital, and when the the body started twitching he freaked out.

I bet he felt embarassed when he realised what was going on, it is a real Candid Camera moment.

The full scale assault on Fullujah had to happen to prepare the way for the democratic elections in Iraq in two months time.

Current exit polls of Fullujah residents seem to indicate a new found willingness to vote for President Bush's chosen candidate.

In fact this campaign tactic has proven so successful that President Bush may adopt it in the swing states of the American mid-west, as the ballot rigging lawsuits in Ohio are really becoming prohibitively expensive.

-------------------------------------------------
Apocalpyse Now

Willard shoots the wounded girl :

There was a crazy reporter in Apocalypse now that was so messed up he did not know right from wrong. I think that the NBC reporter that released the footage to the public at this time is no less messed up. Bad things are happening in Iraq. Mistakes are being made, and when almost everyone is armed, mistakes can be fatal. I don't need to be told this or shown this. It is common sense.

The NBC reporter thinks that he is serving some higher cause by exposing the 'lie' of the this insignifigant (until now) event to the public, but that footage will be used as the justification for more acts of terrorism.

In war you must choose a side. Choose a lie. In my opinion the footage is an abhorent act of treachery and stupidity on the the reporter's part, and an understandible mistake on the soldier's part.

[ November 19, 2004, 16:52: Message edited by: Black Beard ]

 

T2Bruno,
I don't mean the military, the soldiers, but their current political masters.

I agree with your assessment of the position of the US military to the Geneva Convention - however, despite their knowledgev of the Geneva Convention Abu Ghraib did happen, with the unspoken but active encouragement of the pentagon politicos.

Worse, while the privates and sergeants got punished, about everyone responsible and of senior rank has in fact not been punished but rewarded.