Murderer Marine

[Sydax]

http://www.thenausea.com/updates.html


I saw a video this morning...
That is the "freedom" they bring?

[Cúchulainn]

I expect that the persons in question will be 'punished' with a few years in military jail.

"Mohammed Abboud (9 year old), bleeded to death wounded by sharpnel in Fallujah after his parents could not find a hospital (american forces have destroyed it).Nov'04"

[Darkwolf]

If anyone is actually interested in some reputable news reporting regarding this event, here is a link:

Military probes other deaths in Falluja incident

First off, this is not a war crime. The Geneva Conventions do not cover combatants out of uniform attempting to blend in with the populace. He was fair game.

Secondly, knowing that these insurgents are known to fake being dead, only to have a gun or bomb hidden on them that they arise a use to kill soldiers, it is not an unexpected event.

If it is proven that he knew or should have reasonably known that these people had been disarmed and given first aid by US troops, and he went ahead and shot this guy, then the Marine should be hung from the nearest flagpole. However, if in the haste of war no sign was left behind to indicate that these insurgents were neutralized, then give the Marine back his rifle and let him get back to work.

Now, I have one word for anyone who expresses their outrage at this event who hasn't already expressed outrage at the beheading of people who are working in Iraq to help the Iraqi people...

HYPOCRITE!

[Cúchulainn]

and vice-versa

[BOC]

First off, this is not a war crime. The Geneva Conventions do not cover combatants out of uniform attempting to blend in with the populace. He was fair game.

Darkwolf, have you ever read the conventions or the protocols? From the Article 44 paragraph 3 of the Protocols:

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

[Darkwolf]

BOC:

he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

Exactly the point, they don't carry their arms openly.

Nothing I said in my post contradicts the text you have copied out of the Geneva Conventions. If you are out of uniform, and attempting to blend in (ie you are not openly carrying your weapons) then you are not covered in the Geneva conventions.

This of course creates another problem that the Geneval Conventions did not forsee. The Iraqi populace, especially in rural areas carry around AKs for their own protection. In combat, how do you differentiate a hostile combatant from a civilian when they look exactly alike???

[BOC]

Are you certain that they didn't carry their arms openly? Also, the guy was wounded because he had participated in a battle against marines, had he fought with his weapon hidden?

And the text, that I copied, contradicts your claim about the uniform.

EDIT:

Also, even if we accept that his has lost his compatant status, he is still under the protection of the protocols according to Article 44 paragraph 4:

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

[ November 17, 2004, 16:55: Message edited by: BOC ]

[Pac man]

Name me ONE nation that lives up to the rules according to the Geneva convention... just one.

Gues what...you can't, because noone really cares about them. In a time of war, there simply are no rules.

[BOC]

@Pac Man

Exactly everybody violetes the rules, perhaps I would do the same or even worse if I was in the place of this marine but this doesn't mean that this execution was not a war crime. Furthermore, since the commanding officer of the marines claims that his men are fighting according to the rules (see Darkwolf's link) then there is one more reason to punish this marine.

[Pac man]

Then the commanding officer in question is lying his ass off. It's probably because they have been tricked by virtually unarmed men one time too many.

It's bad, but most people would probably do the same thing. Better safe than sorry and all that.

[Takara]

Maybe so, but the guy did it in front of a TV camera. For that stupidity alone he should be tried, me thinks.

[T2Bruno]

The vast majority of professional soldiers follow the Geneva convention. They are trained in what is and is not acceptable conduct during war when they first enter the military. There will always be a few who do not follow the convention and a few that get carried away "in the heat of the moment." Violating the Geneva convention is wrong and individuals responsible should be tried for those actions.

Other extinuating circumstances, i.e., a soldier was killed the previous day by someone faking to be dead and the soldier in question was shot the previous day, are things that should only be considered by a judge and jury. The marine violated the convention and needs to be tried.

I'm inclined to agree with Takara, but if stupidity were a crime we all be in prison (maybe we are, we just think we're not...).

[joacqin]

If one idiot does something like that in front of a camera how many instances do you think there are when there were no cameras around? Or is it just as in Abu Ghraib that US soldiers only misbehave when on camera?

[Cúchulainn]

I seen the video and there was no panic that I could see. It seemed that he just wanted to shoot the guy dead in front of the other wounded. It was not like the building was stormed and they were caught up in 'the fog of war'.

I also seen the video of a guy getting beheaded (from the link at the top) and it was the most disgusting thing that I have ever seen. I hope I never have to see anything like that again. As far as I am concerned the rapists and abusers are just as evil as the militants that think its ok to kidnap people and execute them.

[Ragusa]

I wouldn't say it is a question wether the guy was wearing a uniform or not - slowly: S-h-o-o-t-i-n-g u-n-a-r-m-e-d w-o-u-n-d-e-d p-e-r-s-o-n-s i-s w-r-o-n-g. This was cold blooded murder.

And sadly, that is unsurprising considering how the administration hawks look at the Iraq insurgency. They fight a war of attrittion in Fallujah, America's preferred way of war.
In Fallujah it is no more about hearts and minds, it is only about minds. With that I mean the Pentagon politicos are applying "shock and awe" again. The message of Fallujah is: Submit or die.

With that in mind, the murder of that wounded Iraqi is not surprising, it is a logical consequence of the neo-con idea of counter-insurgency. You can expect more of that.

From their point of view that Marine made everything right - except for getting filmed.

The neo-con armchair generals think when they have killed all the evil insurgents (whose number they seem to consider static) and terrorised the Iraqi people to sufficiently fear the US, then miraculously calm and peace will descend on the graveyard they made of Iraq and the Iraqis will suddenly realise that they love the US, get devoted to democracy - and become anti-French and republican. Or so.

As I see it, the flattening of Grozny a couple of years ago didn't exactly solve Russia's problem in Chechnya.

Whoever is in Fallujah is considered a suspect insurgent. In Fallujah the US are on a penal expedition and deal out collective punishment.
It probably won't work, but maybe the slaughter buys them a period of relative calm (while the insurgents re-organise) till after the election in Iraq - and then we have a political success for George Bush! Well, sort-of, but we can spin that away just like the number of civillian casualties, can't we?

[T2Bruno]

Interesting arguement, but I cannot agree with a couple of the premises you use. First, no sane or reasonable person would ever believe killing an unarmed man is acceptable -- that includes politicians and military. Second, no one believes all the insurgents were eliminated (I've never met an armchair General). In fact, the allied leaders believe most escaped Fallujah. Putting the terrorists on the run hinders their ability to plan and carry out attacks.

[Ragusa]

You got me wrong. I do think and I think I did stress that the murder of an unarmed civilian IS unacceptable.

As for sane persons and the neo-con think on counterinsurgency:

Clearer than the rest of the right-leaning punditocracy, (I mean the Krauthammers, Safires, Boots ..) commentator and columnist Ralph Peters IMO summarised it best in his aptly titled article where he jubilates: Bush has won! The time is now: SEND THE MARINES IN TO DESTROY FALLUJAH!!! (I've never thought of Fallujah as an election party) - more detailed:

We must not be afraid to make an example of Fallujah.
(...)
[We have to] to burn out the plague of fanaticism and prove to Iraq's people that the forces of terror will not be allowed to enslave them.

We need to demonstrate that the United States military cannot be deterred or defeated. If that means widespread destruction, we must accept the price.

Hmm, as I see it's the Iraqis who will pay the price for his so much desired show of force, not so much the US - so it is somewhat brazen to generously say that ... unsurprising, the man writes for Murdoch's New York Post and appears on FOX O'Reilly Factor, another Murdoch outlet.

[ November 18, 2004, 19:22: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

[T2Bruno]

Your first line is not addressing anything I said -- I have not questioned your ability to think. Nor have I questioned how offended you were by the killing (that was obvious, I'm also offended by the killing).

Finding an opinion and classifying it as doctrine for conservatives (even neo-conservatives) is blatently unfair. One opinion does not reflect policy.

Did you even read the article or did you just read the portions you thought were the most offensive to you? He states quite clearly that rules of warfare must be followed (even though they are not followed by the enemy). That seems to poke a hole more in your arguements than mine.

[Darkwolf]

BOC

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

This assumes he is under the control of the US. However until he is confirmed to be disarmed he is not under control, and given the fact that the insurgents have booby-trapped themselves and hidden weapons upon their person only to pull them out and use them even though they are committing suicide, determination of incapacitation becomes problematic.

The Geneva Convention was not written with these circumstances in mind. IMO it was assumed that under the control meant surrendered or incapacitated, and these people often times choose not to surrender and fake their incapacitation. If the soldier believed that the insurgent was faking his death the shooting would be reasonable in this circumstance. If the insurgents weren't making suicide attacks after faking their death or incapacitation, it would be outrageous.

[BOC]

Darkwolf why do you want to make me to post the entire text of the conventions and the protocols in this thread? A man laying down wounded and surrounded by three or four marines is under the control of US. If, however, we accept that he isn't under the control of US, he is still considered to be hors de combat and therefore protected by the conventions and the protocols. According to Article 41 paragraphs 1 and 2:

1. A person who is recognized or who, in the circumstances should be recognized to be hors de combat shall not be made the object of attack.

2. A person is hors de combat if: (a) he is in the power of an adverse Party; (b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or (c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;

provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

You have watched the video. Have you seen this man trying to escape or trying to attack the marines? The fact that this marine was afraid to confirm that the guerilla was incapicated and prefered to be safe than sorry, as Pac Man put it, is understandable but is still a war crime acording to the conventions and the protocols.

Also, the Geneva conventions were written with these circumstaces in mind since they were written after the war with the most urban warfare in military history and situations like this were happening all the time.

[Ragusa]

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.

We need to pursue the terrorists remorselessly.

That means killing. While we strive to obey the internationally recognized laws of war (though our enemies do not), our goal should be to target the terrorists and insurgents so forcefully that few survive to raise their hands in surrender (aka shoot first ask later). We don't need more complaints about our treatment of prisoners from the global forces of appeasement. We need terrorists dead in the dust. And the world needs to see their corpses.
(...)
Even if Fallujah has to go the way of Carthage, reduced to shards, the price will be worth it. We need to demonstrate our strength of will to the world ...

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:

Most of Fallujah's residents - those who wish to live in peace - have already fled. Those who remain have made their choice.

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 ]

[Sir Belisarius]

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.

[Jack Funk]

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).

[joacqin]

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.

[Abomination]

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?