SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/17/2004 12:33:56 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Kevin Sites: "Question the Dominant Powers"

LGF

From Kevin Sites Blog, an amazingly pompous, open declaration of non-sympathy for American soldiers:

<<<
So in some ways, embedded in this unit, I begin to feel I’ve betrayed the people that depend on me to be skeptical; to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation and the actions it undertakes in the name of its citizens. I am not a military or American cheerleader, not a mouthpiece signed on to some institutional agenda whether I believe in it or not. I am here to ask the hard questions of the people who make the hardest decisions; ones that result in people dying or people being killed. I must remember as one journalist advised, “write in your notepad every day ‘I am not one of them.’”
>>>

One of Sites’ employers, CNN, told him to shut down this blog—possibly because they were worried their agenda would be discovered if Sites kept writing things like this.

by Charles

littlegreenfootballs.com



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/17/2004 1:15:38 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
NBC Reporter Declines Al-Jazeera 'Best Video' Award

by Scott Ott

(2004-11-16) -- NBC News reporter Kevin Sites today declined to accept Al-Jazeera's Best News Video Award for 2004, insisting that there are many reporters who deserve the recognition, and that he just "happened to be in the right place at the right time."

Mr. Sites chalked it up to "dumb luck" that he was able to record a U.S. Marine shooting a captured terrorist in the mosque which the terrorist had used as a battle station during his fight against American forces.

"I'm no hero," Mr. Sites said. "The real heroes are the executives at NBC News who had the guts to show my video over and over, even after all the heat they took for refusing to show footage of terrorists beheading innocent American civilians. I think that speaks volumes about their character and professionalism."

An Al-Jazeera spokesman said Mr. Sites and NBC have used their art to "advance the cause of freedom in a fashion reminiscent of Michael Moore."

by Scott Ott

scrappleface.com



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/17/2004 2:26:39 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
About That Marine

INDC Journal

Monday night on CNN I heard the dreaded comparison of the recent Marine shooting of a wounded man to the Abu Ghraib scandal, and my immediate thought was ... "no."

No. We are not going to let the MSM do this. We are not going to let them blow up an incident that took place in the heat of asymmetrical urban combat amid booby-trapped bodies and enemy atrocities into a full-scale worldwide spectacle of American self-flagellation. When Abu Ghraib took place, I was disgusted by the repellent actions of the soldiers that casually abused their prisoners; I wanted them punished for the damage that they did to US credibility as well as the shocking impropriety of their actions. But within two weeks, after dozens of front-page stories and top features crowded major dailies and cable news broadcasts, my sentiments shifted to anger at the US media for once again sensationalizing and taking an issue out of context, and incessantly editorializing condemnation of the Bush Administration and the much larger effort in Iraq.

How many front-page items has the NY Times run about the construction of schools and the supply of hospitals? How many front-page pieces have featured the stories of American soldiers' courage and charity to local Iraqis? How many reporters have delved into the torture and oppression of the previous regime and the post-war reactions of its former victims? These angles that might provide beneficial context to the larger conduct and aftermath of the war have represented an infinitessimal sliver of the news coverage coming from Iraq. In comparison, the MSM marinated in weeks of features about the misconduct at Abu Ghraib, effectively practicing a form of moral equivalence that is ultimately destructive to the war effort and harmful to our society.

Most MSM outlets can't muster up the outrage to energetically condemn the extremist forces that decapitate innocents on camera and wave the severed heads in the air, or shoot blinfolded women in the head, but are all too ready to swarm over primarily non-fatal psychological abuse conducted by a cadre of undisciplined soldiers and their incompetent management, or the possibly criminal execution of a wounded Iraqi in the heat of urban combat, because the negative incidents selectively lend credence to their predetermined narrative: the war is a misguided, ignoble effort that dehumanizes all participants. And it's always more comfortable for liberal elitists to practice self-critical moral equivalence within their own societal sphere than to label extremist elements of a foreign culture as psycopathic murderers that demand extermination.

To be clear - I am not suggesting that Abu Ghraib and the shooting in Fallujah are incidents that should have been buried by a patriotic press corps. As a society that gains strength from openness and self-criticism, it's usually in our ultimate best interest to obtain as much information as possible - good or bad. But the revelation of these stories need to be editorialized and reported in the proper context, along with a small fraction of the thousands of unreported tales of positive conduct by Americans, shockingly improper conduct by our enemies and systematic US Military justice that typically sets our actions apart from those of our terrorist enemies.

We will not let them get away with demonizing this Marine and in turn extrapolating the incident to a demonization of America and the greater war effort. If Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Zahn, Woodruff and the editors of the NYT want to subject America to incessant prejudgment and critcism of the actions of one Marine that was under an incredible amount of stress and had been shot in the face the previous day, go for it. Because now that the election's over, I've realized that they're surely losing their monopoly on narrative and audience share. The MSM threw everthing and the kitchen sink at the Bush Administration and the efforts often backfired, and we now know that this country still maintains a healthy majority that rejects moral equivalence and underconfidence in America. As a result, if the MSM decides to overzealously pursue this story, they will also continue to diminish themselves in the eyes of their audience, and alternative media sources will once again be on hand to grimly enable their departure from relevance.

Comments
I disagree. Let the MSM hyperventilate, let them blow this into the next 60 minutes segment, let them slobber over this for weeks. Most Americans, certainly the Red-staters, will shrug and say,"Well, yes, that's what happens in war. You shoot them before they shoot you." I, myself, don't understnad why this non-story is being touted at all. It may just be me, but I thought this was how war went. You fire on the enemy--wounded, feigning dead, whatever. The Left is demanding a defense for an action that wasn't criminal in the first place. Perhaps this is a new tactic--re-define the rules of war to impose the greatest limitation on our military. But even worse than a few miscreants playing Abu-Grabass, now they're trying to impugn soldiers actually engaged in combat?? Fine. Let it run. Americans will shake their heads and wonder what world Brokaw, et al. inhabit. Ironically, this being war and all, it was a French guy that said it best--when your enemy is busy making mistakes, take care not to get in his way.

Posted by: T Marcell at November 17, 2004 01:52 PM

A. Not sure where your disagreement lies. You WANT the media to hyperventilate? The crux of my post is that I'm almost comfortable with it - as it will only hurt their credibility.

B. We don't know the facts or extenuating circumstances. While I tend to give a confused Marine operating in an environment with booby traps and suicide bombers the benefit of the doubt, shooting an unarmed wounded combatant IS a war crime.

The question is how the Marine perceived the situation. I'm confident that with 10 witnesses and video footage, the military will conduct a proper investigation that hashes out the truth of the matter.

indcjournal.com



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/18/2004 11:42:42 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Shooting Video

By Diplomad

As could be expected the media in the Far Abroad are having a ball with the NBC video of a US Marine apparently shooting some wounded or perhaps already dead Iraqi "insurgent." The usual gang of anti-America yahoos are running the tape over and over and over: Al Jazeera, BBC, TVF, DW, CNNInternational, etc., just can't seem to run it enough.

The tape is outrageous. It should not be on the air at all -- not even the partially blacked out version that Fox and some others have run. We, however, do not blame NBC or the rest of the MSM. They are around to film, and will film whatever they can get away with. We all know that about the media; to expect them to censor themselves is to expect too much in today's "gotcha" sensationalist environment.

We at The Diplomad blame the military censors. Presumably this NBC cameraman was an authorized "embed" with US forces. Those reporters and cameramen are subject to military censorship (as BBC reminds us repeatedly.) Why did US military censors allow NBC to run the tape? It should have been seized as "evidence" in any legal proceeding or investigation that will follow the shooting incident, or simply as posing a danger to lives and future operations.

Some military PR flack should lose his job over this. Let's hope Americans don't lose their lives.

We are really hacked off over this.

Let us know if we're wrong.



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/18/2004 11:49:44 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A Marine Writes Home

Powerline -

Later on, I intend to link to several sources talking about the shooting of the wounded terrorist in Fallujah. For now, I want to pass on this email from a Marine in the 11th MEU:

This is one story of many that people normally don't hear, and one that everyone does.

This is one most don't hear:

<<<
A young Marine and his cover man cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with Ak-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor(doctor)!" He is badly wounded, lying in a pool of his own blood. The Marine and his cover man slowly walk toward the injured man, scanning to make sure no enemies come from behind.

In a split second, the pressure in the room greatly exceeds that of the outside, and the concussion seems to be felt before the blast is heard. Marines outside rush to the room, and look in horror as the dust gradually settles. The result is a room filled with the barely recognizable remains of the deceased, caused by an insurgent setting off several pounds of explosives.

The Marines' remains are gathered by teary eyed comrades, brothers in arms, and shipped home in a box. The families can only mourn over a casket and a picture of their loved one, a life cut short by someone who hid behind a white flag.

But no one hears these stories, except those who have lived to carry remains of a friend, and the families who loved the dead. No one hears this, so no one cares
.
>>>

This is the story everyone hears:

<<<
A young Marine and his fire team cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with AK-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insugent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor(doctor)!" He is badly wounded. Suddenly, he pulls from under his bloody clothes a grenade, without the pin. The explosion rocks the room, killing one Marine, wounding the others. The young Marine catches shrapnel in the face.

The next day, same Marine, same type of situation, a different story. The young Marine and his cover man enter a room with two wounded insurgents. One lies on the floor in puddle of blood, another against the wall. A reporter and his camera survey the wreckage inside, and in the background can be heard the voice of a Marine, "He's moving, he's moving!"

The pop of a rifle is heard, and the insurgent against the wall is now dead. Minutes, hours later, the scene is aired on national television, and the Marine is being held for commiting a war crime. Unlawful killing.

And now, another Marine has the possibility of being burned at the stake for protecting the life of his brethren. His family now wrings their hands in grief, tears streaming down their face. Brother, should I have been in your boots, i too would have done the same
.

For those of you who don't know, we Marines, Band of Brothers, Jarheads, Leathernecks, etc., do not fight because we think it is right, or think it is wrong. We are here for the man to our left, and the man to our right. We choose to give our lives so that the man or woman next to us can go home and see their husbands, wives, children, friends and families.

For those of you who sit on your couches in front of your television, and choose to condemn this man's actions, I have but one thing to say to you. Get out of your recliner, lace up my boots, pick up a rifle, leave your family behind and join me. See what I've seen, walk where I have walked
.

To those of you who support us, my sincerest gratitude. You keep us alive.

I am a Marine currently doing his second tour in Iraq. These are my opinions and mine alone. They do not represent those of the Marine Corps or of the US military, or any other.



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/18/2004 12:08:05 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Semper Fi

The story of Fallujah isn't on that NBC videotape.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK - WSJ.com
Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Some 40 Marines have just lost their lives cleaning out one of the world's worst terror dens, in Fallujah, yet all the world wants to talk about is the NBC videotape of a Marine shooting a prostrate Iraqi inside a mosque.

Have we lost all sense of moral proportion?

The al-Zarqawi TV network, also known as Al-Jazeera, has broadcast the tape to the Arab world, and U.S. media have also played it up. The point seems to be to conjure up images again of Abu Ghraib, further maligning the American purpose in Iraq. Never mind that the pictures don't come close to telling us about the context of the incident, much less what was on the mind of the soldier after days of combat.

Put yourself in that Marine's boots. He and his mates have had to endure some of the toughest infantry duty imaginable, house-to-house urban fighting against an enemy that neither wears a uniform nor obeys any normal rules of war. Here is how that enemy fights, according to an account in the Times of London:

<<<
"In the south of Fallujah yesterday, U.S. Marines found the armless, legless body of a blonde woman, her throat slashed and her entrails cut out. Benjamin Finnell, a hospital apprentice with the U.S. Navy Corps, said that she had been dead for a while, but at that location for only a day or two. The woman was wearing a blue dress; her face had been disfigured. It was unclear if the remains were the body of the Irish-born aid worker Margaret Hassan, 59, or of Teresa Borcz, 54, a Pole abducted two weeks ago. Both were married to Iraqis and held Iraqi citizenship; both were kidnapped in Baghdad last month."
>>>

When not disemboweling Iraqi women, these killers hide in mosques and hospitals, booby-trap dead bodies, and open fire as they pretend to surrender. Their snipers kill U.S. soldiers out of nowhere. According to one account, the Marine in the videotape had seen a member of his unit killed by another insurgent pretending to be dead.

Who from the safety of his Manhattan sofa has standing to judge what that Marine did in that mosque
?

Beyond the one incident, think of what the Marine and Army units just accomplished in Fallujah. In a single week, they killed as many as 1,200 of the enemy and captured 1,000 more. They did this despite forfeiting the element of surprise, so civilians could escape, and while taking precautions to protect Iraqis that no doubt made their own mission more difficult and hazardous. And they did all of this not for personal advantage, and certainly not to get rich, but only out of a sense of duty to their comrades, their mission and their country.

In a more grateful age, this would be hailed as one of the great battles in Marine history--with Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Hue City and the Chosin Reservoir. We'd know the names of these military units, and of many of the soldiers too. Instead, the name we know belongs to the NBC correspondent, Kevin Sites
.

We suppose he was only doing his job, too. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to indulge in the moral abdication that would equate deliberate televised beheadings of civilians with a Marine shooting a terrorist, who may or may not have been armed, amid the ferocity of battle.


Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/18/2004 2:00:20 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
'Supporting the troops'?

Thomas Sowell November 18, 2004

During the recent election campaign, it has been a liberal mantra that they "support the troops" while opposing the war in Iraq. Just what does supporting the troops mean -- other than just a throwaway line to escape the political consequences of a long history of being anti-military?

It certainly does not mean making the slightest effort to understand the pressures and dangers of combat, so as to avoid the obscenity of sitting in peace and comfort while second-guessing at leisure some life-and-death decisions that had to be made in a split second by men 10,000 miles away.

The latest example is the now widely-publicized incident in which an American Marine in Iraq shot and killed a wounded terrorist in Fallujah. Chris Matthews on Hardball spoke of "what may be the illegal killing of a wounded, unarmed insurgent" -- the politically correct media term for a terrorist -- and asked: "Is there ever a justification for shooting an unarmed enemy?"

The unreality of this question is breath-taking, both logically and historically. How do you know that someone is unarmed, when finding out can cost you your life? A hand grenade is easily concealed and can kill you just as dead as if you were shot by a machine gun or hit by a nuclear missile
.

American troops in Iraq have already been killed by booby-trapped bodies. During World War II, wounded Japanese soldiers sometimes waited for an American medical corpsman to come over to help them and then exploded a hand grenade, killing them both.

Assuming that somehow you are certain that an enemy is unarmed, perhaps because you have already searched him or disarmed him, is it ever justified to kill him anyway? That question was answered more than half a century ago, when German troops wearing American uniforms and speaking English infiltrated American lines during the Battle of the Bulge.

Those German troops, when captured, were lined up against a wall and shot dead. And nobody wrung his hands about it.

The rules of war, the Geneva Convention, do not protect soldiers who are not wearing their own country's uniforms. To get the protection of rules, you have to play by the rules
.

Terrorists are not enemy soldiers covered by the rules of war. Nor should they be. They observe no rules
.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations can all talk about "the Geneva Convention." But that agreement on the rules of war has never applied to combatants not wearing the uniform of any country that is a party to the Geneva Convention
.

Terrorists wear no uniform and show no mercy, as they have repeatedly demonstrated by beheading innocent civilians, including women.

Why any such terrorists should be captured alive in the first place is a real question. Maybe they have information that could be useful. But every terrorist our troops try to capture alive increases the risk of death for American combat troops.

Their information better be damned important for that.

It is more than enough to ask a man to put his life on the line for his country, without needlessly increasing those risks by trying to be nobler than thou or playing to the international gallery. The very fact that this Marine in Fallujah has been taken out of combat and is under investigation can only have an inhibiting effect on other troops.

The inhibitions under which American troops have already had to fight have needlessly jeopardized their safety while we tiptoe around the delicate sensibilities of the media, European critics and "the Arab street."

The Times of London refers to a Marine "killing an unarmed man in cold blood." If that was his purpose he could have opened fire when he entered the room, instead of waiting until he saw an Iraqi terrorist faking being dead -- for what purpose the Marine had no way of knowing.

We cannot fight wars to please The Times of London or the other nay-sayers and nit-pickers who have been against us from the beginning. There is no point trying to appease people who are not going to be appeased anyway. And to do so at an increased risk to American lives would be criminal.



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/19/2004 10:10:36 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A message from Baghdad

Powerline

Our reader Haider Ajina phoned his father in Baghdad for an update on Iraqi sentiment concerning the Marine killing. Haider sends us the following message:

<<<
I just got of the phone with my father in Baghdad. I asked him what is the reaction of the Marine killing the injured Iraqi in the Mosque in Felujah. His first words were "Good riddance."

People are not giving it a second thought. Any terrorist who attacks soldiers from Mosques has no sanctuary. Any terrorists who fake death to kill in a mosque deserve no mercy. He says Iraqis (including Sunnis) are fed up with the terrorists and want them eliminated.

There was much uproar about the brutal kidnapping killing of Mrs. Margaret Hassan. Iraqis are upset outraged and disgusted with her brutal abduction & killing. She helped us, helped the poor & needy and this what the terrorist do to her and her family.

He says we must stay strong, united and relentless in the pursuit of the terrorist. Baghdad had relative calm over the last few days. People are even going out in the street till 9:30pm now.

Please spread the message, let America Know that the Iraqis are with us, grateful and want us to stay strong and get stronger so that we can all defeat terrorism.
>>>

Haider also writes:

<<<
The Iraqi Arabic newspaper "Azaman" reported the following in its Nov. 19th issue: "Israel & Six Arab countries join to fight terrorism." The English translation is as follows:
"NATO announced that it will perform anti terrorist Naval maneuvers in the Mediterranean. These maneuvers will be in partnership with the navies of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Tunis, Algiers & Mauritania. These forces will train together to better hone their skills in fighting terrorist, drug smugglers and illegal immigration in the Mediterranean basin."
>>>

This looks like a step in the right direction. It seems we all have a common enemy now. This a sad but best way to bring people together. We witnessed this in 9-11 right here at home.

UPDATE: To the message from Baghdad let us append this companion piece by Diana West: "Marine just doing his job." West writes:

<<<
What I'm getting at, in this land of free speech and home of brave Marines, is my unequivocal belief that Marine X committed no "war crimes" in that fortified Fallujah mosque last week where he shot and killed a prone and wounded terrorist. He was just doing his job — his hellishly dangerous job — and thank God for him...

Who, among the global millions who have watched NBC's videotaped-shooting, realize that a comrade of the Marine in question was killed by a booby-trapped corpse the day before? That same corpse-bomb wounded five others in the unit. And who, among those same millions, realize that even as Marine X, NBC's global anti-hero, was shooting the enemy he suspected was playing possum, just a block away, another explosive-rigged corpse was killing another young Marine
?

In that split second of fear and indecision, our guy made the right call...
>>>>

Posted by The Big Trunk

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/19/2004 10:39:54 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Screw the Geneva convention, part I: Where we are today

Wizbang blog

Quite a bit has been written about the videotaped shooting of a wounded Iraqi by a US Marine in Fallujah, and I think it's about time I got my two cents in.

My first reaction when I saw the tape was it reminded me eerily of the incident where John Kerry won his Silver Star. I spoke about that earlier, and defended Kerry's conduct. I stand by that then, and I stand by that now.

In Iraq, we are facing an enemy that reads through the Geneva Conventions and uses the "thou shalt not" section as "helpful hints
." We've spelled out exactly what we will and will not do, and they are exploiting it relentlessly. We say we won't attack religious structures? That's where they'll hang out. We won't kill civilians? They'll dress up as civilians. They'll take hostages and hide behind them. We take prisoners? They'll boobytrap the wounded. In every instance, the thread remains the same: wherever we show mercy and restraint, they will punish us for it.

Much has been said about how the Marine shooting violated the Geneva convention, that it was the plain and simple execution of a prisoner. From what I've seen, the Iraqi (if he was even Iraqi) hadn't actually surrendered and been captured. Besides, just five minutes ago one of his colleagues had "surrendered" and then blown himself up, killing another Marine nearby.

Besides, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply here. We are not fighting another signatory nation to the treaties. Further, we are not fighting uniformed forces, and therefore each and every single one of these "insurgents" is entitled to summary execution on the spot, if we so wish.

The only laws and restraints on our troops is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is the law that covers our forces in uniform, and it and it alone should hold sway over the conduct of our forces.

And with the restraints of the Geneva Convention lifted, what would keep our forces from just killing all insurgents, across the board, on the spot? What would keep the US from simply instituting a "no prisoners" policy? A few things.

For one, the commanders of our forces understand the politics of the situation. Such an absolute policy would do our effort far more harm than good, and they''ll make sure it doesn't go too far.

For another, the training of our forces. We don't train our troops to be mindless killing machines. We have what is most likely the most intelligent and ethical military force in the world, and we impose far greater restraints on our forces than any other power.

For a third, simple common sense. There's an old song that says "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." If the insurgents see that they are going to get killed regardless of whether or not they try to surrender for real, then every single battle becomes a bloody struggle to the end. While many of them seem quite willing -- if not eager -- to die for their cause. some still have that self-preservation instinct, and we can and should exploit that.

Some may say I'm putting an awful lot of faith and trust in our armed forces. I am, but I have good reason. To steal a line from a book I'm particularly fond of, "for the best reason in the world -- we're the good guys."

And we want to be able to still think of ourselves as the good guys when this is all over.

J.

Posted by Jay Tea

wizbangblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)11/22/2004 4:13:33 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Marine who shot insurgent acted rationally

As soon as I saw the tape of a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded insurgent in Fallujah, I knew there'd be trouble. The Iraqi had violated the rules of war by fighting from a mosque and was left for dead in combat. But he wasn't dead. So when a squad of Marines entered the mosque in a mop-up operation and the prone insurgent moved, a young Marine shot him dead.
But the tape of the incident actually helps the Marine, because you can clearly hear him yell to his squad: "He's [blanking] faking he's dead!" Then the soldier shoots. On the tape, you can see the insurgent move before the Marine pulls the trigger.

One day earlier, another Marine in the same unit was killed by a booby trap that was strapped to a dead insurgent. The enemy in Iraq rejects all rules of warfare, and American troops know it. Insurgents and foreign terrorists routinely dress in civilian clothes, hide behind civilians, mount operations from inside mosques, wear the uniforms of pro-American Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, attack civilians and on and on and on.

Having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash. If that wounded insurgent had a grenade or other explosive device, the entire Marine squad and the photographer could be dead right now. In a killing zone, one cannot afford the luxury of knowing what is certain.

If that young Marine had homicide on his mind, he would have entered the mosque firing. But he did not. The Marine reacted to perceived danger. Another wounded Iraqi in the same room identified himself and was taken prisoner. This was not some My Lai action.

But the so-called human rights groups are calling it a "possible war crime." What a bunch of bull! The Marine made a decision that was reasonable.

Most of the American press has been cautious in covering the Marine controversy, although The Los Angeles Times ran this subhead: "Marine May Be Charged in the Fallujah Killing of an Unarmed Fighter. The Footage Airs on Arab TV, Further Tarnishing America's Image."

Now, there's nothing factually wrong with that headline. But is it designed to put the Marine and the U.S. in a dubious light? You make the call.

The Pentagon is not releasing the name of the Marine and is investigating. Both of those things are fair. But this case is not complicated, and anyone condemning that soldier should himself be condemned.

The war in Iraq as well as the war on terror is as ugly as it gets. Mistakes will be made. But this action is not one of them.

Originally published on November 21, 2004

nydailynews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)12/6/2004 11:38:20 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Leaving the Hall of Mirrors

LGF

Caroline B. Glick’s latest column is well-reasoned and thought-provoking, as always: Leaving the hall of mirrors.

<<<<
Freelance journalist Kevin Sites was just another guy trying to make his way in the business until the battle of Fallujah. While accompanying US Marines into a mosque, Sites filmed a Marine shooting a prostrate terrorist lying in the mosque, then crassly pronouncing him dead. As the pictures made their way around the world, millions of anti-US voices rang up angrily denouncing the Marines for committing “war crimes.” Overnight, Sites became an international star. Everyone wanted to read the Left’s dazzling Johnny-on-the-Spot and all “right-thinking” people pronounced him a professional upholding the highest standards of journalism. Heady stuff for a reporter on the make and a powerful message for all aspiring plyers of the trade.

In Israel, our TV news broadcast Sites’s footage over and over as wizened anchors shook their heads with revulsion over the inhumanity of US armed forces in Iraq. The newspapers played up coverage of the event to make certain that all of us knew just how awful American forces really are.

No one bothered to make mention of the fact that Marines and soldiers fighting in Fallujah had been repeatedly attacked by terrorists playing possum. No one bothered to make mention of the numerous instances of terrorists raising the white flag of surrender only to fire at forces coming to take them into custody. What does the context of the battle matter when a case can be made for vilifying US Marines as war criminals — on the basis of Sites’s isolated, deconstructionist footage — rather than praising them as battle-trained warriors?

Terrorists have two basic advantages over the Western armies and societies that fight them: their own invisibility, and the self-obsession and hatred of Western Leftists. By not abiding by the centuries-old rules of war that stipulate that combatants are uniformed members of the armed forces of a country or a recognized insurgency in control of territory, the terrorists have an upper hand despite their relatively small numbers and outdated weaponry. How can a war be justified against an enemy you can’t see who looks just like the civilians you are obligated by law and your values to protect?
>>>>

by Charles

littlegreenfootballs.com



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)1/6/2005 6:49:42 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
From: unclewest

Speaking of civil liberties, I understand the board of officers investigating the Marine who shot the wounded terrorist has found his action conforms to the rules of war and recommended no action.

I was also told that two Spanish reporters witnessed the event and provided written statements that differed substantially from the Sites version, also a grenade was found under the wraps of the individual who was moving suspiciously and was subsequently shot. The other wounded enemy were not shot because they exhibited no threatening behavior.

Sorry no link. I got this from a reliable USMC source last night.

Message 20921071



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)2/24/2005 3:15:18 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Insufficient Evidence in Mosque Shooting

Command Post

Updating a previous post, from the AFP via the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) :

<<<

It is reported that a US marine, who was captured on film killing a wounded Iraqi at point blank range during November's assault on Fallujah, will not be formally charged due to lack of evidence. [...]

In the incident, a trooper raised his rifle and shot point blank at an apparently unarmed, wounded Iraqi who was slumped against one of the mosque walls. [...]

Although the insurgents have been found to be unarmed, investigators say the one the marine believed he had seen moving could have been reaching for a weapon.

There's lots of evidence that the shooting happened : none has been found after the event that it was unlawful or wrong.

abc.net.au



To: Sully- who wrote (6301)3/30/2005 6:59:06 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 35834
 
Eleven cleared of wrongdoing in Iraqi officer’s death

Associated Press
March 29, 2005

FORT CARSON, Colo. — Rejecting the recommendation of military investigators, Army commanders have decided not to charge 11 soldiers in the death last year of an Iraqi lieutenant colonel who was allegedly beaten and suffocated while in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Investigators had recommended charging two soldiers with manslaughter and nine others with offenses ranging from assault to lying in the death of Lt. Col. Abdul Jaleel.

But the Army Criminal Investigation Command “determined that the detainee died as a result of a series of lawful applications of force in response to repeated aggression and misconduct by the detainee,” spokesman Christopher Grey said in a statement Monday.

Grey declined to elaborate.

Jaleel, 46, died Jan. 9, 2004, at a 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment camp at Al Asad, Iraq, according to an Army report.

The soldiers were from the 5th Special Forces Group at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Carson. An Army spokesman could not say how many soldiers came from each unit.

Special Forces spokeswoman Barbara Ashley told The Gazette of Colorado Springs the Fort Campbell troops did nothing wrong. Fort Carson spokesman Lt. Col. David Johnson said the commanders said evidence in the case wasn’t sufficient to bring charges.

They declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

Fort Carson soldiers have been charged in deaths of three other Iraqi prisoners.

Two soldiers were convicted of assault in the January 2004 drowning of Zaidoun Fadel Hassoun, a civilian they had detained. They had been charged with manslaughter.

Evidence hearings are scheduled to resume Wednesday for four soldiers charged in the November 2003 death of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush. Investigators say he suffocated while he was being interrogated.

Another soldier is awaiting trial on charges of murder and obstruction of justice in the January 2004 shooting death of an Iraqi civilian in Balad."