Latest on BBC on Fallujah?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-17 12:55am

RedImperator wrote:That said, what can you do? You can't let a soldier kill a wounded enemy POW on camera and do nothing; there are political considerations at play that override common sense, honor, understanding, fairness, and even basic human decency. This is a lousy fucking war.

Not necessarily. If it can be shown that the insurgent in question had a weapon or explosive detonator or something, then the shooting would be justifiable. The Marine could just say, "I saw him going for something." I doubt anyone would lose any sleep over it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-17 12:57am

Durandal wrote:
RedImperator wrote:That said, what can you do? You can't let a soldier kill a wounded enemy POW on camera and do nothing; there are political considerations at play that override common sense, honor, understanding, fairness, and even basic human decency. This is a lousy fucking war.
Not necessarily. If it can be shown that the insurgent in question had a weapon or explosive detonator or something, then the shooting would be justifiable. The Marine could just say, "I saw him going for something." I doubt anyone would lose any sleep over it.

I don't think they'd even have to prove he had one. Just that the Marine in question had good reason to think he did and acted on it. If you ask me, he's likely to beat the rap.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-17 01:03am

It might also be defensible given that there is a state of martial law in Iraq. I'm not sure what the martial law state entales or how it applies to US soldiers though.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-17 01:07am

Durandal wrote:It might also be defensible given that there is a state of martial law in Iraq. I'm not sure what the martial law state entales or how it applies to US soldiers though.

Imposed by the Iraqi government, so it's affect on US soldiers is questionable.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2004-11-17 01:29am

Stormbringer wrote:
Durandal wrote:It might also be defensible given that there is a state of martial law in Iraq. I'm not sure what the martial law state entales or how it applies to US soldiers though.
Imposed by the Iraqi government, so it's affect on US soldiers is questionable.

I would tentatively say that it's a safe assumption to make that the US military will, for the most part, play along with this state of martial law. After all, they are doing most of the work in fighting the insurgents, et al. If anybody had a reason to get martial law declared, it's the Army.

However, I don't believe it's quite defensible (in the legal sense, mind you); justifiable? certainly. defensible in a court of military law? iffy. But I must say that I wouldn't be greatly bothered if this soldier came out with minimal penalty. He overstepped his bounds to an extent, true, but in a way that would have happened sooner or later in this conflict. We've had the terrorists beheading hostages on film for awhile now; sooner or later, the other side had to come out... makes one wonder just how much access the Western press has to the front-line combatants if they were able to get a camera crew that close in... of course, I don't know squat where that's concerned, it may very well have been going awhile, but IIRC it's been mostly Arab crews, right?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-17 01:38am

However, I don't believe it's quite defensible (in the legal sense, mind you); justifiable? certainly. defensible in a court of military law?

Two words: Jury nullification. It's happened in other military cases, ones less defensible than this. It might well happen here.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2004-11-17 02:34am

Plekhanov wrote:
GeneralTacticus wrote:
Plekhanov wrote: And that will achieve what exactly?
It will make him feel all warm and fuzzy inside thinking about how many innocent people died as a result.
What innocent people? They’re all guilty of being “shithead Muslims” aren’t they? Any non-Muslims who get caught in the blast are obviously guilty by association [/sarcasm]

Well technically nuking Mecca wouldn't kill any non-muslims..

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-11-17 05:23am

Bear in mind in a war like this, if one of these guys is playing dead, it isn't for honorable reasons. Nine times out of ten it is so they can pull a deadly trick.

A guy that wanted to surrender, especially if he needed medical attention, would have heard the Marine's bootsteps long before they came into the room.

A couple days ago a terrorist was slammed in the stomach point-blank by a non-lethal shotgun round ("rubber bullet") and he still tried to attack, then another guy put 6 or 7 rounds in him from an M-16... and he still tried to attack...

War is a 'tough luck, not fair' situation all around.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-17 10:05am

MKSheppard wrote:Okay, you're dead now. He was holding a detonator in his hand.

Did you not see the video, they were already close enough that he could have detonated minutes beforehand. I'm not saying you should cross the river and go through the woods...

Bill Door · Post by **Bill Door** » 2004-11-17 10:12am

A quick Geneva Convention question, posted here because it may be of some relivance to the discussion.

When does the Geneva convention state that an enemy becomes a POW?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-17 11:01am

Wicked Pilot wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Okay, you're dead now. He was holding a detonator in his hand.
Did you not see the video, they were already close enough that he could have detonated minutes beforehand. I'm not saying you should cross the river and go through the woods...

That doesn't really tell us anything. If he had an explosive charge, he'd have waited until the last minute to detonate it, since there would probably be more Marines in the room.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-11-17 11:28am

I recall reading that the Marines pulled their backing for the Clint Eastwood film "Heartbreak Ridge" because among other things, it shows Eastwood putting a few rounds into a prone enemy soldier as he passes by. A roomful of Marines watching a preview showing of the film told reporters that's exactly what they're taught in RL, to ensure that prone enemy isn't faking.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-17 04:55pm

Bill Door wrote:A quick Geneva Convention question, posted here because it may be of some relivance to the discussion.

When does the Geneva convention state that an enemy becomes a POW?

Basically as soon as he's taken prisoner. Either by force or volunatarily surrendering. If his status is in question, IE is he an illegal combatant or a POW is decided by a tribunal.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-11-17 05:05pm

Coyote wrote:War is a 'tough luck, not fair' situation all around.

Aww, but I want to hold these guys to the same standards expected of a police department in a domestic situation!

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-11-17 05:08pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Do you really think people who seek martyrdom and think its ok to cut up innocent captives really get all huffy about us summarily executing a mortally wounded combatant?
Thats not the point. The civilised world has rules and treaties governing how soldiers behave in wartime. Executing a wounded prisoner is clearly against them.

And if we allow ourselves to sink to their level we are no better than them.

Gotta tell you Corporal, there aren't any rules in war. All of this effort to make war cleaner and nicer is simply rubbish. Just because we call ourselves "civilized" doesn't mean we are, and just because we say you can only kill people in a certain way doesn't make it any better, nicer, or cleaner.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-17 05:31pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Do you really think people who seek martyrdom and think its ok to cut up innocent captives really get all huffy about us summarily executing a mortally wounded combatant?
Thats not the point. The civilised world has rules and treaties governing how soldiers behave in wartime. Executing a wounded prisoner is clearly against them.

And if we allow ourselves to sink to their level we are no better than them.
Gotta tell you Corporal, there aren't any rules in war. All of this effort to make war cleaner and nicer is simply rubbish. Just because we call ourselves "civilized" doesn't mean we are, and just because we say you can only kill people in a certain way doesn't make it any better, nicer, or cleaner.

It is a war in which we are the clear aggressors and the goal of which is to give the people of Iraq a democracy. If we're going to preach humanitarian motives to justify what is basically imperialism, we'd better be humanitarian. That's the trouble that we're in. The world didn't particularly give a shit about the treatment of African natives during Europe's imperial rush there, but they care now.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-17 05:58pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote: Gotta tell you Corporal, there aren't any rules in war. All of this effort to make war cleaner and nicer is simply rubbish. Just because we call ourselves "civilized" doesn't mean we are, and just because we say you can only kill people in a certain way doesn't make it any better, nicer, or cleaner.

I have trained for war all my adult life, and I can state that not only are their rules for war, but most Western nations try to follow them. The incentive is that if you follow the rules than the other side will as well. The fact that the terrorists the USA is fighting now don't follow them is irrelevant. The world expects the West to live up to these rules, and every time we don't it adds more fuel to the fanatics fire. And invites international condemnation for US actions.

War is by no means nice, you don't need to tell me that. But we have certain obligations we have to follow. If the USA doesn't want to follow them than I suggest they withdraw from the varies treaties and conventions.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2004-11-17 07:38pm

I'm not sure if I'm echoing someone, but it has been stated that that particular soldier may have been witnessing the enemy reaching for a weapon. If that is the truth, the soldier has every right to up and shoot, even if the enemy appears wounded.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-17 07:40pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:I'm not sure if I'm echoing someone, but it has been stated that that particular soldier may have been witnessing the enemy reaching for a weapon. If that is the truth, the soldier has every right to up and shoot, even if the enemy appears wounded.

If he was going for a weapon than the soldier is justified in killing him. However every news report I've seen has stated that he was unarmed and wounded. If you could provide some proof that he was armed, I'd very much like to see it.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-11-18 02:40pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Tom_Aurum wrote:I'm not sure if I'm echoing someone, but it has been stated that that particular soldier may have been witnessing the enemy reaching for a weapon. If that is the truth, the soldier has every right to up and shoot, even if the enemy appears wounded.
If he was going for a weapon than the soldier is justified in killing him. However every news report I've seen has stated that he was unarmed and wounded. If you could provide some proof that he was armed, I'd very much like to see it.

I understand where you're coming from Kendall, but do we really want everybody (especially those fighting our wars) having their actions scrutinized and second guessed by people tucked safely away from the fighting? If the Iraqi had been in a prison cell, or had been under somebody's guard, and the Marine shot him, that's clearly crossing the line; however all the reports say that one Marine unit had just exited the building (leaving the Iraqis inside) and another came in, and that a Marine coming in with the second group saw these Iraqis inside and shot one. The guy hadn't surrendered and wasn't a prisoner - now that he's dead, we can't ask him nicely if he was planning to attack the Marines again or not.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-18 03:51pm

Regarding the Geneva Conventions, Engene Volokh says they might not apply.

Wounded soldiers and the Geneva Conventions:I'm not up on the facts of the incident in which a marine is alleged to have killed a wounded and supposedly harmless enemy soldier. But let's assume the following situation: A wounded insurgent — not a member of a nation's armed forces or militias allied to a nation's armed forces — is no longer attacking you (naturally, it's quite permissible to kill wounded enemy soldiers who are still attacking you), but you are afraid that he might attack, might detonate some suicide bomb, or what have you. Is it a violation of the Geneva Convention to kill the person? (I can't speak to other legal rules, including any specifically promulgated by the U.S. military, since I'm not expert on the field, and have looked only at the Geneva Conventions touching on this.)

The answer appears to turn on whether the wounded person belongs to a group that has been following the laws of war

Thus, if insurgents have systematically shown unwillingness to comply with the laws of war, as best I can tell they are not protected by the Geneva Convention I mentioned above. And while that's harsh, it's understandable: Soldiers ought to help the enemy wounded, but not when doing so runs the risk of being killed by those who will keep attacking even though they're wounded and pretending to be incapacitated.

Again, I don't know the facts of the incident I mentioned above; nor have I followed closely the extent of the violations of the laws of war by Iraqi insurgents; and I'm not an expert on the laws of war, so I might be missing something important here. Nonetheless, it seems to me that before people assume that the Geneva Convention for the protection of the wounded applies, we'd have to investigate whether the Iraqi insurgents are entitled to such protection

Even if the Conventions don't apply, the UCMJ does.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-18 04:58pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
I understand where you're coming from Kendall, but do we really want everybody (especially those fighting our wars) having their actions scrutinized and second guessed by people tucked safely away from the fighting? If the Iraqi had been in a prison cell, or had been under somebody's guard, and the Marine shot him, that's clearly crossing the line; however all the reports say that one Marine unit had just exited the building (leaving the Iraqis inside) and another came in, and that a Marine coming in with the second group saw these Iraqis inside and shot one. The guy hadn't surrendered and wasn't a prisoner - now that he's dead, we can't ask him nicely if he was planning to attack the Marines again or not.

Well from what I understand the Iraqi had been taken prisoner but the unit that had done that, left the area. Another unit came in and evidently wasn't aware of the fact that it had been cleared and prisoners taken. So I can see how the Marine would take the course of action he did.

However that doesn't make it right. I don't know what the US troops are taught but in the Canadian Army we were taught to always act in accordance with the Conventions and our version of the UCMJ.

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-11-19 02:01am

Just read this on IMDb...

Cameraman Who Caught Iraq Shooting Is Damned by War Supporters

The U.S. military said Wednesday that it is investigating the circumstances surrounding the shooting of an unarmed wounded man lying in a Fallujah mosque that was filmed by an embedded pool cameraman working for NBC on Saturday. The Associated Press said that investigators are looking into the possible shooting of additional wounded insurgents in the mosque, noting that the NBC video appears to show other unarmed men with fresh and fatal gunshot wounds. Meanwhile, the cameraman who shot the video, Kevin Sites, has refused to discuss the shooting incident, except to tell the New York Times, "As sensitive as this is, we want to make sure the world has an accurate picture of the events." A web log that he maintains was quickly loaded with hate messages, one calling him "a traitor and a terrorist," another, "the lowest of the low, a traitor for sure," and another concluding, "Good luck riding along with our troops -- you're going to need it."

When did shooting a video of what some of our troops did become enough to get one branded as a traitor and a terrorist?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-11-19 02:28am

Dalton wrote:When did shooting a video of what some of our troops did become enough to get one branded as a traitor and a terrorist?

Oh, around sometime between November 2002 to March 2003...

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-11-19 03:26am

Frank Hipper wrote:
Dalton wrote:When did shooting a video of what some of our troops did become enough to get one branded as a traitor and a terrorist?
Oh, around sometime between November 2002 to March 2003...

Point