Images, Reality and Video

by

I had read several accounts of the fatal shooting of an unarmed, wounded Iraqi in the Fallujah mosque before I had seen the video. I understood that the US Marine in question had been wounded in his face the day before and that another man in his unit had been killed by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent.

Based on this information I identified with the US Marine and told myself, in his shoes I would have very likely done the same thing; not taken any chances that this Iraqi was also booby-trapped.

His words reveal his mind at the time:

"He’s (expletive) faking he’s dead!"

"Yeah, he’s breathing," another marine is heard saying.

"He’s faking he’s (expletive) dead!" the first marine says.

Our soldier was sure that this wounded man was intentionally faking being dead (which, if I were in the Iraqi’s shoes, I think I would also have done, so I’m not suggesting that he did anything wrong), and given the Marine’s previous experience, this represented a real threat. My feelings on the subject were summed up nicely by a senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch:

"Obviously, the shooting of an incapacitated detainee is a fundamental violation of the Law of Armed Conflict," said James D. Ross, senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch. "But if someone feigns being incapacitated or killed, and then uses that to trick someone and shoot them, that’s a war crime, and might justify the shooting."

So I was comfortable with the idea that this Marine would be found to have acted professionally and lawfully.

Then, however, I watched the video (or at least as much of it as they showed on NightLine last night, which was even less than they had originally been airing on Al Jezeera). I thought I was prepared, but my hands went up, I gasped, and I sat dumbfounded for a few minutes. I was shocked. But what exactly I was shocked at was the biggest surprise to me.

Granted, the video is just awful. But the instantaneous way I changed my opinion was alarming. In one quick flash, my heart went from identifying with the Marine to feeling horrified for the Iraqi. Much of it was how quickly he shot. I can rationalize that he had damned well better be trained to shoot quickly, but in that exact instant all my empathy flies to the wounded Iraqi who I know now to have been killed. Whereas before the Marine shot, the Iraqi represented treachery, anti-Americanism, and perhaps even barbarism, in a flash he represented a helpless, defenseless people in the face of overwhelming military might.  The video was that powerful.

Now, I fully disagree with the conventional wisdom that argues you don’t show images like that to the folks on the homefront. I understand the effect it can have, but I believe a mature intelligent nation should be shown exactly what it means when they send their troops into battle. This santized version of war we’re fed in the safety of our homes, complete with pithy patriotic battle names, country music theme songs, news program icons, and stars and stripes galore, is immoral in my opinion. To draw a really graphic analogy, it’s how I feel about eating meat…if you are not willing to skin and disembowel your own dinner, you should be a vegetarian. The video of the Marine killing the unarmed Iraqi brought that home for me.

I’m still fully prepared to accept that our Marine acted professionally and lawfully, but I also intend to keep that image in mind as the debate heats up over what to do about Iran. I know there are counter images to consider, like those of US cities under mushroom clouds, but I feel the vast majority of Americans’ idea of war is a montage of blurry nightgoggle images of soldiers filing through doorways, buildings exploding from a mile away, statues tumbling over, and leaders pontificating before giant flags. If their idea of war was men and women, gasping for life in a pool of their own blood, hoping for anyone to hear their cries and help them, we, as a nation, might work that much harder at fine-tuning our diplomatic skills.

175 thoughts on “Images, Reality and Video”

  1. This is the best commentary on this event that I’ve read to date:

    This whole war was billed as ‘self-defense.’ In fact, Iraq was not a threat to the United States and everyone but us could see that; but since we claimed that we perceived that Iraq was a threat to us, it was OK for us to invade it and kill 100,000+ people. So I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that NBC wants to claim that this soldier perceived that a guy who was unarmed, bleeding, and probably already dying was a threat, and therefore he was within his rights to kill him at point-blank range.
    Well, suppose that doesn’t work. Suppose they do prosecute this soldier for murder, as it seems they might be planning to do. We’re still mired in hypocrisy, because then punishing this one soldier becomes our way of trying to make it look as if we still have some moral standards. By making an example out of one guy who had the misfortune to be tailed into the mosque by a reporter, we whitewash the much larger crime of which this smaller one is merely an infinitesimal part.
    After all. When you give 150,000 people overwhelming force and send them to a country that posed no threat to you and tell them to take it by any means necessary, you are in no fucking position to then complain that they didn’t always kill people according to the rule of law. Especially when you have already decided that the Geneva Convention is “quaint” and that torture is a legitimate intelligence-gathering technique.

    In short, yes, this was an atrocity: one atrocity amongst many. That there is no intention of pursuing any wider investigation says to the US military: Don’t commit atrocities on camera. The lesson of Abu Ghraib: the problem wasn’t the torture, the problem was the photos.

  2. I thought about writing a post about this incident when I first heard about it, but didn’t, mostly because of exactly the ambivalence you describe. Leaving aside the fact that I know next to nothing about the relevant parts of the law of war, I thought: this is a case that seems to me to depend so heavily on what the soldier thought, whether he thought as he did for any good reason, and so forth, that I really don’t know what to think about it, except that one way or another it’s awful. And there are unfortunately enough other examples of violations of the law of war that I thought: the broader point has already been made.
    One thing I do think hasn’t been talked about enough is this: one of the costs of war is that, predictably, some of our soldiers are going to do bad things, things they might never have done had they not been sent into combat. They are of course adults, and as such responsible for their actions. But the people who decide to send them to war, I think, owe them not just as much protection as possible from bullets and car bombs and the like as they can provide, but also the training and support needed to minimize these things. And this is not just because war crimes are awful for the victims and for our reputation as a nation, which of course they are, but also because if we can spare our soldiers a lifetime of knowing that they did something truly awful, or even a lifetime of wondering whether they did, we owe them that.

  3. The fact this incident is even being debated as possibly justified is simply Orwellian and points to the much larger issue of conservatives trying to create reality.
    In any war there will be atrocities. It’s a given. I’d suggest that if any one of us had just spent the last week in a state of near-constant apprehension and very little rest, punctuated by periods of pure terror, watching your buddies get shot at, wounded and killed–you or I would be sorely tempted to wax the next Iraqi unfortunate enough to cross our path.
    But that does not excuse this incident.
    However, there appears to be a concerted effort to pretend this isn’t a war crime or an atrocity for purely political motives.

  4. I disagree Jadegold.
    I believe this soldier was overwhelmed and should have been taken off duty had there been a replacement available, but given the nature of the offensive in Fallujah and our shortage of troops overall, this is something I blame the administration for, not this individual. Bush should have more troops over there (I’ve said it again and again and again).
    I agree with hilzoy that “the people who decide to send them to war…owe them not just as much protection as possible from bullets and car bombs and the like as they can provide, but also the training and support needed to minimize these things.”
    In a better prepared/staffed situation, someone would have had the wherewithal to notice this soldier was not mentally ready to explore that mosque and not sent him in there. Again, I don’t blame him for it.

  5. This santized version of war we’re fed in the safety of our homes, complete with pithy patriotic battle names, country music theme songs, news program icons, and stars and stripes galore, is immoral in my opinion.
    I agree. All voting-age americans ought to look at the killing and pain we’re supporting, with our tax dollars, in the face. This is a good place to start to see a few things the world is seeing that our media is NOT showing us.

  6. I don’t want to go on about what an evil person this soldier is, but I think he needs to be punished fully according to the UCMJ. I don’t think the rules of engagement can be “wounded, apparently unarmed prisoners are fair game because they might be booby trapped.” It’s a despicable thing, to booby trap a prisoner. But part of the reason it’s despicable is that it’s DESIGNED to get Americans to start committing atrocities, so that the population will turn further against them. It’s a very, very, very old terrorist technique, and I don’t think we should play into those designs–any more than we can start bombing ambulances because some were used in attacks, or we can just casually obliterate the Ali Shrine because Moqtada shot at us from the cemetery. Even leaving morality out of it, you don’t win a guerilla war by alienating the population.
    And I have no respect for people who shrug and say “war is hell, support the troops,” because they are so often the same people who pretended this war would be cheap and easy, and who still get furious when the media pretense that this is cheap and easy cracks for even a second.

  7. Good points Katherine.
    I can’t help but feel like this particular soldier will pay for the administration’s refusal to send enough troops to do the job correctly and professionally, though.
    Nearly all the men in my family have served in the military (none are in Iraq, thank God), so when I hear of an instance like this, I immedately imagine it was one of them. In Abu Grhaib, I would have been right up there demanding they pay for those crimes, like everyone else, but in this instance, knowing what the details are, I can’t help but feel this soldier was somehow set up via the grotesque incompetencies of those who sent him in there.
    That may not be doing justice to his fellow soliders who were more careful or better trained, but when I heard the audio and felt the fear and anger in his voice, it made me sympathetic.
    He’s supposed to be a professional, I know. But professionals are supposed to be supported and supplied before being sent to do their jobs. IMHO, this man should not have been sent into that mosque.

  8. As someone who is tired of seeing Hollywood come up with new and horrible ways to blow up the world and give people blueprints for terrible things to do, even the worst horrormeister hasn’t invented something as horrendous as being in Iraq, whether as a freedom fighter or an occupying soldier.
    This is more nightmarish than Steven King’s worst purple imaginings. What hell hath we wrought? We should never have gone and should not be there today. Look what we are doing to our children as well as theirs. Have you been on a college campus lately and taken a look at the 19 and 20 year olds? They are babies my friends and we have sent them to the meatgrinder.

  9. Can I ask something? Why the hell do “multiples” of you still link to Glenn Reynolds? First of all, it’s not like he needs the publicity. Second of all:

    “FALLUJAH MARINE IN TROUBLE FOR “PULLING A KERRY:”
    Patrolling the Bay Hap River, Kerry and his crew discovered they were about to be ambushed by a Vietcong soldier who had just popped up at the shoreline with a loaded rocket launcher in his hands. With the VC about to fire, Kerry crewmate Thomas Bellodeau shot and wounded the attacker, saving the entire boat.
    Only then did Kerry leap to the shore to chase the wounded enemy down – finishing him off behind a hootch.
    When critics suggested that Kerry’s actions that day were something less than heroic, they were hooted down by the press.
    Certainly the as yet unnamed Marine in Fallujah deserves, if not the Silver Star, the same slack the press cut Kerry
    This is a twist.
    UPDATE: Bigwig says it was a fully justified Kerry.”

    In the incident Reynolds is referring to, the Viet Cong in question was still carrying a loaded rocket launcher capable of blowing up Kerry, his boat, and all the men under his command. I’m also not clear on how severely wounded he was, but he was running and perhaps going to re-aim, not lying on the ground.
    I would guess Reynolds knows this.

  10. Katherine: I don’t want to go on about what an evil person this soldier is, but I think he needs to be punished fully according to the UCMJ.
    But what about all the other soldiers who did the same thing, but who didn’t do it on camera?
    Here’s what bugs me about this: Sure, the Marine shouldn’t have done it. But neither should the other soldiers who also shot helpless prisoners in a mosque. A full investigation could establish who they were, just as a full investigation could establish who the people were who gave the orders for torture in Abu Ghraib prison, and so on up the chain of command.
    But that won’t happen. One scapegoat will be picked out and the rest will get away with it. This Marine is no more deserving of punishment than any of the soldiers who will get off scot-free, just because he happened to kill an unarmed, wounded man on camera.

  11. Why are our soldiers commiting heinous, unwise, acts of fury? Because they are in hell, and it appears to them they have little hope of getting out of hell. The soldier was shot in the face the day before and was sent back the very next day on this incredibly dangerous mission? I realize this is war, but we are invaders, not defenders. We should be better prepared. We shouldn’t be operating on the “we need every man we can get” premise, but apparently we are. Throw the wounded back in there. If we excuse his action because he was shot the day before, perhaps we should blame those that sent him back or allowed him to go back. Perhaps we should be looking at the support network and leadership these soldiers lack, that leads them to kill or torment.
    When I hear these stories I don’t think “My God, what kind of person would do that?” I think “My God, what caused that kid to turn into that kind of person?”

  14. I suppose it could be an innocent mistake, but I’d bet $10 Reynolds knew exactly what he was doing. Those facts about Kerry have been known for months, and this is exactly Reynolds M.O. If someone sufficiently high profile calls on it he’ll post a correction–if an ordinary reader emails him he’ll ignore it. Either way he’ll continue to to do the same thing in the future. And yet decent blogs link to him like it’s required.

  16. (the Red Cross says it’s not clear whether the guy was a prisoner or had surrendered, and that’s something we need to know.
    I don’t want to prejudge the soldier’s guilt or innocence, and I certainly think it was a mistake to send him in there after what he’d just been through and that should mitigate any punishment. I assume these things are considered in court martials. The military justice system is actually very decent, once it gets going in a particular case. The rules protect defendants a bit less than civilian courts, but only a bit, and the lawyers are much better than your average public defender.
    Like Jes, I am very, very worried about our tendency to ignore and not investigate questionable deaths and atrocities that occur off-camera.)

  17. just to add a little more despair… patriotboy has rounded-up a bunch of freeper comments on this. they apparently think the real criminal in all this is … the reporter who broke the story.

  18. Dear Lord, cleek, that’s scary stuff.
    If the government won’t police the press there will come a day when the people will.
    er, genius…the government supposedly IS the people.

  19. Katherine, thanks for your as-ever thoughtful posts.
    but as the husband of a public defender, i wonder why you slammed them. the pd’s i know are an incredible bunch of adrenaline junkies who face a system with the dice loaded against them every which way. mostly, their clients are guilty of some portion of that which they are accused. and they fight very hard to get fair and reasonable outcomes.
    (sorry for the threadjack, but i couldn’t let that go.)
    Francis

  20. ABC World News did a story last night showing reaction to the video. First they showed Rush’s comment poo-pooing the atrocity then went to Kos’ post yesterday and then went to a talk radio freeper saying the soldier should have shot the Iraqi and then turned his gun on the cameraman. And then they moved on to another story and it actually gave the impression that the freeper had a legitimate viewpoint. That was frightening but it’s what we’ll see more of now that the inmates have taken over the asylum.

  21. Complicated moral issues? Assigning culpability based on differing frameworks of responsibility? Hm…
    I’m going to take the easy way out and just second that Insty is a world-class jerk.

  22. In a better prepared/staffed situation, someone would have had the wherewithal to notice this soldier was not mentally ready to explore that mosque and not sent him in there. Again, I don’t blame him for it.
    I think we’re more in agreement than not, Edward.
    As a vet, I know you often don’t have the luxury or opportunity to assess how your subordinates may or may not respond in a high-stress situation such as combat or an emergency situation. The military is big on training and drills but it’s no substitute for the balloon going up for real. That’s why, in every war, atrocities are committed.
    You’re absolutely correct that these troops haven’t the proper support. And this is the wrong war.

  24. “But part of the reason it’s despicable is that it’s DESIGNED to get Americans to start committing atrocities, so that the population will turn further against them. It’s a very, very, very old terrorist technique, and I don’t think we should play into those designs–any more than we can start bombing ambulances because some were used in attacks, or we can just casually obliterate the Ali Shrine because Moqtada shot at us from the cemetery.”
    What ought to be the consequences to the enemy when the enemy repeatedly uses ambulances, booby-traps bodies, disguises themselves as civilians, or feigns death to ambush? Is the answer, nothing? Is the answer, we have to allow them to kill our soldiers that way? I’m not convinced that is an intelligent answer because it provides an active incentive to always fight Americans that way.

  25. I’m not convinced that is an intelligent answer because it provides an active incentive to always fight Americans that way.
    slightly OT, but what incentive does anyone have for fighting the US the proper and expected way ? there are few countries that could expect to do any serious damage to the US in a conventional tank-on-tank / fighter-on-fighter war. if you’re going to fight the US, it seems that fighting dirty is the only way you’re going to accomplish anything.

  26. AFAIK the mosque was conquered the day before. The iraqi’s seem to have been treated by the previous group of Marines, but were not put in the care of medics, presumably because the hospitals are secured and bombed by the US and cannot provide medical aid anymore, whilst the red crescent (offering help en goods) is stopped by the military.
    In effect I assume that makes the Iraqi’s POW’s, but I am no lawyer.
    If those people *had* been sent to hospital, none of this would have happened though.
    I did not see the video, I read about it. What I read was that the other soldiers reacted quite calmly to the shooting, which is scary since that means it is not perceived as something extra-ordinary.
    It does not help that this is not the first case in which something like this happends. I remember a photo (from a video?) from a soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi teenager after they shot at the garbage collection truck. I think he claimed he ‘put him out of his misery’ because the teenager cried so loudly. And there is the case of the officer who ordered two soldiers to kill a wounded Iraqi in Baghdad in August.
    I do think that the soldiers who commit the atrocities should be held responsible. War comes with atrocities, but tolerating them will make things worse for everybody there who comes home and slowly realizes what he or she actually did, in the heat of things.

  27. Is the answer, nothing?
    The answer surely isn’t putting a 500 lb bomb in the center of a residential area.
    But this is a deflection from the issue; the video clearly shows an incapacitated Iraqi being summarily executed.

  28. As abiola says on his site: “I don’t see anything in it indicating that the Iraqi openly let on that he was alive, let alone motioned to surrender. On the contrary, the marines called out as they approaching the building, asking if anyone was in it, and yet no one responded. What is more, another insurgent who was lying on the floor, and who made crystal clear that he was alive and willing to surrender, was left unharmed by the very same marine who shot the other fellow. The presumption of innocence seems particularly well deserved in this case.”
    No deflection intended.

  29. The presumption of innocence seems particularly well deserved in this case.
    whose innocence?
    the dying, likely terrified Iraqi’s?

  30. Citing abiola is much like citing LGF or Tacitus; they’re going to ‘see’ what supports their almost prurient desire to see more killing in Iraq.

  31. fdl–that was careless phrasing. I conflated public defenders and court appointed counsel, and I made it sound like the problem is the competence of the lawyer when usually it’s the resources he is given. I should actually have said, “the lawyers probably give them a better defense than the average public defender or court-appointed counsel is able to give.” Most public defenders do the best work possible in an impossible situation, making a fraction of the money they could elsewhere, working long hours doing incredibly emotionally draining work. I couldn’t do it myself. I admire the hell out of them. But there are exceptions–all those famous Texas death penalty cases–and more importantly, there are times when you can have the hardest working, smartest lawyer in the world and he still can’t do an adequate job. It takes time, and money, to prepare a defense, and they do not have enough of either in many states.

  32. cleek: they apparently think the real criminal in all this is … the reporter who broke the story.
    Well, yes. The same people doubtless think that John Kerry was a traitor for his testimony to Congress about war crimes in Vietnam: that Joseph Darby is a traitor for outing the abuses at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison: we’ve all seen this, over and over again. People who think that Sy Hersh was a worse criminal that William Calley. There will always be people who deny that the US military ever commits atrocities, and that people who expose atrocities committed by the US military are traitors or criminals.

  33. “What ought to be the consequences to the enemy when the enemy repeatedly uses ambulances, booby-traps bodies, disguises themselves as civilians, or feigns death to ambush? Is the answer, nothing? Is the answer, we have to allow them to kill our soldiers that way? I’m not convinced that is an intelligent answer because it provides an active incentive to always fight Americans that way.”
    Well, killing civilian ambulance drivers and children does not harm the enemy. It harms other people–civlians the enemy may know, but has proven itself quite willing to sacrifice for the cause by the very tactics you describe. So they will probably gladly trade them for our help in recruiting.
    Now, shooting wounded insurgents is a bit different. It does harm the enemy. But it also helps them, and harms us, indirectly. It prevents our troops from being ambushed in false surrenders, but it gives insurgents who might genuinely have surrendered incentive to fight to the death. If we take no prisoners, we do not get the intelligence these prisoners might have provided. And when the dead man’s brother or cousin or nephew hears the story–how his brother was lying on the ground wounded and the marines shot him–it motivates them to forget their doubts and join the cause. And when the video airs on Al Jazeera, it will motivate many more people than that.
    In the long run, I think there is an excellent chance that a policy of “then every soldier kill his prisoners” will kill more American soldiers than it saves. I would guess it is more likely than not. And I would have to be pretty confident that it would save American lives before I agreed to it, because it will certainly lead to the deaths of Iraqis who really were trying to surrender.

  34. To Edward, Jade, Jes, Katherine
    I find your posts here to be some of the most repulsive posts from Americans that I can imagine. I can no longer post at ObWi in good conscience. I cannot lend my support to a site where the posters behave in this manner. I am truly ashamed to have involved myself with this site now that your colors show so truly.
    Many of you here are so quick to sympathize with the enemy and hold Americans doing an extremely difficult job to such a high standard that it will always be impossible to meet.
    Sincerely,
    Blue

  35. “Citing abiola is much like citing LGF or Tacitus; they’re going to ‘see’ what supports their almost prurient desire to see more killing in Iraq.”
    Nice bit of ad hominem there. So much more pleasant than actually examining others’ arguments on their merits, isn’t it? And for the record, it’s “Abiola”, not “abiola.”

  36. Katherine,
    While we’re at it, perhaps once you’re done savoring your feelings of moral and intellectual superiority to myself, you can actually explain for us all why this supposedly psycho marine didn’t shoot the other guy who made clear that he was alive and unarmed?

  37. Blue: if you can bring yourself to post here one more time, I’d like to hear what, exactly, you find so offensive. Mostly, what I hear from my fellow commenters is an unwillingness to pronounce one way or the other absent more good information about the case than we have, a respect for the rule of law during wartime, a concern about the effects that incidents like this will have on all concerned, including our own troops, and a wish that our troops had been given more support so that something like this would have been less likely to happen. We have not leapt to the conclusion that this marine was guilty, despite the fact that he clearly shot an unarmed Iraqi who posed no threat to him, since we recognize that we would need to know what threat he perceived that Iraqi to be, and what justification he had for that perception, and we don’t think we know that. Nor, unlike the Freepers patriotboy quotes, have we leapt to the opposite conclusion, despite the fact that all of us can empathize with the marine. What about this bothers you so much?

  38. Blue: I am truly ashamed to have involved myself with this site now that your colors show so truly.
    Thanks, Blue. I take this as a compliment, and I’m sure the others will as well. As they say “A man is known by his enemies”.

  39. I don’t think he’s a psycho. I don’t even know for sure that he did anything wrong, and if he did I would not be able to say I wouldn’t do the same in his place. I have never been shot at and never had to shoot someone. That doesn’t make me better than him; if anything his decision to enlist may make him better than me. All I can say for sure is that I’m luckier than him.
    I think there is sufficient cause to turn the case over to the military justice system, and basically I trust them to sort it out. But people who have already decided that what this soldier did was justified, seem to be suggesting that we change the rules against shooting prisoners. I am arguing that that is maybe not a good idea, not least because it may lead to more soldiers getting shot at down the line. If that is enough to get me accused of smug, moral superiority, opposing the troops and siding with our enemies, and who knows what else, then God help all of us.

  40. Blue,
    hilzoy’s right…the gist of my post is that the jury is still out, that’s it’s a morally complicated situation, and that although my gut tells me to side with the Marine the video gave me doubts.
    Sorry for being human, dude.

  41. “I don’t want to go on about what an evil person this soldier is, but I think he needs to be punished fully according to the UCMJ.”
    That’s the only sentence of mine I can see possibly provoking the reaction I’ve gotten. I can how you could misinterpret it to mean:
    –he is evil, I just don’t want to talk about it.
    and/or
    –he is clearly guilty and needs to be punished.
    That would be an understandable reading, because I wrote a little too quickly and did not phrase things as carefully as I could have, but it would be quite incorrect. I meant that, I do not think we should conclude this soldier is evil and we should not say he is, but insofar as he violated the UCMJ he should be tried and punished for it. I think the later comments should have cleared this up, or at least should have been sufficient to get people to ask for clarification instead of assuming the worst about what I meant. But if there was a misunderstanding, it was at least partly my fault and I apologize.
    “Don’t assume the worst before knowing all the facts” seems like a pretty good rule across the board.
    Do we know, in fact, whether the person who was shot was armed or booby trapped? I had the impression that he turned out not to be–but I could be wrong about that. I realize whether he was armed is a different question from whether the soldier reasonably believed he was armed.

  42. “But people who have already decided that what this soldier did was justified, seem to be suggesting that we change the rules against shooting prisoners.”
    Why isn’t the presumption of innocence allowed to hold here, as it does anywhere else when a case is to be tried? Would you prefer that we presumed all Guantanamo captives were guilty? If not, why does this marine deserve worse treatment?
    Besides, the fact is that the man who was shot was not a “prisoner” – unlike his companion who declared himself alive and was left alone, he did not surrender to anyone, preferring to play possum. Is is really so difficult to imagine that a marine who’d lost fellow soldiers to tricks of that sort, and who’d recently been shot in the face himself, might perhaps be unable to afford the luxury of humoring such pretences?
    If he is guilty of something, let a military court decide that. As it is, the (full, unedited) video of the incident simply doesn’t establish beyond all doubt that he was unjustified in pulling the trigger, which is the presumption that seems to be carrying the day here.

  43. Katherine, Edward, as far as I can see what Blue is objecting to is that we consider the shooting of an unarmed, wounded Iraqi soldier by a US Marine to be a crime. If Blue no longer wishes to associate with us because we are not prepared to look the other way and say everything’s fine when US soldiers commit atrocities, well, that puts us in good company – and Blue in very bad company.

  44. “Citing abiola is much like citing LGF or Tacitus; they’re going to ‘see’ what supports their almost prurient desire to see more killing in Iraq.”
    Nice.
    Have you all seen the full video? It is absolutely clear that there is an injured Iraqi who signals that he is alive and willing to surrender. He is not shot, despite being very close to the soldier who shoots the Iraqi who feigns death. I don’t know what you ‘see’ in that, but I see a soldier who is quite willing to accept surrender from combatants who are actually surrendering.

    Now, shooting wounded insurgents is a bit different. It does harm the enemy. But it also helps them, and harms us, indirectly. It prevents our troops from being ambushed in false surrenders, but it gives insurgents who might genuinely have surrendered incentive to fight to the death.

    Katherine, please note how your argument shifts over the space of two sentences. Are we talking about ‘wounded insurgents’ or ‘false surrenders’? The video shows a surrendering insurgent and a non-surrendering insurgent. The non-surrendering insurgent gets shot, the surrendering insurgent does not get shot. Isn’t that exactly what you want?

  45. I think it’s more than that Jes.
    Even the Freepers are speaking from their hearts about the journalist being to blame, I suspect.
    If your loved one was in harm’s way, anyone or anything that threatened him/her would be a fair target to you. I believe Blue when he says he sees the expressions of interpretable nonsupport as “sympathizing with the enemy.”
    We’re here, safe, making abtract judgements and our soldiers are over there being killed…to many people that situation demands we all shut up and “support the troops.”
    The irony here, though, is that this one Marine’s “mistake” (and even Blue would have to conceed that shooting an unarmed man who was very possibly already a POW doesn’t represent the finest of US military thinking or morality), will do more harm to our soldiers than anything you or Katherine or I could write.
    Images of him shooting that man are the only things the Arab world are talking about. Our being mum about it, despite our own misgivings, won’t change that, regardless of how much comfort it may provide for Blue.

  46. even Blue would have to conceed that shooting an unarmed man who was very possibly already a POW doesn’t represent the finest of US military thinking or morality
    I’ve seen no sign that Blue would concede any such thing.

  47. To Edward, Jade, Jes, Katherine
    What good company. I’ll bring an ’86 Chateau Margaux.
    Sebastian: War is not a child’s game of cowboys-and-indians. Believe it or not, not everyone conforms to your rigid Marquis of Queensbury Rules and Miss Manner’s Etiquette for Combat Operations.
    I’d ask you to imagine yourself in a combat situation; you’re wounded, you’re scared crapless, you’re defenseless–and you’re being approached by an enemy you’ve long believed are ruthless killers. What do you do?
    You may well begin asserting your rights under the Geneva Convention. You may well start humming The Star-Spangled Banner and asking about the Red Sox. You may well just lie there and wish it would all go away.

  48. I don’t think the video is that clear–not the version I have seen.
    My argument shifted because the question shifted. You made a statement that seemed to imply that we should be able to shoot troops that had surrendered and/or were wounded and unarmed and incapable of continuing combat, given the tactics the enemy had used.
    “Wounded” was short for “wounded to the point of being incapable of further combat.” I was under the impression that a wounded enemy incapable of further combat was in the same category as an enemy who had surrendered. It seems like you could fake one thing as well as the other.
    Maybe I misunderstood you.
    It is also possible that, never having been in combat, I underestimate how severely wounded you have to be before you are incapable of doing further damage. And maybe the version of the video I saw was crappy enough that I missed a sign that the guy was feigning injury, or actually had a concealed weapon.
    I trust the military justice system to get it right more than I trust knee jerk emotional reactions to a video–whether they’re my knee jerk reactions or yours.

  49. “Sebastian: War is not a child’s game of cowboys-and-indians. Believe it or not, not everyone conforms to your rigid Marquis of Queensbury Rules and Miss Manner’s Etiquette for Combat Operations.”
    And statements like that in this context are EXACTLY what Blue is talking about.
    You extend benefits to the enemy that you do not extend to our troops. You think it is an ok argument to say that we of course can’t expect our enemies to follow the rules WHILE YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF CONDEMNING our soldiers for not following the rules.
    To everyone else. If you respect the ideals behind the Geneva Conventions on War, you are going to need to come up with a way to encourage our enemies to follow them. You apparently reject the traditional approach, the rules are available for the protection of those who follow them. If you can’t come up with another approach, the Conventions are going to fall by the wayside, because the American public isn’t into rules that only serve to get our soldiers killed. My question about what to do about the use of ambulances to attack was dead serious. If we can’t figure out a way deal with problems like that, we are in serious trouble–not just in Iraq, but in America.

  50. Sebastian: If you respect the ideals behind the Geneva Conventions on War, you are going to need to come up with a way to encourage our enemies to follow them.
    Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ensured that the enemies of the US can say exactly the same thing.
    If the US won’t follow the Geneva Conventions, how do you suggest that enemies of the US “encourage” the US to follow them?

  51. To everyone else. If you respect the ideals behind the Geneva Conventions on War, you are going to need to come up with a way to encourage our enemies to follow them.
    Or they no longer apply to us? I don’t follow this logic. We can become the sort of people we insist shouldn’t exist just because they do exist?
    What we’re really talking about here is unrestrained warfare that leaves us morally superior…an oxymoron if there ever was one.

  53. Hilzoy,

    The Mercury News reports:
    Marine Lance Cpl. Jeramy Ailes, 22, of Gilroy was killed Monday in Al-Fallujah by small arms fire. “They had finished mopping up in Fallujah and they went back to double-check on some insurgents. From what we gathered, somebody playing possum jumped up and shot him,” said his father, Joel Ailes, who learned of his death Monday evening. “It’s extremely hard.”
    … His first time in Iraq, Jeramy Ailes gave $10 to each child he came across because he knew it would feed their families for 30 days. This time, he asked his family to mail as many soccer balls as they could. His family sent 300 balls, and Jeramy Ailes’ platoon handed them out to children.
    Joel Ailes warmly remembered the last conversation he had with his son last month, in which Jeramy Ailes recounted how he had come across a large man walking with a 12-year-old girl carrying a huge bale of straw on her back. His son, who spoke and read Arabic, exchanged words with the man. And, for the next seven miles, his son carried the girl on his back and the man carried the bales of straw. “That was my son,” Joel Ailes said.

    Jes:In short, yes, this was an atrocity: one atrocity amongst many. That there is no intention of pursuing any wider investigation says to the US military: Don’t commit atrocities on camera.
    You see Hilzoy, it is the U.S. that is really committing one atrocity amongst many.
    Jade:However, there appears to be a concerted effort to pretend this isn’t a war crime or an atrocity for purely political motives.
    Hilzoy it is OUR government that is really covering this up, even though it has been on the frickin’ world wide news over and over and over and over and over.
    Katherine:don’t want to go on about what an evil person this soldier is, but I think he needs to be punished fully according to the UCMJ.
    Hey Katherine, here’s a wake up call. The evil person was already punished. The bastard engaged in combat with our troops instead of leaving the city or giving up before we went into the city. It appears that our Marine thought he was faking dead like others have before. So he killed him.

    Hilzoy, Isn’t it obvious that Katherine’s already geared up on how this Marines court martial should proceed.

    Wilfred:Look what we are doing to our children as well as theirs.
    What, trying to help them?
    Jes:Sure, the Marine shouldn’t have done it. But neither should the other soldiers who also shot helpless prisoners in a mosque.
    Hilzoy, don’t you see? Our guys are bad… our guys are bad…
    Caitlin:Why are our soldiers commiting heinous, unwise, acts of fury?
    Hilzoy, and more of the same.
    Dutch:I do think that the soldiers who commit the atrocities should be held responsible
    And more…
    Edward:whose innocence? the dying, likely terrified Iraqi’s?
    And more…
    Hilzoy, let’s just be honest. Many people here didn’t want us to invade Iraq. Many people here hate Bush. They think the war is horrible and they are just wanting and waiting for bad things to happen so they can say, “I told you so.”
    They are helping the enemy. I don’t want to be a part of it. I hope ObWi fades into oblivian and in so doing the enemy will receive less support.

  54. You extend benefits to the enemy that you do not extend to our troops. You think it is an ok argument to say that we of course can’t expect our enemies to follow the rules WHILE YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF CONDEMNING our soldiers for not following the rules.
    Who’s “extending benefits” here? I don’t see anyone doing that; what I do see is a bunch of people recognizing the truth that the enemy is going to fight outside the rules. We can either choose to fight outside the rules ourselves, which has a whole host of negative consequences, or we can accept the handicap and keep fighting inside the rules, which also has a whole host of negative consequences. This is why counter-insurgent warfare is difficult.
    The only good way to solve a problem like this is to not get into it in the first place.

  55. I think you’re overreacting Blue.
    Nothing we’re writing here is truly helping the enemy.
    In fact, in a country where the free exchange of ideas is considered a right, to supress that could arguably help the enemy more…
    regarding my statement that the dying Iraqi was “innocent”; at the moment he’s lying, wounded, unarmed, he’s clearly entitled to the “innocent until proven guilty” benefit of doubt, no? Or do we have license to kill them all and let God sort them out?

  56. And Blue,
    Please consider this letter to Andrew Sullivan from a former Marine:

    This conduct by U.S. military personnel cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. As a former Marine, I strongly sympathize with the Marine involved, but killing unarmed people only undermines our cause in Iraq and elsewhere. The Marine involved, like all Marines, is taught the rules of war and is indoctrinated with American and Marine Corps ideals. If the allegations are true, then what he did is a betrayal of both his country and his service and he should be punished to the fullest extent permitted under the UCMJ. We as civilians have the responsibility to ensure that what our military personal do in our name comports with American standards of human rights and decency. We cannot compromise our standards regardless of the circumstances. We, the civilians in charge, must investigate every allegation of wrongdoing and bring those responsible to justice. This has not happened with Abu Ghraib – it must happen here.

  57. I have never seen such hateful and despicable behavior on this site as I have on this thread. Never, ever, ever.
    I don’t know what we’re playing at, banning the curse words but allowing people to charge each other with treason for being upset about this video and not being willing to say that the soldier was clearly in the right, and ignore and deliberately mischaracterize each other’s arguments. Not that I have any answers either, as far as posting rules go, but allowing anything will choke off discussion as quickly as banning people who don’t deserve it.
    I had long since given up on useful political discussions here, but I thought some things transcended our political divisions, or that things might fade after the election. Apparently not.
    Mind you, I’m a lot less than thrilled with the implication that expecting insurgents not to booby trap prisoners is “Marquess of Queensbury rules”, either. I find it a lot more understandable for a marine who has been shot the day before and seen his friend killed by someone who was faking a surrender to panic and shoot a wounded, apparently unarmed* soldier, than I do to booby trap a wounded soldier or use an ambulance as a bomb. But Sebastian–the Geneva Conventions don’t get unplugged for all prisoners the minute one prisoner violates them. That’s just not how it works. And the U.S. military code applies no matter what. It puts the good guys at a disadvantage, I know, and it’s unfair, but the alternative is worse. You know very well that I can’t get the Fallujah insurgents to follow the rules of war. I certainly would support making reasonable changes in soldiers’ orders to protect them from these atrocities and give insurgents an incentive not to commit them, but the only suggestion I’ve seen is “if they don’t follow any rules we shouldn’t have to either”, and that’s not a solution.
    This Michael Ignatieff piece is relevant:

    Al-Zarqawi is a cynic about these matters: the truths we hold to be self-evident are the ones he hopes to turn against us. He thinks that we would rather come home than fight evil. Are we truly willing to descend into the vortex to beat him? He has bet that we are not.
    But his calculation is that either way, he cannot lose. If we remain, he has also bet—and Abu Ghraib confirms how perceptive he was—that we will help him drive us into ignominious defeat by becoming as barbarous as he is. He is trailing the videos as an ultimate kind of moral temptation, an ethical trap into which he is hoping we will fall. Everything is permitted, he is saying. If you wish to beat me, you will have to join me. Every terrorist hopes, ultimately, that his opponent will become his brother in infamy. If we succumb to this temptation, he will have won. He has, however, forgotten that the choice always remains ours, not his.

    The choice is ours, but I am afraid we have already made it, or are well on our way.

  58. You extend benefits to the enemy that you do not extend to our troops. You think it is an ok argument to say that we of course can’t expect our enemies to follow the rules WHILE YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF CONDEMNING our soldiers for not following the rules
    No, Sebastian. I expect our troops to conduct themselves with the professionalism befitting the armed services of this country. I don’t give two —– what the enemy does. When we start permitting insurgents and terrorists to dictate and guide the standards of conduct of our servicemen–we may as well pack it in.

  59. I don’t know what we’re playing at, banning the curse words but allowing people to charge each other with treason for being upset about this video
    I think we’re trying to acknowledge that some folks see criticizing the troops as helping the enemy but explain why we don’t agree. I can’t blame someone for feeling upset that we’re not 100% behind that soldier. I think they’re letting their heart do the work they should let their head do, especially as it’s their responsibility, here on the homefront to protect our values…even those regarding how we conduct ourselves in war. But I can understand how strongly they feel in their heart that this soldier did what he felt he had to and that to criticize him is unfair.
    I watched “A Few Good Men” again the other day. The end, where the younger defendent was confused about why if he was acquitted for murder he was still dishonorably discharged and his co-defendent/friend explains because they had still failed to perform their duty, is a good example of the issues at stake here.
    The Marine’s actions in the mosque may be understandable, but that doesn’t make them acceptable.

  60. Law of Armed Conflict?
    War crimes?
    rules of engagement?
    Geneva conventions?
    Yes war is so civilised now, as if you can kill someone and call it civilised. I find all of the above concepts incredibly amusing. Had we fought a “civilised war” during the revolution we would still be part of the British Empire. I think everybody needs to get off this guys back. I read a quote once by David Drake, a vietnam veteran and sci-fi author:
    When you send a man out with a gun, you create a policymaker. When his ass is on the line, he will do whatever he needs to do.
    And if the implications of that bother you, the time to do something abut it is before you decide to send him out.
    Which could also be paraphrased:
    When you fight a war, you are allowing your foreign policy to be created by scared eighteen-year-olds with guns
    So you know what, leave the guy alone. If you’ve got a problem with what he does, look to Washington.

  61. So you know what, leave the guy alone. If you’ve got a problem with what he does, look to Washington.
    We, the people, ARE Washington. We, the people, decided when we signed the Geneva Convention treaties that we DO have a problem with that kind of behavior. It does not reflect what we hold to be the right kind of behavior. That Marine was taught that before we sent him out.
    That doesn’t mean we condemn him, but it does mean we get him out of there and explain to his fellow soldiers why his behavior was unacceptable.

  62. “We, the people, ARE Washington. We, the people, decided when we signed the Geneva Convention treaties that we DO have a problem with that kind of behavior. It does not reflect what we hold to be the right kind of behavior. That Marine was taught that before we sent him out.
    That doesn’t mean we condemn him, but it does mean we get him out of there and explain to his fellow soldiers why his behavior was unacceptable.”
    If it was unacceptable. If the Iraqi soldier was not signalling surrender, and by all appearances he was not, than the Marine did nothing wrong. In fact he was not only justified, he did the right thing in shooting the man.
    The Geneva Conventions are not going to last if we are the only ones following them. This is not an argument I’m making, this is a fact of human reality. If one side regularly ignores the rules, it is neither moral nor wise for you to sacrifice our soldiers for rules which are not effective. Often we did not allow Japanese soldiers to surrender, BECAUSE THEY REGULARLY USED SURRENDERS TO AMBUSH US. We did not give up the war. We did not throw our soldier’s lives away. We did not allow them to surrender at many battles. We did not do that to the Germans because they generally followed the rules of war. We did that to the Japanese because they did not. Pretending that the insurgents are doing anything other than gaming the rules is silly. Katherine, I know you pay attention enough to know that such tactics are not incidental or ‘one-ofs’. Why do you keep arguing as if they were? And since they are not, what do you think we ought to do about it? Sacrifice our soldiers to constantly fake surrenders? If so, you need to say so directly.

  63. If the Iraqi soldier was not signalling surrender, and by all appearances he was not, than the Marine did nothing wrong. In fact he was not only justified, he did the right thing in shooting the man.
    Nope.
    The fact is the Iraqi was wounded–likely incapacitated–and unarmed. The Marine shot him at point-blank range which indicates to me the Marine wasn’t really too concerned about a booby-trap.
    This incident has zip to do with the Geneva Conventions; its overtones reek of Klaus Barbie.

  64. Sebastian: “You extend benefits to the enemy that you do not extend to our troops. You think it is an ok argument to say that we of course can’t expect our enemies to follow the rules WHILE YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF CONDEMNING our soldiers for not following the rules.”
    I extend the same benefits to everyone and to our troops: the ‘benefit’, for what little it’s worth, of having anyone who harms them in the course of committing a war crime be condemned by me. I may not always post about it here — the sheer number of war crimes committed on the globe makes that impossible — but I condemn war crimes regardless of who commits them. I have not concluded anything about whether a war crime was committed in this case, but if it was, then I will criticize the marine. I also criticize anyone who plays dead and then opens fire.
    It is true that I merely expect things, one way or another, from the insurgents, but argue about what our government and our armed forces should do. But that’s not because of a double moral standard; it’s because our government and our armed forces are, well, ours, They act in our name, and we (collectively, at least) might have some influence on them. The insurgents, on the other hand, are not. It’s the same reason why I merely speculate about what, say, Tony Blair might do, but get to decide on what I will do, since I am me, and can therefore control my conduct in a way I can’t control Tony Blair’s.

  65. “It is true that I merely expect things, one way or another, from the insurgents, but argue about what our government and our armed forces should do.”
    Thats fine, but it doesn’t go very far analytically. If you like the rules, you should want to see them continue working.
    Constantly sacrificing our soldiers when we know the rules are being used to kill them isn’t a good strategy in my mind. It demeans the rules, makes it certain that no one will ever bother with them when fighting us, and it makes it very likely that the populace of the United States will actively reject them. If you don’t want that, we probably need a different approach.

  68. Actually that is an expansion on what Blue objected to. I object to the rules of war being used in a transparently one-sided way. I’m against sacrificing our soldiers to the altar of international law when doing so only makes it less and less likely that any of our future enemies will bother with them.
    The rules of war were meant to benefit both sides. If they are only used to hurt us, they aren’t going to last. I think that would be a bad thing, because when both sides use them, war is somewhat safer for civilians.

  69. I object to the rules of war being used in a transparently one-sided way.
    I don’t see anyone disagreeing with that. I don’t see anyone praising the insurgents for not following the conventions. I don’t see how their failure to do so means we can pick and choose which ones we follow though.
    The Conventions were signed between nation states that had something to lose if they didn’t follow them. We’re not fighting that kind of enemy, but we’re hoping to leave a society that will agree to those values when we’re done. I don’t see we have any option but to take the high road. Otherwise, we’ll leave a society that was taught the rules are only followed by chumps.
    More than that, however, we have to assume the Iraqi had the ability to reason or comprehend what was going on before he was killed to argue that he deserved to be killed. From what I could see in the video, he was not conscious enough to surrender. All we know from the audio was that he was breathing. For all we know he was in a stupor.
    It’s quite a leap from that to assuming he deserved to be killed.

  70. Has anyone considered that the guy was incapable of making any kind of surrender signal due to his injuries?
    I suspect that being severely wounded could look an awful lot like “playing dead”, and if that was the case, it would paint the Marine’s actions as careless, or at least a tragic mistake, rather than purposeful barbarism.
    Just wondering.
    I must say the video is pretty damning, but I assume that there are codified rules and procedures for how to handle this situation, and the UCMJ will determine whether they were followed.

  71. If the rules are unworkable, you don’t break them at will. You change them. Until you do that, you follow them.
    If you could suggest specific changes that seemed workable, I would support them. You’ve been very vague. I’m getting that, unless someone surrenders, we kill them, even if there is an excellent chance they are physically incapable of surrender, and maybe we also kill them if they do surrender and stop accepting surrenders entirely. I see why you want to do this, but for the reasons I stated at 3:42 I do not think it will save U.S. soldiers’ lives in the long run.
    Part of the problem is that I have no idea how many U.S. soldiers have been killed in cases of false surrenders or where the insurgents have feigned injury or death. I’m not sure there’s any way to get information on that, but to the extent you have it it would be useful.
    Once again, I am talking about U.S. law more than international law.
    It may be that this soldier violated neither, but I don’t think we know that and am not prepared to take your word for it on either the factual or legal questions.

  72. Dutch:I do think that the soldiers who commit the atrocities should be held responsible
    Blue: And more…
    I quoted three instances were appearantly unarmed Iraqi’s were killed – and yes, I think it is very important that the rules and laws are followed. First of all because getting lax about them will lead to worse behaviour. It gets easier and easier if it is tolerated. Which is also very very damaging for all the soldiers in the war. People don’t think of themselves as bad, and when with hindsight they must admit that they did bad thing it is very hard for them and damaging. It is unseen damage that will harm quite a number of them the rest of their lives. In a way you must protect them from actions fueled by their anger, frustration and other emotions, because the emotions will go but the actions will not.

  73. “I think we’re trying to acknowledge that some folks see criticizing the troops as helping the enemy but explain why we don’t agree. I can’t blame someone for feeling upset that we’re not 100% behind that soldier. I think they’re letting their heart do the work they should let their head do, especially as it’s their responsibility, here on the homefront to protect our values…even those regarding how we conduct ourselves in war. But I can understand how strongly they feel in their heart that this soldier did what he felt he had to and that to criticize him is unfair.”
    I strongly disagree. Emotions run high on all sides here. Some things still aren’t acceptable–not comparing a soldier who was shot in the face a day ago and who saw a friend die in a false surrender earlier in the week to Klaus Barbie, and not accusing you and hilzoy of treason for suggesting this may have been a serious and unfortunate mistake. If that is acceptable I don’t see why anything isn’t. I’m not saying it should get people banned, but if it gets no stronger reaction than “I understand how you feel but disagree” from the people attacked, and no defense at all & partial agreement from your right of center fellow poster–it will continue, and the center will not hold. This thread about ruined my day.
    (To clarify for every one else–I am no longer a moderator here, so my opinion is no more authoritative than any other poster’s.)

  74. I’ll second Katherine’s notion that the UCMJ will sort it out. I haven’t seen the video, so I’m unbiased in both directions: I don’t know if either the Iraqi or the American did anything wrong. But, hey, I’m not required to know. We have a military justice system to sort out the individual circumstances of the general case: soldiers shouldn’t shoot unarmed, defenseless people. There are obviously special circumstances where that general rule should be violated. Is this one? I have no idea, but I really do trust the military to work it out.

    I’ll object stongly to Blue: we clearly have the right to discuss and (if so moved) condemn the actions of the soldier. Our discussion doesn’t change the facts, and doesn’t make us any less patriotic. People died long ago to give us the right to speak freely, and those ghosts would be ashamed if we didn’t use those rights. As such, the reporter who made the film was well within their rights, and should be commended: we should all see that which we have given consent to.

    And I’ll give a firm nod to Bill, for quoting David Drake (an indifferent ScFi writer): when you put young, only moderately well-trained soldiers in a fairly chaotic battle, you get mistakes. It’s the nature of the policy they’ve been charged with carrying out. Even if this particular case isn’t a mistake (and the jury is still out), I’m sure there are plenty unreported cases. This one is just on video.

  75. Sebastian: I object to the rules of war being used in a transparently one-sided way.
    Guantanamo Bay? Bagram Airbase? Abu Ghraib? It’s hardly one-sided: Guantanamo Bay was illegal from the start, and Bagram Airbase predates Guantanamo Bay. That the US is apparently declining to prosecute anyone responsible for the abuses of Abu Ghraib beyond a few low-level grunts who were caught on camera is further proof for any Iraqi that the US is not obeying the rules of war.
    I’m against sacrificing our soldiers to the altar of international law when doing so only makes it less and less likely that any of our future enemies will bother with them.
    I think you are confused as to who is “sacrificing soldiers on the altar of international law”. As has been pointed out by more than one person already on this thread, if it is known (or even only believed) that US soldiers routinely kill prisoners, it makes it less likely that insurgents will surrender rather than fight to the death.
    And while an atrocity that takes place on camera may be penalized and will fuel anti-US hatred outside Iraq, it’s folly to suppose that the atrocities that took place off-camera are not well known in Iraq. Rumor is a powerful communication force.

  76. “It’s quite a leap from that to assuming he deserved to be killed.”
    He CHOSE not to surrender before the Marines actually went in Falluja. He deserved to die.
    He CHOSE to stay in Falluja and fight. He deserved to die.
    He CHOSE to fight with people who follow no rules to warfare. He deserved to die.
    They all had the ability to CHOOSE differently.
    Those who stayed and fought made their CHOICE.
    End of story!
    They all had ATLEAST 3 weeks warning of the attack.
    Those who stayed CHOSE to ignore it. They all deserved to die.
    And that helps Katherine figure out a fair rule of engagement with an enemy who doesn’t follow any rules.
    You get warned of the attack and that you need to surrender. If one CHOOSES to ignore it you get killed.
    “I may not always post about it here — the sheer number of war crimes committed on the globe makes that impossible — but I condemn war crimes regardless of who commits them.”
    You certainly don’t post about it here. I’ve read your posts here for quite awhile Hilzoy… your above comment is such a farce. If you and other like minded people spent 1/10 of the time focusing on the horrible crimes the enemy has undertaken all over the world our guys might not even be in Iraq today. But you don’t and neither do people who think like you. So we have Marines dieing in Iraq.
    “despite the fact that all of us can empathize with the marine. What about this bothers you so much?”
    It’s the many posters here that are so quick to empathize first with the enemy and mostly with the enemy that I find so disgusting. You, Katherine and others give lip service to the Marine’s plight, but then full throttle launch into what needs to happen to the Marine. I’ve tried to ignore it and find common ground. But there is not common ground to be found.
    “Has anyone considered that the guy was incapable of making any kind of surrender signal due to his injuries?”
    It’s comments like this that I find so disgusting. The whole world knew Falluja was going to be invaded and it was going to be damned ugly. And now we are worried about some bastard who CHOSE his path in life. I hope every insurgent in Iraq sees the video and I hope that when they are planning their next attack they say, “Don’t try that fake surrender routine anymore a Marine is going to put a bullet through you f…g head.”
    Whether it is intentional or not… your type of dissent supports the enemy. If one gets drunk and drives down the road it most likely is not their intention to hit another car and kill someone. Many posters here are like drunks behind the steering wheel. They don’t intend to aide the enemy. But, they do.

  77. The whole world knew Falluja was going to be invaded and it was going to be damned ugly.
    Yeah. So does that make all the US soldiers who took part in that ugly invasion of Falluja guilty too?

    “The failed US attempt to “pacify” Falluja via “overwhelming” military means was first and foremost a disaster for its civilian population. The fact that it also embarrassed those who ordered it is of little sigificance in comparison, except in one regard. Current US plans to launch a “final assault” on Falluja, supported by back filling from UK troops, suggest that we can expect another human catastrophe whose scale no one can judge in advance but which will certainly result in the destruction of innocent lives. The question planners in Washington, London and Baghdad – and the public at large – need to consider is this: are the next attacks being planned as a true measure of last resort? If not, it is not just mass slaughter that is being contemplated here, but mass murder.” cite

    You remind us, Blue, that this one atrocity is a small thing in the massive atrocity that is the US “pacification” of Falluja, in which hospitals and clinics have apparently been targetted so that there shall be no independent record of the thousands of civilians killed.

  78. having read the thread here and, for balance, threads at both command post and lgf, i find that more than anything else i’m just sad.
    I’m sad at the loss of life. I’m sad at the terrible burdens the survivors of the combat will bear. I’m sad at the bloodthirstiness found in other threads. I’m sad that even with the election behind us many of us have lost the ability to engage in reasonable discussion.
    I confess that i’m finding myself gripped with terrible rages at the WASTE — the waste of life, of money, of opportunity.
    Blue, if you are still reading this thread, take a look at how Riverbend feels about the video. I’ve never been in combat, i’m not qualified to speak as to whether the american was right or wrong. but everything that this administration tries to do in iraq seems to turn to s–t. even if the soldier acted properly, can you understand that some of us fear that the blowback which the US will suffer for its actions is far worse than anything saddam could have done?
    i dunno where we go from here. i just don’t know anymore.
    Francis

  79. They all had ATLEAST 3 weeks warning of the attack.
    Those who stayed CHOSE to ignore it. They all deserved to die.
    Are you seriously saying that everybody who did not leave Falluja should be killed?

  80. “Updated: 11:11 a.m. ET Nov. 17, 2004
    BAGHDAD, Iraq – As U.S. and Iraqi officials expressed concerns and regrets about the fatal shooting by a U.S. Marine of a wounded and apparently unarmed man in a Fallujah mosque, the U.S. military said Wednesday it is investigating whether other wounded Iraqis in the mosque were similarly killed.”

  81. “It’s comments like this that I find so disgusting. The whole world knew Falluja was going to be invaded and it was going to be damned ugly. And now we are worried about some bastard who CHOSE his path in life. I hope every insurgent in Iraq sees the video and I hope that when they are planning their next attack they say, “Don’t try that fake surrender routine anymore a Marine is going to put a bullet through you f…g head.””
    So anybody who might have stayed in Fallujah deserved to die. We must have had to destroy that village in order to save it. And whether or not the guy could actually surrender is beside the point. He had some nerve being wounded.
    I especially like the part where it’s a warning that the fake surrender will be met with a Marine putting “a f…g bullet in your head”. Like the guys who pull that actually expect to live more than ten seconds after doing it. Gotta love the logic of threatening with death one who’s prepared to die for his cause.
    When you’re done watching Apocalypse Now on repeat mode, maybe you can consider that of the 1000+ killed in Fallujah, the military estimated that 12-15 were foreign fighters, meaning that most of those killed are Iraqis. Also consider that to them we’re perceived as foreign invaders and occupiers in their home. They didn’t ask us to come, and yet we’re there.
    Try considering something from other than your egocentric, solipsistic point of view for a change.
    And yes, I have been in combat, jackass.

  82. Blue: I should have called you on a rules violation when you wrote that other posters were helping the enemy, but unfortunately I didn’t catch that when I first read your comment. Now, having gone off to do other stuff and now come back and found your latest comments, I am calling you on it. “Be reasonably civil” and “do not consistently abuse other posters for its own sake” rules out accusations of aiding the enemy that cannot be backed up by some real specifics, and posting our opinions here does not count.
    For what it’s worth, you’re wrong about whether or not I focussed on Saddam Hussein’s crimes (assuming that’s the enemy you’re talking about.) I haven’t spent a lot of time on it here, since by the time I joined ObWi Saddam was history, but I did when he was in power, starting back when Republican administrations were still feeding him our classified satellite data.
    And I deeply resent the claim that I and people like me are responsible for our soldiers dying in Iraq. You have no idea what I did and did not do or say before the war, and you have no right to blame the deaths of our soldiers on me without explaining exactly which assumptions about me you’re basing this on, and why you make those assumptions. Given your accuracy about the rest of my remarks — I challenge you, for instance, to say where I “full throttle launch into what needs to happen to the Marine” — I won’t be holding my breath.
    This is just my response qua me. My response qua member of ObWi is: one more accusation of treason or responsibility for the deaths of soldiers and you are banned. Feel free to criticize our arguments, but do not criticize anyone here as a person, or accuse them of extremely serious things without correspondingly strong evidence.

  83. I object to the rules of war being used in a transparently one-sided way. I’m against sacrificing our soldiers to the altar of international law when doing so only makes it less and less likely that any of our future enemies will bother with them.
    What makes you think that any of our future enemies will bother with them anyway? Seems to me most of them are likely to be insurgents or terrorists, and neither of those groups are particularly well-known for having any respect for the rules of war. Kind of the opposite, in fact.
    The rules of war were meant to benefit both sides. If they are only used to hurt us, they aren’t going to last. I think that would be a bad thing, because when both sides use them, war is somewhat safer for civilians.
    Except that the insurgents are not interested in making war safer for civilians. It runs completely counter to their interests. Insofar as they can get us to kill civilians and come out with more images like the one that started this thread, that’s a good thing from their perpective.

  85. As the object of mountains of abuse, I sometimes don’t take the problem of policing the site seriously enough, but suggesting that Hilzoy and Katherine are traitors is indeed out of bounds.
    I think a legitmate area of complaint, however, is the lack of understanding which seems apparent in holding US Soldiers to ridiculous standards. The reason the rules of war don’t allow false surrenders is that the drafters fully understood that if false surrenders were common, soldiers would have to shoot people who were surrendering. Focusing on the latter half of the equation while failing to deal with the former half is a serious problem. The Geneva Conventions require that you put your military HQ in a non-civilian area because the writers knew full well that a military HQ ought to be bombed wherever it is found and they wanted to protect civilians as much as possible.
    I find it repeatedly annoying that so many defenders of the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war fail to bother with the fact that they are reciprocal agreements for a reason. If you ignore that reasoning, they become another tool for killing our soldiers.
    I am not willing to sacrifice our soldiers that way. I also know enough about human nature to realize that when our enemies see that there is absolutely no reason to follow the rules, they won’t follow the rules.
    How do you intend that we encourage them to follow the rules? It seems that you don’t care to provide incentives to follow the rules. Is that correct? Do you not care? I suspect not, but that is how it is coming off.

  86. also, even in that disturbing Freep thread, there’s one ex marine who takes everyone else to task better than I could. all is not lost. not yet, anyway.
    I don’t know how to give terrorists incentive to follow the rules, and I’m not sure shooting prisoners would be effective in deterring them. Terrorists, over and over, deliberately provoke abuses from governments to win sympathy from the population. It’s disgusting, but it works, and it’s very much damned if you do damned if you don’t. I’m not sure there’s any satisfactory answer. I would guess that killing or refusing medical care to all prisoners is not only inhumane, but lousy strategy in the long run. It’s just a gut reaction, I don’t have numbers to support it, but neither do you, and if we’re just going on our guts I think you certainly err on the side of following the law.
    Juan Cole’s post makes it sound as if these were prisoners disarmed and left behind for medical pickup but there was some confusion about this and the second team of marines didn’t realize it.

  87. Sebastian: I find it repeatedly annoying that so many defenders of the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war fail to bother with the fact that they are reciprocal agreements for a reason
    Yes. Bagram Airbase, Sebastian. Guantanamo Bay. Abu Ghraib. The looting post-invasion, which Donald Rumsfeld was legally required to prevent and did nothing about (beyond posting troops to protect the Ministry of Oil.) You are not discussing the point that the US military has recently and repeatedly violated the Geneva Conventions on protection of civilians and on prisoners of war when you assert that the agreements are supposed to be reciprocal.
    The insurgency in Iraq didn’t spring from nowhere: thousands of Iraqis didn’t just decide, out of the blue, that they’d rather die than submit to a US occupation.
    Going back to April 2003, when the hospitals, shops, and ministries that were looted, while US troops who were legally responsible for protecting Iraqi civilians in the city they were occupying stood by and did nothing, that was a clear breach of the Geneva Convention on protection of civilians in time of war. Donald Rumsfeld ought to have resigned or been fired: instead, he made jokes about it and kept his job.
    Through 2003, when the first priority ought to have been the reconstruction of Iraq by paying Iraqi companies with Iraqi employees to rebuild the damage done by 10 years of sanctions and the recent bombing, the first priority was to enrich large American corporations. The second priority ought to have been setting up elections as fast as feasible: the second priority was putting a US-appointed “council” in charge of Iraq to legalize the looting.
    The first was legal, but stupid: it’s one of the very few subjects on which two people as widely separated politically as myself and Tacitus were in absolute agreement: money for reconstruction is double-value when it’s paid to Iraqis, because it both rebuilds the country and boosts their economy: it’s a double-loss if it’s funnelled back to US corporations, because they do the same job more expensively and the money is lost to Iraq.
    The second was illegal. Just plain illegal. And the only thing that frustrated it was the growing insurgency. I do not believe those two were unconnected.
    Finally, Abu Ghraib. The Red Cross had been expressing concerns about what had been happening to prisoners almost since the beginning of the occupation: and it’s not unreasonable to suppose that while the rest of the world found out when Joseph Darby was brave enough to blow the whistle, rumors had been current in Iraq for months – Iraqis had been swept up by the occupied forces, taken to Abu Ghraib and other prison camps, and returned dead, injured, tortured, or not at all.
    The insurgency didn’t come out of nowhere. It came out of a series of devastatingly bad decisions made by the Bush administration: not merely the decision to invade Iraq and ignore Afghanistan, as someone said upthread, but a series of decisions ranging from the stupid to the illegal.

  88. As the object of mountains of abuse,
    Sebastian, as far as I’m aware, your ideas are being attacked, not you.

  89. I bet Blue thinks that Internal Affairs departments are fair game for other cops to abuse and possibly murder, because they’re traitors to the badge.

  90. I find it repeatedly annoying that so many defenders of the Geneva Conventions and other laws of war fail to bother with the fact that they are reciprocal agreements for a reason. If you ignore that reasoning, they become another tool for killing our soldiers.
    I’ve heard you advance this line of argument more than once in this thread, and while it’s certainly valid, you seem far more motivated by the pragmatic and reciprocal benefits of following the Geneva Conventions than by what I consider to be far more important: the fact that by and large they’re the right things to do.
    All pragmatic considerations aside…
    We don’t shoot people who no longer pose a threat because it’s murder.
    We don’t indiscriminately shoot where there are civilians because it kills innocent people.
    We treat prisoners of war with decency because it’s right and humane.
    It’s easy to rationalize violations of any of these. Our soldiers are at a disadvantage if the enemy knows they can fake surrendering. We are at a tactical disadvantage because we have to be careful where and how we shoot or bomb. And we undoubtedly treat our prisoners better than terrorists would treat ours.
    But Sebastian, we don’t–or shouldn’t–be measuring ourselves against a bar set by our enemies, and we should be viciously skeptical of any argument that tries to rationalize or justify atrocities. We should follow these rules not just because they have reciprocal benefits against a civilized enemy, but because they’re the right thing to do.
    Was that Iraqi faking? Was he even an insurgent? We’ll never know. He could have been unconscious, or too dazed to know what was going on. He could’ve had family in Abu Ghraib, and was hoping they’d leave him for dead rather than taking him prisoner. We’ll never know, though, because he was shot dead.
    You, or Blue, or anyone else are free to think I’m giving more benefit of the doubt to the Iraqi than to the Marine. But the fact is, we might never know whether he was an insurgent or why he didn’t try to surrender–but anyone who watches the video can see a US Marine making a calculated decision to kill him. There’s not a whole lot of benefit of the doubt to be /had/ there, and what little there is doesn’t exactly favor the person doing the shooting.

  91. quoting Blue:
    He CHOSE not to surrender before the Marines actually went in Falluja. He deserved to die.
    He CHOSE to stay in Falluja and fight. He deserved to die.
    Blue, maybe you are not aware that before the attack on Fallujah, American troops were screening the refugees leaving Fallujah and sending the adult men back into the city. They were instructed to remain unarmed, stay in the middle of the buildings, away from windows, and they would live through it.
    It is quite possible that the wounded man was one of these refugees sent back.
    If you want to verify this, check with Amnesty International, which is documenting war crimes being committed by both sides in this conflict. Or read some BBC or other international press reports.

  92. re: being called a traitor for expressing my views on this.
    I never took that personally or seriously (believing, again, it came from the heart and not the head), so it never upset me. I leap frogged over it and went on to where I thought I could find common ground with that person to see if I could work my way back to why it seems a false accusation.
    In doing so, however, I did allow that person’s labels to stand unchallenged (assuming I’d have time to come back round to them when the person was calmer), which after reading Katherine’s later comments, I now see only threw gasoline on the fire. While not a moderator, per se, anymore, along with Moe and von, Katherine’s voice defines the goals/aspirations/values of this site, so I not only respect her opinion here, I give it extra consideration.
    I took Blue’s initial comments as sincere, however, and I’d hate to see him leave the site over this. I believed he’d eventually come to understand that our statements were VERY American and that our homefront role here is to encourage the soldiers, but also to make sure they’re upholding our values, even in the thick of the fight.
    I do disagree with Sebastian that there’s a gray area with regards to whether or not we have to comply with the rules if the enemy is not. We comply with the rules as a matter of principle (and those citing potential future wars hit the nail on the head). But we also do it because we BELIEVE IN THEM. Not complying with them, to me, means the enemy is winning…they’re changing who we are without our wanting to change.

  93. Er…as the morning fades, I’m beginning to see more clearly.
    Defending the soldier has morphed into blaming the reporter, and that sort of tunnel vision mentality is frightening, and each step of denial along the way helps push those now saying the reporter should be killed. It’s accumulative. It’s only by stopping with the Marine in question, and holding him to the letter of the law, that we stop that nonsense. Suggesting the fog of war or the enemy’s refusal to “war by the rules” makes this gray for us, only serves to muddy all kinds of other issues.
    Katherine’s right. The military courts will handle this with all the compassion and consideration the Marine is due. There’s no reason for the rest of us soften our determination to uphold our values and insist our soldiers do as well.

  94. Blue,
    don’t stop commenting on the site because of this discussion. I believe that if you reread everything that Edward_ and Katherine said, then you will see that they are not being unreasonable.
    The problem is see here is that hilzoy, who has generally been reasonable, admonished Blue:
    Feel free to criticize our arguments, but do not criticize anyone here as a person, or accuse them of extremely serious things without correspondingly strong evidence
    while giving Jade a pass on this:
    “Citing abiola is much like citing LGF or Tacitus; they’re going to ‘see’ what supports their almost prurient desire to see more killing in Iraq.”
    I read LGF (but don’t get into the comments), and Tacitus, and I don’t have any prurient bloodlust, you will have to take my word for it. Plus, as far as I know, the original point of ObWi was not to denigrate Tacitus. Am I missing something here?
    My hat’s off to Katherine and Edward for trying to keep things civil and for looking at both sides of the matter.

  95. Sebastian had commented on the Abiola quote, but you’re right, DaveC it too violated the posting rules and should have been pointed out as such.
    Jadegold, please note that you’re commenting on those who read and comment on those sites (including myself…I comment on Tacitus) when you generalize like that…and such generalizations violate the posting rules. Please refrain.

  96. “But we also do it because we BELIEVE IN THEM.”
    What do we believe in? Do you believe that rules exist for the fun of it, or for a purpose? Do you believe that the purpose has anything to do with reciprocal responsibilites or not? Do you believe that the US was wrong to treat the Germans under the laws of war while shooting surrendering Japanese after it became clear that they regularly used false white flag tactics? What is the purpose of the laws? I’m not suggesting that we flatten cities and indicriminately kill civilians. I’m suggesting that playing hyper-technical games with actual combatants isn’t useful when the game is only being played by us.

  97. I’m suggesting that playing hyper-technical games with actual combatants isn’t useful when the game is only being played by us.
    You’re also forgetting or ignoring the fact that the U.S. military and the insurgents are not the only interested parties here. The fight against the insurgency is not merely military; there’s also a strong PR component to it too. It behooves us to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do the insurgents because that’s how we convince everyone watching that we’re the good guys.

  99. I’m not suggesting that we flatten cities and indicriminately kill civilians.
    You don’t have to: it is happening whether you suggest it or not.
    And yet, as Edward and Josh have said, Americans manage to believe “we’re the good guys” – often regardless of actual behavior. See the anger directed at John Kerry, at Joseph Darby, at this reporter who filmed a soldier shooting a wounded, immobile Iraqi: the anger is inappropriately directed at people who make clear that the Americans are as capable of being “the bad guys” as anyone else.
    It’s no fixit simply to believe that “Americans are the good guys”: what’s necessary is to behave well, and to enforce rules of good behavior.
    Falluja is one giant PR disaster: it is a Pyrrhic victory for the US. As Blue reminded us upthread, as Sebastian (unconsciously?) points out in his recent comment, it does the US occupation no good at all to be seen as the people who flatten cities, who indiscriminately kill civilians – or wounded and helpless men, whether civilian or not.

  100. What do we believe in?
    I, for one, believe in the intrinsic dignity of every human being. I believe that’s what “the rules” derive from, and that’s why it’s important to abide by them, regardless of the other party’s behavior.
    What do you believe in?

  101. “I, for one, believe in the intrinsic dignity of every human being.”
    Er, no, there are people in this world who neither have nor deserve to be treated as if they had “intrinsic dignity.” Osama bin Laden has none, nor did Joseph Stalin, or Mao Zedong, or many others in the halls of infamy.
    Dignity can be forfeited through barbarous conduct, and lacing yourself up with explosives and then acting dead, or waving the flag of surrender only to open fire as the enemy approaches, or using mosques as refuges for fighting, or firing RPGs from buildings in which helpless civilians are cowering in fear, or using ambulances to transport weapons or as suicide vehicles – none of these activities are in keeping with “intrinsic dignity” of any sort, and those who adopt them are not entitled to dignified treatment.

  102. Abiola, so is it also your view that when US soldiers commit atrocities, they cease to be “entitled to dignified treatment”?

  103. Er, no, there are people in this world who neither have nor deserve to be treated as if they had “intrinsic dignity.” Osama bin Laden has none, nor did Joseph Stalin, or Mao Zedong, or many others in the halls of infamy.
    Then we disagree. To me, OBL, Stalin, Mao, Marcos, even Hitler, still have that spark of humanity, which means they deserve(d) to be tried fairly for their crimes. They still retain basic human rights. I do not condone, frex, torturing anyone, no matter how villainous (and yes, GWB, that goes for you too). Likewise even demented non-political serial killers. Everyone deserves a fair trial. And a clean death, if they receive the death penalty.

  104. none of these activities are in keeping with “intrinsic dignity” of any sort, and those who adopt them are not entitled to dignified treatment.
    What does it say about the person who treats them as less than entitled?
    I think this sort of reasoning is bound to seem rational in the heat of battle, which is why it’s good we determine the rules of engagement in calmer times.
    Consider what was the appropriate behavior when pulling the mass murderer Saddam Hussein out of a spider hole. He was actually armed at the time. Was he entitled to the dignified treatment he received? You can say “no”; he was just lucky, but I return to my first question: What does it say about the person who treats them as less than entitled?

  105. I do want an answer to my question at 03:41 PM from Abiola, but whatever the answer:
    Are Iraqis in Iraq entitled to make war on the US occupation forces?
    Yes, they are. Indeed, their position is legally far better than the position of the US occupation forces: there is a clear right, both enshrined in international law and customary since long before international law was thought of, that when your country is invaded and occupied by a foreign army, you are entitled to take up arms and fight against that army. And regardless of wild claims that most of the insurgents are foreigners, the fact is that most of them have been shown to be Iraqis.
    Are the US military, considered as a whole, guilty of atrocities against Iraqis?
    Yes. There is no way to deny it: US soldiers have unjustly imprisoned, tortured, and killed, Iraqi civilians. Large numbers of Iraqi civilians were killed in the avoidable attacks on Najaf and Falluja: hospitals have been attacked, ambulances and medical personnel have been shot at.
    Are the Iraqi insurgents, considered as a whole, guilty of atrocities against Iraqi and non-Iraqi civilians.
    Yes. Again, no way to deny it, and no wish to – from Margaret Hallan backwards, the record is as horribly clear as it is for the US military.
    Abiola’s argument against believing that the Geneva Conventions apply to the war in Iraq appears to rest on the idea that once one side has clearly committed atrocities, no individuals on that side, regardless of whether or not there is evidence that that individual has committed an atrocity, deserves the basic respect that the Geneva Conventions grant. But if so, then neither side deserves to be treated according to the Geneva Conventions: the insurgents are no more in the wrong than are the US soldiers.
    The Geneva Conventions specify, and wisely, that it does not matter if one side is in breach of the Conventions: it is incumbent on all parties to the conflict, each and every one of them, to see that the Conventions are adhered to. Failure for one party to the conflict to keep to the Conventions does not release the other parties to the conflict from their responsibility to see that the Conventions are kept.
    Arguing that there is no need for the Conventions to be adhered to if one side is in breach of them, merely ensures that both sides are in the wrong.
    I feel a sense of despair arguing this, since in point of fact the US occupation has put itself so fundamentally and so thoroughly in the wrong – from the very beginning of the occupation – that I believe it is now unfixable. It’s just possible that a change of administration could have persuaded the Iraqis that a genuine change of policy was at hand: but that chance has been lost, along with all the other chances the Bush administration had to succeed in Iraq.
    It’s almost an abstract point by now. Except to those who die because of the Bush administration’s grievous errors: for them, for those who love them, it will never be an abstract point at all.

  107. “It behooves us to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do the insurgents because that’s how we convince everyone watching that we’re the good guys.”
    Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos emboldening and empowering every single one of our enemies across the globe?
    So many people here say that if we violate any of the myriad standards of conduct that we lose as much as if we defeat the insurgents in Iraq. That isn’t even close to being true. There are all sorts of standards that are not worth losing over. That isn’t the same as saying that there are no standards worth losing over, but pretending that all standards are worth losing over is ridiculous.
    And once again, what are the standards for? They are to protect civilians and standardize such things as sanctuary for medical treatment, surrender standards and the like. We are perfectly within our moral right to reject surrenders if they are used as a ploy to kill our soldiers. There is nothing moral about sacrificing my friends in the Marines to Iraqis who abuse the rules. Nothing at all.
    That is not an atrocity. That is war AS THE INSURGENTS HAVE CHOSEN TO FIGHT IT. No one is forcing those people to fight with groups who regularly abandon all decency to kidnap civilians and behead them. No one is forcing these people to fight with groups who use surrender to ambush. No one is forcing these people to fight with groups who illegally shoot from inside mosques. No one is forcing these people to fight with groups who refuse to wear uniforms and who choose to hide behind civilians.
    All of these tactics endanger civilians.
    And by choosing to treat these tactics as precisely the same as any other tactic you encourage the continuation of these tactics all over the world. That is not good for civilians.
    Condemnation denotes action against. You do not condemn the tactics of our enemies, you merely express discomfort about them. You want to take no action to stop it. And that is short-sighted because it ensures that every group which fights will use them against us. That undermines the very international law that you claim to respect.

  108. Abiola: Er, no, there are people in this world who neither have nor deserve to be treated as if they had “intrinsic dignity.”
    Duly noted. I personally think that Jesus was right on the question of ad hoc jurisprudence, but I respect your dissent.
    Translated into secular terms in case anybody’s scratching their head here, Abiola is offering an answer to the question at the core of every single system of jurisprudence since time began: Who Decides, and How? Abiola’s answer (whoever is on hand, and however they want) has steadily lost popular support in recent millenia, culminating in the (admittedly still somewhat vague) notion of “due process” which has been increasingly adopted over the past 500 or so years.
    In particular there’s a rather famous bit in the Christian Bible (Book of John) where a woman is caught in flagrante delicto engaging in adultery (no mention made of the man here, but, well, you know). The Pharisees bring her to Jesus, asserting that Mosaic law requires her to be stoned to death, and asking him what he thinks (which is a bit of a trick question in context). He ignores them for a bit, but finally suggests that “he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
    Interpret as you see fit of course…

  109. Mosques, Marines, and Press Censorship

    While I certainly have no knowledge of whether the Mosque shooting was valid or not, I can comment more accurately on the hew and cry of the videotape in this country. While there seems to be mostly good debate over…

  110. Sebastian writes: “Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos emboldening and empowering every single one of our enemies across the globe?”
    umm, false choice? More specifically, Sebastian, do you believe that the video (a) helps the US achieve its goals in Iraq and in the war on terror (for example, by terrorizing the terrorists); (b) hurts the US in achieving its goals (for example, by pushing moderates into anti-US extremism); (c) has no impact?
    Basic survival instincts say, to me, that the Marine did what anyone else would have done. But remember, please, the TWO rules of counter-insurgency: a. kill the committed insurgents; and b. don’t push the fence-sitters into opposition.
    How many terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters did we create with that video?
    Sebastian also has written at length about the mutual obligations underlying the Geneva conventions. One sample sentence: “There is nothing moral about sacrificing my friends in the Marines to Iraqis who abuse the rules.”
    The morality is, i think, open to a legitimate difference of opinion. But the CONSEQUENCES of NOT sacrificing Marines is a completely different question. Yes, insurgents cheat. Isn’t that part of the very definition of assymetrical warfare?
    But once we sink to their level, we lose! Because the neutrals will come more and more to see us as violent occupiers, and more of them move into active opposition.
    yes, i recognize that i am requesting that americans die at the hand of insurgents who might have been innocent. so? every operation in iraq is a balancing act between the safety of americans and the risks to non-combatants. we could have massively increased the safety to americans by using the Bosnia strategy (airpower only) in Falluja. We could have massively decreased the risk to civilians by not using any air power at all.
    back at the beginning of the occupation, a lot of pro-war bloggers and posters were advocating for foot patrols. that would have resulted in more dead americans, but it might have prevented portions of the insurgency. we’ll never know.
    Remember Rumsfeld’s snowflake about metrics? To re-open an unresolved dispute: what are the metrics of victory? Or, as Ed Koch (former mayor of New York) might say: How’re we doing?
    badly, i’d say. but i entertain opposing viewpoints.
    Francis

  112. Jadegold, please note that you’re commenting on those who read and comment on those sites (including myself…I comment on Tacitus) when you generalize like that…and such generalizations violate the posting rules. Please refrain.

    You mean comparing Tacitus to LGF? Is there a listing of protected ObWi sites?
    I take it that we”ll refrain from disparaging comments about Michael Moore–right?

  113. Sebastian: Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos emboldening and empowering every single one of our enemies across the globe?
    False choice. It is the decisions made by the Bush administration that have made Iraq descend into Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos, which – in your admirable turn of phrase – “has emboldened and empowered every single one of our enemies across the globe”.
    The decision not to bother securing stockpiled weapons. The decision not to bother trying to enforce law and order in occupied cities. The decision not to hold early elections. The decision to loot Iraq – foiled by the insurgency. The decision to have reconstruction carried out by US corporations, not local Iraqi businesses. The decision to use torture on suspects in Abu Ghraib. The decision not to bother investigating and penalizing those responsible for Abu Ghraib’s abuses further up the chain of command, but solely and only those who appeared in the photographs released to the public.
    The US occupation of Iraq could only succeed if the US were perceived as holding to a higher standard. It has failed because the Bush administration never saw that as important – or rather, realized that it was important, but saw it as a marketing issue, not a matter for concrete actions to make the US occupation visibly and clearly held to a higher standard.
    That the Bush administration chose not to do this is why Iraq has descended into chaos. It is bitter justice that, at least, it is the Bush administration who will be left with the clear responsibility of its own failure in Iraq.

  114. “But once we sink to their level, we lose! Because the neutrals will come more and more to see us as violent occupiers, and more of them move into active opposition.”
    Yes, if we sink to the level of regularly kidnapping aid workers and killing them, we lose.
    But that isn’t what we are talking about is it? We are talking about the utility of rules of war and what they mean. Your easy parallel obscures far more than it illuminates.

  115. Th Sebastian and Blue points seem based on the assumption that it is already perfectly clear that the marine acted properly, and therefore even talking about is some sort of depraved act.
    Sebastian — are you really saying that any level of ruthlessness is appropriate here if it saves American lives? That is the LGF point — just carpet bomb the place, and be done with it.
    Why not kidnap family members and children of insurgents, and then torture them, to fight back (like the insurgents do to Iraqis helping Americans)? I assume you agree that there are ruthless tactics that are inappropriate in fighting ruthless insurgents. But your posts sure seem to argue the opposite point.

  116. Yes, if we sink to the level of regularly kidnapping aid workers and killing them, we lose.
    But the US occupation has already sunk to the level of kidnapping ordinary Iraqis, torturing them, and sometimes killing them. The fact that the kidnapping is performed by US army units in “sweeps”, and under a form of law, does not change the fact that ordinary Iraqis, as innocent as any aid worker, have been forcibly taken, held incommunicado, tortured, and killed.
    Which, I agree, is one strong reason why the US occupation of Iraq has failed.

  117. A simple (but overly long) list of points:
    1. Soldiers cannot just shoot anybody because they feel threatened by them. There has to be some minimal rules of engagement, and some reasonableness in deciding who to shoot. Otherwise we should just nuke the place; or we shoot five year olds in combat zones because they might have a grenade.
    2. For obvious reasons, in an active combat environment, there is a huge amount of leeway. But its not unlimited. We don’t sanction shooting civilians for fun caught in the cross-fire of an active engagement.
    3. When soldiers are not in active combat, they do not have the same leeway. That’s why free-fire zones can be an atrocity.
    4. Insurgent fighting is inherently nastier because of their asymetrical tactics, thereby giving greater leeway to the troops fighting it since all dorts of ordinary things are potential threats. But something is also to be said for stressing the need to avoid wanton killing based on this point since it tends to undermine (badly) your counter-insurgency.
    5. In judging the decision-making of troops in combat, they get huge deferrence. This is not the same as analyzing whether a cop has correctly used deadly force.
    6. Insurgents playing dead in order to ambush troops are fair game. But this does not mean that any downed person can be shot simply because they might be playing dead and therefore might be planning an ambush.
    What are some of the salient facts here?
    a. The video is disturbing, but its tough to judge the thing based solely on the video (but try telling that to Iraqis). War is a very disturbing thing on a daily basis — until you are doing it on a daily basis, and then all kinds of behavior becomes normal.
    b. The insurgents in question had apparently already been wounded and taken by other troops (which makes the shooting terrible) but left unguarded, although it also seems that the marine in question did not know this and had no reason to know this (which is an enormous factor in his favor, if true). My understanding is that they thought they were entering an unsecured location (or one previously secured, but then not kept secured, which means insurgents could have re-infiltrated).
    c. The marine in question seems to have fired because of a fear that the guy was a threat to ambush them by falsely playing dead. However, the video also suggests that the insurgent was pathetically wounded, and the marine’s fear was not that well-founded. But who are we to judge that — leave that to the military people who will review the situation. But saying you KNOW it was proper is also a stretch. That sanctions shooting any wounded insurgent in the head, basically.
    d. Other understandable subjective factors (in addition to the strain of active combat — a huge factor itself) may have explain why the marine made his decision. Such as his recent injury and his friend’s death.
    e. This kind of thing happens all the time, and is reviewed further only if the non-coms (or even less likely, an officer) witness it and decide action must be taken. This marine was unlucky enough to have it videotaped.
    Conclusion — it is important to review this type of thing because of our own values — not because of some concern for the rights of insurgents. Our Western military tradition has, for hundreds of years, imposed restraints on wanton violence in warfare for, I hope, obvious reasons. Civil wars and insurgencies have always tested those limits because of their different nature, but God help us if we are going to allow the Iraqi insurgency to pervert our own morality.
    Otherwise just advocate torture and carpet bombing to beat the insurgency — take a page from Saddam’s playbook (which did work for many years), and bring back the rape rooms. And also drop this nonsense about intending to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, since we decided to abandon those values in fighting the insurgency.

  118. “The fight against the insurgency is not merely military; there’s also a strong PR component to it…”
    I suggest that it is this rationale that Blue is using to reach the conclusion that others are supporting the insurgents. I never saw were he referred to anyone as a traitor. Through others the insurgents obtain the type of PR that they could only wish for, but never get without the indirect assistance of others in America and abroad.
    I’m not certain, but I believe I read somewhere that Ho Chi Mihn after being demoralized and defeated during the Tet offensive that he recognized they could turn it into a PR victory. It would be only reasonable to recognize that the insurgents know they can’t win militarily, but a PR victory is possible with the support of sympathetic Americans and Europeans.

  119. I suggest that it is this rationale that Blue is using to reach the conclusion that others are supporting the insurgents.
    Blue wrote:

    To Edward, Jade, Jes, Katherine
    I find your posts here to be some of the most repulsive posts from Americans that I can imagine. I can no longer post at ObWi in good conscience. I cannot lend my support to a site where the posters behave in this manner. I am truly ashamed to have involved myself with this site now that your colors show so truly.

    Look, I’m as guilty as the next person for getting carried away with things. But if you can extract that rationale out of what Blue wrote, (and note that Blue goes on to post at 10:49 out of context snippets that ‘prove’ the ill will of those named) well, then anything goes. I see, from my liberal perch in Japan, people trying to honestly come to grips with what they saw. Just because I know that thousands of people die because of car wrecks each year doesn’t mean a hell of a lot when I see someone die from one right before my very eyes. If you want to dismiss their perceptions (and note that it’s not one person, it’s 4 people who are implied to be marching in lock step, followed by anyone who has ever criticized this war) by saying that they are one with the implacable Arab street, that’s your decision, but don’t expect to get a free pass when you do.

  120. johnny_comelately: …a PR victory is possible with the support of sympathetic Americans and Europeans.
    Are you suggesting that discussions like this one constitute the “support of sympathetic Americans and Europeans” and/or that such “support” is necessarily required in order for the insurgency to win the battle for hearts and minds? I’m asking seriously because I can’t tell.
    Look, either we guarantee free speech and we pay the price thereof, or we don’t guarantee it and we pay that price instead. Advocate the latter if you like, but let’s not pretend that either choice has ever been free of undesirable consequences. And even if we choose to deny that Abu Ghraib happened; even if every American swears up and down that that soldier was innocent; the rest of the world — especially the Iraqis — will form their own conclusions.
    This is a choice America needs to make, and I assure you that the rest of the world intends to hold us just as accountable for our collective choices as Blue wants us to hold the residents of Fallujah for theirs…

  122. Excellent time to bring in Van Gogh’s murder, no?
    If you can explain why a murder in the Netherlands is relevant to US actions in Iraq, sure.

  123. Excellent time to bring in Van Gogh’s murder, no?
    What Jes said. Other than that the Dutch (bless their pretty little blonde heads) have to make the same choices, and that our choices and theirs will interact in inherently unpredictable ways, what’s your point exactly?
    Are you saying we should be looking to the Dutch for cues? How ’bout the French, or the Brits? Should we be taking cues from them too?

  124. Excellent time to bring in Van Gogh’s murder, no?
    Willful blinders…that’s what the call for “censorship” we won’t call “censorship” and simplification of the threat into bumper sticker slogans actually demands of Americans.
    Sign up for the war against Islam. Oops, no, we didn’t mean to say “Islam”; we meant to say “Islamists.” Sign up for the war against Islamists…who just happen to practice Islam. If you’re not hating them yet, you’re not paying attention.
    Could we, this time, please try and have a more intelligent dialog about the threat? Not magnifying one crime as if it, in and of itself, represented the demise Western Civilization?
    Van Gogh’s murder was awful. It represents a societal clash that needs careful, measured steps to control/correct. Drawing up sides, racheting up the rhetoric, and reducing it all to “Us v. Them,” isn’t worthy of us, however. If that’s all the further mankind has progressed, what’s the point?

  125. The point is that no one here is threatening free speech. We are advocating responsible speech, correct?
    Setting up an atmosphere where the ‘right’ of insurgents to fake surrenders, hide behind civilians, and use ‘neutral’ religious sites as bases of operations has no impact on their ‘right’ to be protected by the laws that are supposed to protect surrender conventions, civilians, and religious sites is not a responsible look at the real world in my opinion.
    I’m not attacking your right to free speech.
    I’m attacking the ideas that are being expressed in the speech.

  126. Setting up an atmosphere where the ‘right’ of insurgents to fake surrenders, hide behind civilians, and use ‘neutral’ religious sites as bases of operations has no impact on their ‘right’ to be protected by the laws that are supposed to protect surrender conventions, civilians, and religious sites is not a responsible look at the real world in my opinion.
    No one is defending anyone’s right to fake surrenders or any of those other violations of the Convention. We’re just arguing that two wrongs don’t make a right.

  127. “Blue: I should have called you on a rules violation when you wrote that other posters were helping the enemy, but unfortunately I didn’t catch that when I first read your comment.”
    It seems free speech only applies at ObWi if you assist others in ignoring the fact that their actions here might be providing political and moral support to the enemy.

  128. ARghhh!!!!
    That’s called TREASON Blue…you’re accusing fellow commentors of treason because they’re voicing an opinion on a site there’s precious little reason to imagine the “enemy” is even aware of (no offence to my fellow bloggers).

  129. there’s precious little reason to imagine the “enemy” is even aware of
    (sotto voce) Good misdirection ploy there, Edward — the infidel must not find out that ObWi has reached the Jumping Jihadist level on the Mohammed’s Truth Laid Bear ecosystem.

  130. there’s precious little reason to imagine the “enemy” is even aware of
    (sotto voce) Good misdirection ploy there, Edward — the infidel must not find out that ObWi has already reached Jumping Jihadist on the Angry Islamist ecosystem.

  131. Ack, sorry for the double post — I swear it didn’t go through the first time, even when I re-clicked the Permalink to refresh.

  132. why the change KenB?
    I thought the first one was funny, but now that you’ve updated it I’m looking for the “mistake” in the first one.
    Was it “Mohammed”?

  133. “No one is defending anyone’s right to fake surrenders or any of those other violations of the Convention. We’re just arguing that two wrongs don’t make a right.”
    And my argument is that if you respect the Conventions, you can’t offer unlimited license to those who fight us to ignore them at every single turn with absolutely no ramifications for them.
    If we set a precedent that everyone who fights us can wantonly endager civilians by pretending to be them, can occupy holy sites with no ramifications, can use false surrenders for ambushes, what ‘right’ are you protecting? You are arguing to protect the right of those who fight us to break every rule, endanger civilians wantonly, and ambush our troops so that more of them can be killed.
    Why are you arguing for that? If it becomes a common tactic in every fight, far more civilians will be endangered than are endangered by American action in Iraq. They will be far more endangered all over the world.
    Perhaps I did not approach the problem correctly by raising it in this forum. But we need to come up with incentives to follow the rules. Because if we do not, the rules are going to completely fall apart.

  134. Interesting — I submitted the 01:05 PM comment first, then when it didn’t show up, I recreated it (making some minor changes) and reposted, and that one became the 01:00 PM post. I guess it’s such a nice day that the first one decided to walk.

  135. And my argument is that if you respect the Conventions, you can’t offer unlimited license to those who fight us to ignore them at every single turn with absolutely no ramifications for them.
    I think a fundamental roadblock to understanding here is that I’m viewing the dead Iraqi as an individual who may or may not have even been conscious, and you’re seemingly viewing him as responsible for all the violations of the Conventions committed by all the insurgents up to that point.
    It’s as if we’ve decided that anyone who didn’t leave Fallujah deserved to be killed, no questions asked.

  136. Excellent time to bring in Van Gogh’s murder, no?
    Is it? Why? What is the significance of that murder for you and how is it related to following the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law against the Falluja insurgents?
    And somewhere in this thread the boobytrapped dead body of an insurgant became a fake surrender. I thought the latter was about the Japanese soldiers in WW2? Has it happened in Iraq too?
    How do you feel about the bombing of the hospitals in Fallujah? That was justifiable?

  137. Sebastian: We are advocating responsible speech, correct?
    Advocacy is for people who lack authority. Enforcement is for people who have authority. And somewhere down the line there has to be a way to determine what’s responsible and what isn’t.
    Blue: It seems free speech only applies at ObWi if you assist others in ignoring the fact that their actions here might be providing political and moral support to the enemy.
    Either we guarantee free speech and we pay the price thereof, or we don’t guarantee it and we pay that price instead. There will be a line somewhere, and a price somehow, one way or another.
    Blue feels that his speech has been unjustly impaired here, but he also feels that we should not discuss this issue because that discussion provides political and moral support to the enemy. Please consider that for a moment. Blue has drawn his line, and determined that our speech is exceptional and unprotected, while his is unexceptional and protected.
    And that, dear Blue, is where the bullet hits the bone. You want to decide, instead of making some rules and then letting the rules decide… You think the answer is so obvious that you couldn’t possibly be wrong. I think you’re wrong. I think Rummy is doing what you think I’m doing and that that kid is better off in court-martial than he is on patrol. I think you’re a sunshine patriot, trapped by your fear. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were my countryman.
    Yours is the logic of a person who’s never lived with totalitarianism up close and personal. It’s really not so bad as you might think. Shops open in the morning and close in the evening. Things are maybe a little dustier, a little poorer, a little sadder and grayer than what you’re used to. The same guy’s picture is up on the wall in every single shop and home because everybody loves him so much. But kids play in the streets. People go about their business. Babies giggle and dogs bark and crops grow and somebody makes decisions…

  139. radish,
    I think people here can do whatever they want… say whatever they want… it’s their choice. I don’t think I have ever done anything to shut down their expression.
    I just also think that many of the views often expressed at ObWi provides indirect political and moral support the the enemy. I find the act of doing it and the lack of acknowledgement of that support revolting and naive.
    There is dissent, which is acceptable… I think many here often crossover from political dissent to supporting the other side. I gave examples previously in this thread of that behavior.
    I never said I was going to do anything to silence those here at ObWi… I just hope their voices fade into oblivian… much like Kerry’s presidential bid.
    Hilzoy,
    “I challenge you, for instance, to say where I “full throttle launch into what needs to happen to the Marine” — I won’t be holding my breath.”
    Your right… you full throttle launch into what could the Marine be thinking. Was that not obvious? He stated it outloud. He thought the guy might be faking dead with a grenade or something hidden. Full throttle in to what “needs” to happen to the Marine really applied more to Katherine but your statements are gross enough to me. You immediately start analyzing the Marine.
    Analyze this for me: What if the guy would have had a hand grenade like some others have? What would the news have been about then? “Jane Doe’s son died in Iraq today.” Then we could have posted at ObWi about how it is the wrong war at the wrong time.
    Where are all the posts at ObWi condemning that insurgents? I know the response. The insurgents behavior is bad, BUT… our Marines commit atrocities… Bush is stupid… Rumsfield is horrible… Wrong war… blah blah blah. Lip service.
    I personally am not going to ask the Marine to take the chance. But, if one identifies with the Iraqi first before the Marine then one asks the Marine to take the chance. One who does sympathizes more with the guy dead on the floor than the Marine who has been subject to those kind of attacks.
    Your first post… second sentence:
    “this is a case that seems to me to depend so heavily on what the soldier thought, whether he thought as he did for any good reason, and so forth, that I really don’t know what to think about it, except that one way or another it’s awful.”
    Before even talking about the enemy and the heinous acts they commit you immediately focus on the Marine. What could he have been thinking? What reasons did he have? This is just par for the course at ObWi.
    Immediately you start talking about what the Marine was thinking. No mention first of their tactics being awful. That the enemy is bringing this on themselves. You seemed to successfully have avoided that initially. You went straight to the Marine.
    “And this is not just because war crimes are awful for the victims and for our reputation as a nation,”
    And in the end… what do you close your post with? Already talking about war crimes.
    Barf.

  140. I guess the concept that the Marines work for us and the insurgents don’t, and the responsibilities that flow from that, and the idea of policing one’s own, are lost on some people.
    By the way, I wholeheartedly and without reservation condemn terrorism, false surrenders, corpse-booby-trapping, and breaking of the Geneva Conventions.

  141. Radish – As someone who lives in a Third World country and grew up during the Afghan-Soviet war, I agree with you. Our lives under totalitarian regimes (which frequently masquerade under the cunning disguise of “democracy”) aren’t that bad at all. And we certainly never “needed” anyone else coming in to “save” us. Admittedly, US history isn’t my strong suit, but why does the Castro regime come to mind (in terms of general apathy about it)?
    To people who feel as though the Iraq war was “justified” (sorry, a bit nuts with the “s today), do keep this in mind; I doubt very much, even living in a theocratic, Islamic country, that any countries or particular governments have designs on US security, in terms of invading/attacking/destroying. They don’t. What happened on 9/11 was awful, but it wasn’t a nation-state acting, it was a group of motivated sociopaths. And in the long run, all this war has done is reduce the international image of the US into a steaming pile of fecal matter.
    Our lives go on. We have our breakfast, we walk a little faster occasionally, or try not to be in massively public spaces with any regularity, we eat, we sleep. We don’t stay up nights caring how many people were killed by the US today, and quite frankly, we don’t really care how many US troops were killed by insurgents. All we want is to manage to live our lives, and somehow ease that entire process.
    Sorry. A bit off-topic, I know.

  142. Shorter Blue and Sebastian:
    “We get a free ticket to commit atrocities against those who commit atrocities against us.” Sort of a perverse golden rule — do unto others as they do unto you.
    I guess, then, the Iraqi was lucky that all that the marine did was shoot him in the head. That marine was way too hasty.
    Or to quote Blue, with one suggested editing change: Analyze this for me: What if the guy [five year old Iraqi] would have had a hand grenade like some others have? I guess if you think this, you get to shoot whomever you please, and be a war hero.

  143. What Sin said about nation-states and sociopaths. Thanks for that.
    And sorry if I was harsh. It irks me when people take free speech for granted. It’s not the government’s responsibility to protect the Constitution. It’s ours. If we don’t scrupulously defend the principles set down in that document, every single day and in every single instance, then we’re just a bunch of bozos with a suspiciously high standard of living and no moral authority whatsoever.

  144. Analyze this for me: What if the guy would have had a hand grenade like some others have? What would the news have been about then?
    Ok. Why would someone get within point-blank range of someone with a hand grenade?

  145. Not-shorter dutchmarbel: “I don’t understand that labeling a difficult decision in a war zone and cutting off aid worker’s heads both atrocities in the same discussion portrays a shocking lack of moral sense.”
    This is the same problem I have with Amnesty International. Calling the US bombing of Saddam’s main propaganda outlet and the intentional shelling of civilians by Iraqi forces both ‘war crimes’ in a press release while focusing on the former and deemphasizing the latter completely debases any understanding of the phrase. Note that in a press release you know you rarely get all of it published, so you always put the most important stuff first and it declines in importance as the release goes on. Paragraph one: both sides do war crimes. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 the US bombs TV station. No mention of its status as completely controlled by Saddam’s government. Paragraph 7: by the way the Iraqis are intentionally targetting civilians (one of the worst possible war crimes) intentionally setting up sites next to civilians (one of the top war crimes) and pretending to be civilians for the purpose of ambush (another one of the top war crimes). Paragraph 8: General statement, probably intended to apply to both sides.
    Dutchmarbel, you do the same thing. And it isn’t pretty in either case.

  146. “Ok. Why would someone get within point-blank range of someone with a hand grenade?”
    ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
    Jadegold, maybe because they !@#!%@#ing couldn’t tell because the hand grenade wielder was pretending to be injured or pretending to surrender. How could you read any portion of this thread and not have that possibility come to mind?

  147. “Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos emboldening and empowering every single one of our enemies across the globe?”
    False Dichotomy fallacy! Five-yard penalty.
    “So many people here say that if we violate any of the myriad standards of conduct that we lose as much as if we defeat the insurgents in Iraq.”
    Strawman fallacy! Ten-yard penalty.
    “You do not condemn the tactics of our enemies, you merely express discomfort about them. You want to take no action to stop it.”
    Outright lying! Fifteen-yard penalty.

  148. Sebastian: Calling the US bombing of Saddam’s main propaganda outlet and the intentional shelling of civilians by Iraqi forces both ‘war crimes’ in a press release while focusing on the former and deemphasizing the latter completely debases any understanding of the phrase.
    Actually, it doesn’t. Because bombing a “propaganda outlet” and deliberately attacking civilians are both war crimes.
    Do you feel it debases the understanding of the word “crime” when we call both rape and murder crimes? They’re different crimes, but they’re both criminal offenses.
    From the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and specifically the section dealing with the RTS bombing (the NATO attack on the RTS (Serbian Radio and TV Station) in Belgrade on 23rd April 1999) it was legally established that it is a war crime to bomb a TV station only because the TV station is broadcasting propaganda.
    We needn’t debate whether deliberately shelling civilians is a war crime, because I agree that it is, and find it abhorrent when any side in a conflict does it: cluster bombs in urban areas are a deliberate civilian-killing weapon, and a crime that the US is guilty of.

  149. Jadegold, maybe because they !@#!%@#ing couldn’t tell because the hand grenade wielder was pretending to be injured or pretending to surrender.
    Reread the question and get back to me, Sebastian. I always find it amusing to have people without a nanosecond of military experience lecture others on such matters.

  150. Prodigal, handing out penalties left and right…you go dude!
    Jadegold, I appreciate your sentiment with regards to non military folks commenting on such matters, but this is an opinion forum. I offer military opinions all the time. I haven’t served, but I’ve studied. None of which to say is my opinion is more valid than that of one who has served (not at all), but perhaps it’s still worth considering.

  151. Edward: I fear you miss my point. Everyone is certainly free to offer their opinion on military policy and even those of us have served are offering opinions way above our pay grades WRT military policy, tactics and strategy.
    However, when one starts to demand we unconditionally accept his or her version of a heretofore unknown rule of engagement, in violation of US military conduct and international laws–one should be speaking from a position of experience.

  152. Not-shorter dutchmarbel: “I don’t understand that labeling a difficult decision in a war zone and cutting off aid worker’s heads both atrocities in the same discussion portrays a shocking lack of moral sense.”
    Late reply (kid with earinfection and kid with operation tomorrow). But you summarize my opinion into something I did tot say aat all. I had not said anything about the beheadings AFAIK and I said after giving other examples where soldiers killed unarmed insurgents/civilians that I felt that the soldiers that commit atrocities should be convicted for them.
    I do notice that you have not answered any of my questions yet.

  153. Well it seems the last word on this comes from the embedded camera man himself. I think blue and sabastian should really have a look at what he has to say about this incident. Perhaps it is worthy of another thread?
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/11/images_reality_.html#comments
    It seems these insurgents first surrendered the mosque on Friday and were treated for their wounds and left to be picked up later. Then on Saterday a group of marines entered the mosque, shot the unarmed men again and then left just as the cameraman was arriving with his platoon. Then his men entered the mosque and one marine shot a wounded Iraqi prisoner again, for the third time, finally killing him but this time on camera for the whole world to see.

  155. Ken,
    When the reporter is always the first person through the door… then maybe he gets the last word. When the reporter is the object of suicide attacks… then maybe he gets the last word. When people are more outraged at the people who commit fake surrenders than Marines… then maybe I could give the reporter the last word. But, for me the Marine gets the last word…
    From Kevin’s site:
    “He’s fucking faking he’s dead — he’s faking he’s fucking dead.”
    Oh yeah.. and now this from ABC (Australian)

    The US military says Marines in Fallujah have shot and killed an insurgent who engaged them as he was faking being dead, a week after footage of a marine killing an apparently unarmed and wounded Iraqi caused a stir in the region.
    “Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent who while faking dead opened fire on the marines who were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets,” a military statement said.

    Seems these guys didn’t get the memo, I mean video, that the fake surrender trick doesn’t work.
    Where’s all the outrage over these types of war crimes? Where’s the posts? Where’s the disection of what the insurgent was thinking?

  156. When the reporter is always the first person through the door… then maybe he gets the last word. When the reporter is the object of suicide attacks… then maybe he gets the last word.
    Baloney. This ‘reasoning’ didn’t work at Nuremburg either.

  158. I think the question at Nuremburg wasn’t exactly about close judgment calls.
    In your opinion. Given the fact Nuremberg weighs heavily, today, in matters of international criminal law, your opinion seems to militate against the notion it is settled as you portray.

  159. Hmmm…
    “Given the fact Nuremberg weighs heavily”
    Maybe, that’s really the problem… maybe it shouldn’t really be weighing that heavily.
    I mean when you have an enemy that preys on the good intentions of others and manipulates that to achieve whatever victory they can… maybe it’s time to write new rules.
    I’m going with the one that the Marine set.
    Fight with people who fake surrender… you may get a bullet through the head even if you are really surrendering. Fight with people who don’t fake surrender… then the Marines will accept your surrender without putting a bullet through your head.

  160. Fight with people who fake surrender…
    Facts are not your friends, Blue.
    The fact is the slain Iraqi was wounded, he was feigning nothing.
    The fact is he was unarmed and posed no threat beyond a trip hazard.
    The fact is the slain Iraqi made no threatening gesture nor gave any indication of a hostile act.
    Look, Blue, you’ve gotta understand patriotism isn’t the same as excusing crimes.

  161. Blue, with all due respect, grunts don’t make rules. Grunts follow orders.
    If you are unhappy with the current ROEs then, take it up with your congresscritter right now, and don’t quit till the laws that constrain those ROEs have been repealed. Anything less is bullsh*t of purest ray serene. In the meantime, I suspect the devil dogs can uphold their honor more effectively without your help. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if some of them found your help mildly insulting, since you seem to think that they’re unable to do their jobs if they have to follow the rules.

  162. Blue, how many times does a pow have to surrender?
    How many times do our soldiers get to shoot unarmed, injured pow’s before you start to act like an patriot and condemn their actions?

  164. Nice, many were upset here when I said their actions aided the enemy. Which I still stand by because they do provide political and moral support… but now I am accused of being unpatriotic… will the double standards here ever stop?
    Jade,
    “Facts are not your friends, Blue.”
    It seems they are not your friend either. The Marine “thought” he was faking dead and shot him. I have never said that we know one way or the other. I have no qualms admitting the Marine may have been mistaken! My critique has been that many posters here sympathize more with the Iraqis/foreigners who have been consistently breaking the laws of war. (If that isn’t an oxymoron.)
    The Marine never would have “thought” the guy was faking dead… stay with me here I’ll go slow… If they had not already BEEN FAKING DEAD AND FAKING SURRENDER.
    I don’t understand why that is so difficult to understand.
    Let’s put the blame where it is properly due. Fight with people who fake surrender and you might get shot when it appears you are faking dead.
    Sympathize more with the enemy than the Marines fighting the scum who commit the most horrible war crimes and people might see you as providing indirect support to the enemy.

  165. I’m gonna shut down the comments on this thread if we can’t move beyond calling each other unpatriotic or suggesting anyone here is helping the enemy.
    Please unpersonalize additional comments.

  166. “Look, Blue, you’ve gotta understand patriotism isn’t the same as excusing crimes.”
    I’ve had a LOT of problems with other things Jadegold has written on this thread, but that simply isn’t the same thing as saying that Blue is unpatriotic, let alone that he’s providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
    This discussion has gone off the rails primarily because of one poster’s clear and repeated violation of the site’s posting rules. Not to say that there may not be other examples of violations on this thread, but pretending that there’s some sort of equivalence and shutting down comments punishes everyone rather than the person (or people, I’m sure like everyone I’m more apt to see this from one side than another) most responsible. The rules don’t work if they’re not enforced, and enforced against the people who violate them rather than everyone.
    Balance matters, but other things matter more. Making balance the be-all-end-all has killed independent journalism, and I would hate to see it as the defining value of this site.

  167. I think the offending comment was actually ken’s:
    “How many times do our soldiers get to shoot unarmed, injured pow’s before you start to act like an patriot and condemn their actions?”

  168. For what it’s worth, I decided to ban Blue after he repeated his claim that people here are aiding the enemy, despite my saying that if he did so he’d be banned again. Unfortunately, I couldn’t figure out how to do it on a thread put up by someone else, and eventually got distracted, and sort of hoped he’d stick by his initial decision to stop posting here. So Blue: the reason I didn’t call other people on insulting you was because, in my view, you had already crossed the line more than once too often, and it was only because of my technical ignorance that you were still posting at all, and thus, while you were still violating the posting rules with impunity, I didn’t think it was fair to call other people on it.
    However, I hereby ask: does anyone know how to ban a commenter on someone else’s thread?

  169. but pretending that there’s some sort of equivalence and shutting down comments punishes everyone rather than the person
    I was actually hoping to make a clean start of it without having to rehash who was more to blame than whom, in hopes this thread might get back on topic. It’s been derailed. I see that. I’d rather not have to ban anyone for it if that can be avoided. Perhaps it can’t.
    Having said that, though, Blue (please read this all before reacting), you’re beginning to lose credibility here in that you keep insisting you’re so disgusted that you can’t post here any more, but you come back. I have appreciated your comments in the past and tried to reach some common ground, believing we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this topic, but hoping you’d stick around for the unique viewpoint you add, but you do seem to be unable to do the same in return (reach common ground), so I’m not sure it’s worth it.
    Gromit’s pointing out of ken’s comment does suggest this is not all one-sided though. Which, again, is why I had hoped a clean start could be achieved.
    hilzoy…check your email.

  170. I’ve had a LOT of problems with other things Jadegold has written on this thread,
    Do tell.
    Look, if you’re going to ban or otherwise sanction Blue–why stop there? After all, Sebastian has strongly suggested those who view this incident as an atrocity are guilty of sacrificing US lives. Kind of makes being labeled as ‘unpatriotic’ look like pretty weak stuff.
    Banning Blue serves no good purpose.

  171. Banning Blue serves no good purpose.
    In this case, I agree. Besides, I believe Blue’s latest comment shows he’s heard what some here were trying to say:
    Sympathize more with the enemy than the Marines fighting the scum who commit the most horrible war crimes and people might see you as providing indirect support to the enemy.
    This is a good deal more balanced than Blue’s original comments. Personally, I appreciate that effort. However, Katherine’s right in that balance is not everything. It’s only useful in as much as it leads to wider understanding. In this case, I believe it’s accomplished that goal somewhat.

  172. Edward,
    I have chosen to only post on this thread and will end posting when it ends. The importance of pointing out how many in the U.S. and Europe are indirectly supporting the cause of the insurgency in Iraq… if one can distinquish between the foreign terrorists and the Sunni insurgency… seems extremely important to me.

  173. The importance of pointing out how many in the U.S. and Europe are indirectly supporting the cause of the insurgency in Iraq
    You have not yet shown how anyone on this thread is doing so, directly or indirectly. But you have insulted several people directly, in clear breach of the posting rules and even of common courtesy in debate, and have never apologised for it.

  174. The importance of pointing out how many in the U.S. and Europe are indirectly supporting the cause of the insurgency in Iraq… if one can distinquish between the foreign terrorists and the Sunni insurgency… seems extremely important to me.
    Duly noted. And since you seem amazingly well informed on this topic, what exactly is the “cause” of the insurgency in Iraq? I mean to the extent that it can be distinquished from foreign terrorists of course — I’m not asking what the foreigners think.
    What are those Iraqis fighting for exactly?
    BTW have you talked to your congresscritter yet? Lotta boys getting hurt over there y’know. You do want the ROE changed, don’t you?

Comments are closed.