.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, November 15, 2004

If wounded Iraqi was faking death, Marine may have been right to shoot first, ask questions later

NBC is reporting the shooting of a wounded Iraqi fighter by an American Marine. (NBC misleadingly assumes he that the fighter should properly be called a prisoner.) It seems that five wounded Iraqis were taken prisoner by one batch of Marines, who then abandoned them. Another group of Marines came upon the wounded fighters and when one of these Marines thought he detected that one of the Iraqis was pretending to be dead, he shot him up.

If the Marine was right that the Iraqi was feigning death, or if he drew a reasonable inference of the same, then shooting the wounded man first and asking questions later might well have been the correct thing to do. War is not like police work where an officer has a duty not to kill unless he absolutely has to. A soldier's duty is to kill every enemy he can who is not actively trying to surrender. Feigning death is not trying to surrender, and a fighter in such circumstances could very well inflict terrible damage. Some of the fighters in Fallujah have been strapped with suicide bomber belts. In this circumstance, any covert activity, like feigning death, would seem to call for instant death.

Of course there may be more to the story. Maybe standing orders addressing such situations demand forbearance. Maybe both of the fighter's hands were already blown off and surreptitious action was clearly impossible. NBC reports that the "prisoner" (I have to put that in quotes) "did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way," but appearances can be deceiving. If the Marine detected deceit, then acting on the presumption that appearances ARE deceiving seems warranted. It is certainly not obvious that the Marine acted wrongly, never mind criminally.

If he was in the right, or was at least not criminally in the wrong, I hope the Pentagon has the balls to come out and explain to the world media--who will doubtless be crying for the Marine's head--that this is war.

Thanks to Charles at LGF for posting an excerpt. Reading comments there and at the Command Post, I see that some others were struck, as I was tonite, by the wait-and-see attitude of the network reporting on the incident. Maybe with the election over they don't see any benefit in attacking the war effort with their old gusto. If they really want to bring things into perspective, they could also report this tidbit from CNN:
About a block away, a Marine was killed and five others wounded by a booby-trapped body they found in a house after a shootout with insurgents.
(Hat tip Rant Wraith, commenting at LGF.)

First off let me say that these terrorist (or insurgents if you must be PC) that were killed were clearly ready to fight to the death to begin with.

So, he introduced this guy to his 72 virgins a little early?

Its funny that the media is completely non-plussed with video-game warfare (ie. bomb cameras, plane cameras, etc), but when the fighting gets up close and personal they are shocked SHOCKED that someone will pull the trigger.

It's war. Not meant to be pretty. Get over it.
This story, regardless of any facts, will be met with outstanding "Outrage." Dismembered and mutilated bodies are found and Al Jazeera "respectfully" files each report of murder videos. Yet this story of a combatant death will light up the pundit sites. Those sites are hungry for self-esteem these days.

I even remember if Van Gogh commited suicide or was murdered. The World outrage made me forget.
If Kevin Sites wanted to put down his damn camera and find out for HIMSELF if the terrorist/dead terrorist/possible IED/possible suicide bomber is still alive, he is welcome to.

Faced in a situation like this, when you don't know what the enemy can do, if the enemy suddenly jerks, that is an automatic and immediate death sentence.

People, this is not Scott Peterson coverage. These are terrorists. When dead bodies have been rigged with IEDs before, our boys MUST preserve themselves first.
See lead comment over at The Command Post
Error Theory: I like it.

There is truth and there is perception.

In this instance
The truth: Understand it! Got no problem with it.

The perception: The perceptions are gonna cause a problem because some don't care about the truth.

There's no error in that theory except in the part about "got no problem with it." I do have a problem with the problems in perception, dopes and dope heads.
The American military executes an unarmed & wounded person. Sounds a bit like something Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would do. I notice whenever something like this happens people rush to the defence of the US Military or whoever by saying 'compared to what Zarqawi/Saddam/Osama did' this is not as bad. Thereby justifying their action. However this also compares their actions to them. I thought the America Govt. wanted to be on the moral high-ground.

My second point is how do you know he is a terrorist even if he is fighting the Iraqi Interim Govt/Americans. The Sunni fighters in Iraq are divided into several groups not working together or with the same objecitves; the Al-Qaeda related group of Zarqwari who behead hostages, organise suicide bombings etc. The foreign fighters who are probably under Zarqwari chain of command. Criminal gangs who kidnap people for money (Margret Hassan was probably kidnapped by this demographic). The Baathists/Fedayeem who started to fightt he Americans in Summer 2003 a few months after the army was dispanded and because they felt they would have no place in a future Iraq. Finally other Iraqis who have taken up arms against because of the appalling situation in large parts of Iraq.

I would only consider Zarqwari group and probably some of the foreign fighters to be terrorists because they car bomb and murder people in cold blood.

I seriously doubt you could call the Iraqis who have taken up arms against coalitions forces/provisional govt. terorists. For example when Mutaqda al-Sadr's Mehdi army fought the CPA his actions could not be described as terrorism.
Anyone who picks up a weapon and fights the legal, sovereign government in Iraq is an illegal enemy combatant. It doesn't matter if he is Muhammad the Iraqi or Abu Hafs al Zarqawi. All are illegal enemy combatants who is in non-compliance with the rules of war.

I can't find even a gram of pity for Abdul the Possum.
"the legal, sovereign government in Iraq" was appointed and is controlled by America. I think everyone knows that. If you want some evidence why did they only start the assualt on Fallujah after the American Presendential elections.

Would your argument would be the same for anyone who fought against Saddam Hussein or North Korea that they are enemy combatants or people fighting the regime in Iran? Even the Bush administration does not label Iraqi insurgents as enemy combatants.
should be *illegal enemy combatants
It is a fundamental error to assume that these multi-national terrorists have the same rights as the soldiers of a nation state engaging in warfare IAW international norms and treaty. It is a travesty to accord them such rights.

The way the system was set up initially, these types of people were summarily executed when caught. To give them some right that is reserved for those that abide by the conventions of the law of land warfare would be to undermine that very structure.

Remember, this was not a civilian -- it was an unlawful combatant. He is the equivalent of a spy or saboteur in the traditional framework.
I have to say I disagree entirely. It is a fundamental misconception on the part of the Neo-Cons that they are fighting one-entity in Iraq. As I have said before it is made up of different groups with different aims. From criminals to terrorists to angry Iraqis.

I do not think anyone here could say that Mutaqda Al-Sadr could be allied with Al-Qaeda on account that he is a Shia.

It is wrong for the Neo-Cons to paint this world as black and white good against evil. It is however I very similar ideology similiar to Islamic Fundamentalists.

Qutbists or Islamic Fundamentalist infact share many other similar characteristics and history to Neo-Cons. Including co-operating throughout the 1980s to try and defeat the Soviet Union. I could list them all if you wanted but it would take to long as their are so many. However once the USSR collasped due to the internal coruption rather they turned on each other.

Secondly there is no international consortium of Terrorists with international connections waiting to strike on command. What exists are lone groups of small cells of people who are influenced by the ideology of Al-Qaeda.

For example I doubt that the terrorists who blew up the train in Madrid been directed to do this by Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda hardcore in South Wazirstan or even had any contact. The number of people who planned and carried out this atrocity would have probably a handfu. While it was devestating attack it was relatively simple logistically when compared to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
22 year veteran, duty with 82d Airborne and 7th SFG: from my perspective, this is clearly a case of "him or me." I'm glad that this Marine is still alive to, hopefully, return home to his loved ones.
The despicable thing about this story is the way the MSM is distorting the coverage of this. I hope the blogosphere stays with this story and gets the truth out.
For the dim anonymous....

I don't care what the forces of chaos label themselves or who they report to. Know them by their works. They don't abide by any laws and therefore deserve no protection by the same law that they utterly reject. They should be summarily shot on the spot.

This particular anonymous seems to see Baathists and various jihadists to be romantic freedom fighters; like dashing Robin Hood on a noble quest. I'd enjoy observing his protestations as he was fed into a woodchipper or had his head separated by a dull jihadist's butcher knife. Some people are just fatally naive.
I take it the forces of chaos is anyone who fights against America. After all Communism was out to destroy you a few years back, they were the evil ones and the Jihadis were the 'good guys'.

I have no romantic ideas associated with anyone, I just observing how messed up Iraq is, but I suppose thats the 'forces of chaos' at work.

So they dont engage in the rules of war so that justifies America not follow any rules either. 'Shoot them on sight' sounds like something Zarqwari would do again another comparasion Americas actions to militants.

But then again Al-Qaeda and the Neo-Cons believe in virtually the same values both are religous fanatics who need an enemy, fortunately they have found each other.

If you really believe that Baathists/jihadis and the US military are moral equivalents then you are beyond help. The US military is the most humane war-fighting institution in the history of the world. It would have been far more efficient to fire-bomb Fallujah into rubble....America didn't. Instead our military went in, door-to-door, and gave every anarchist an opportunity to surrender or fight. Our soldiers won't give them an opportunity to toss a grenade into a squad of Marines after feigning death. No sane person would.

Your constant rants about neo-cons and faith suggest you have a political difference with the former and a hatred for God in the latter. Not unusual for modern neo-vulgar marxists. Are you still mourning the demise of communism? Waiting for all that 'free stuff' that fat capitalists owe you because you were ejected from mommy's warm womb? You better wise up before your genetic line becomes a dead end. Jihadis hate you Godless communists more than they hate kufirs like me.
I am neither a Marxist or a Communist both are failed political systems. I consider myself apolitical and I try to judge everything from a neuteral point of view.

I never said US military and Jihadis are moral equivalents. What I am saying id people like you who say 'shoot all insurgents on sight' are comparing the US military to the jihadis but I guess that went over your head. I did say that Neo-Cons & Al-Qaeda share similar ideologies, beliefs & histroy.

However the US is not the most humane fighting machine in the world. Look at what happened to their 'hearts & minds' mission because of their heavy handiness in peace keeping and don't say its all to do with the insurgents and those 'barbaric Iraqis'.

'Firebombing Fallujah' well they have not done that because the eyes of the world are on America and as the moral guardians of the world they couldnt not seen to be destroying the city to save it. But America have certainly come close to bombing that place to pieces and there is a mass humanitarian crisis there but maybe I should not trust anything said in the 'liberal media' or perhaps we shouldnt care coz the Iraqis only a bunch or 'barbaric Arabs'.

I think this "I consider myself apolitical and I try to judge everything from a neuteral point of view" pretty much says it all. But is it true? You are inclined to blame the US for everything that is wrong with the world while you give anarchists a pass because surely the US caused them to be anarchists.

"What I am saying id people like you who say 'shoot all insurgents on sight' are comparing the US military to the jihadis..."

Apparently you don't understand war. The object is to make those sons-of-bitches die for their cause...not die for yours.

"However the US is not the most humane fighting machine in the world. Look at what happened to their 'hearts & minds' mission because of their heavy handiness in peace keeping".

You cannot win polluted hearts and minds, you can only kill them. Do you believe that Abu Hafs al Zawqari wnats to discuss something? Do you think that Baathists want to discuss the future of Iraq over tea? Contrast anarchist's use of roadside bombs against anyone nearby with US troops precision attacks on illegal combatants. There is no comparison (unless you are blinded by hatred for the US).

"the eyes of the world are on America and as the moral guardians of the world". Now this is rich. You....who were willing to stand by and do absolutely nothing as Saddam murdered innocents call yourself a "moral guardian"? Chirac and Annan who robbed and starved Iraqi children as they looted Oil-for-Food are moral guardians?

"there is a mass humanitarian crisis there". Yes there is... Jihadis and Baathists are being killed and starved. It is the wages of war. They asked for it and now they are reaping the whirlwind...as they should. The immoral and 'value neutral' BBC is rooting for the anarchists. And they, along with their friends at Al Jazerra, can go straight to hell for their duplicity.

"perhaps we shouldnt care coz the Iraqis only a bunch or 'barbaric Arabs'" Yeah.....quit pretending to care because you don't. You sat quietly as Saddam fed children into wood chippers...your value neutral claim proves you are a fraud.

Actually it is amusing that you believe that America is responsible for everything that happens in the world. It shows your belief that you are weak and irrelevant while Americans are strong and capable of transforming the entire world. Be the pathetic weakling, sit on the sidelines of histroy and complain. I shall call you Neville, the weak, pandering, appeaser who wanted peace with honor but got war and dishonor anyway. Americans will transform the world even as your kind whines like spoiled children. Get used to it girlie-boy.

Pax Americana
"I assumed you were meaning even if they were prisoners and do summary exectuions of them. Not in the context of fighting."

You assume a lot. I never suggested that properly searched and secured prisoners be shot. Americans don't do that.

"You can everything seems relatively calm in Basra."

Basra is a Shia area. The Sunnis are the source of the violence now. The Black Watch has been in The Triangle for at least three weeks; why haven't your boys won over Sunni H&M? Hrrmpf....must be incompetence.

The US did more than either the UK or the UN to protect Kurds and Shia while the UK foreign office and the UN said the US could absolutely never go for a regime change in Iraq. Immoral? You decide.

"This war was about several things have a strategic military position in the Mid.East, to own the second biggest oil producer in the World an have a real war for the war on terror'. Unfortunately the first 2 have so far failed only the 3rd one has worked but its
been lasting a bit long."

This war is exactly about what Bush said it was about because unlike smooth talking diplomats, Bush is a straight talker. US troops won't stay in Iraq any longer than necessary and will leave whenever the Iraqi government says Go. FINA/ELF Total are the oil tycoons who robbed the Iraqi people, paid bribes to Jacque, Saddam and Kofi while buying sanctioned oil for Europeans (like you). So stuff your oil argument. And killing terrorists is always good, don't you think? Better there than on Watling Street eh?

"The BBC is definetly based towards the left with the exception of Newsnight on BBC2."

I listen to the BBC every evening and their coverage differs only by degree with Al Jazeera. I've also visited your lovely little Al Mujahiroun website. You Brits deserve what's coming your way. At least half of you have joined the jihadists. Your gene pool was decimated when anyone with any balls left for America. If not for the Scots-Irish you would have become a colony of a European power centuries ago. You are out-bred by immigrants 10:1 and will cease to exist as a Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nation within decades. Can you say United Kingdom of Arabs, Indians and Africans in the 21st century? Good luck with Sharia, the Islamic Church o England, car bombs, beheadings and all the other trappings of the Third World because they're all coming Neville. Well earned I might add,
Anybody who shoots at American soldiers, or shot at them the day before, and is neither known to be disarmed nor in custody, is fair game to be shot if he does anything that American soldiers even suspect might endanger the lives of American soldiers. To me, the choice between the life or limb of an American soldier and the life or limb of an enemy soldier is a no-brainer.

I am distraught over the media's portrayal of this scenario because I know that our boys will now hesitate, and hesitating could get them killed. There is neither patriotism nor compassion in the mainstream media. They care only for their power and are in a mad frenzy now that it seems to be slipping away. I say send all these media arm-chair quarterbacks over to Iraq and make them fight. Do it the way the Russians did at Stalingrad: send them to the front and machine gun them if they retreat.
"Resentment of the U.S. presence in Fallujah was heightened when American troops fired on crowds twice during the 2003 invasion, killing 18 Iraqis."

Fallujah has been an uncivilized haven for decades. If the barbarians in residence in the "city of mosques" riot and fire on US troops then they deserve to be fired on. Rules of war.

"The World (which America is part of) did nothing when Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988."

Just like the UN does nothing about Rwanda and Sudan
now. America represents 5% of the world population and polices far more of the world than we care to. Don't you think it's time that the rest of the world starts accepting some responsibility?

'This war is exactly about what Bush said it was about'

Ok Michael Moore....I understand the fever swamp that you moonbats dwell in.

"You sound like you are interested in racial theory have you tried Mein Kampf? I imagine you think this is the 4th Reich does it piss you off that America supports the 'Zionist-Jewish entity' I always thought National Socialists quite liked the Arabs."

I support Israel and any nation that embraces freedom and civilization. I also know that a large swath of the third world doesn't embrace neither and is colonizing Europe (which is well on the way of becoming a third world entity). If you wish to see Nazism then walk down to London's Grand Mosque and visit Imam Bakri who will be happy to share your hatred for America. As for you, bugger off you little hate-filled pissant. You aren't worth any more digits.
Freedom is freedom from government oppression.
To have a government which is conspicuous by its very absence. A land where there are few men in uniform, save occasional cops and firemen who are *never* asking for bribes just to do their job, no visible bureaucrats, no stifling restrictions, no government monopolies. That is freedom in a free country.

Well come to the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
Freedom is freedom from government oppression.
To have a government which is conspicuous by its very absence. A land where there are few men in uniform, save occasional cops and firemen who are *never* asking for bribes just to do their job, no visible bureaucrats, no stifling restrictions, no government monopolies. That is freedom in a free country.

Well come to the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?