Haditha: Wuterich charged with 13 counts of murder
posted at 3:22 pm on December 21, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Time reported on September 17th that the charges could come “as early as next week.” They were a little off. Then they reported yesterday that the suspects won’t be held in pre-trial confinement, which they took as a sign that the charges wouldn’t be that severe.
They were a little off again.
Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich was charged with 12 counts of murdering individuals and one count of murdering six people by ordering Marines under his charge to “shoot first and ask questions later” when they entered a house, according to charging sheets released by defense attorney Neal Puckett.
Wuterich, of Meriden, Conn., was also charged with soliciting a corporal to make false statements and making another staff sergeant make a false official statement.
As many as eight Marines in all may be charged in the case.
I’m guessing this probably isn’t good news for Wuterich’s defamation suit against Murtha.
They’re not alleging premeditated murder so the maximum penalty is life. Charges are also expected against the four Marines Wuterich commanded in the house-clearing operation that day — Lance Corporals Stephen Tatum and Justin Sharratt and Corporals Sanick Dela Cruz and Hector Salinas — as well as two officers, Capt. Lucas McConnell and Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, neither of whom were there that day. The wife of one of the staff sergeants told Newsweek in June that discipline broke down after Chessani took over the battalion last year and some of the men took to using drugs. Others denied it.
I linked this brief NPR audio last month but I’m linking it again because it did a nice job of explaining the issues in the case. Newsmax claimed in June that evidence from radio communications and a Predator drone spycam would absolve the suspects of wrongdoing, but the Times reported a few days earlier that the photographs of the bodies and testimony of other Marines present pointed towards their guilt.
No word yet on a date for the court-martial. Will Wuterich plead out? Both sides have an incentive to do so but the pressure on the Corps to make an example of them will be intense, as will the pressure on Wuterich to challenge the rules of engagement the Marines had to fight under that day.
Exit question: did they hold the charges until Christmas intentionally, because they knew people won’t be paying as much attention?
Update: Eight Marines in all have been charged.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
This is bad. Reeeeeeeeeal bad. Yet another bon fire for the unbathed hippy masses to roast their flags over.
One Angry Christian on December 21, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Prosecuting a Marine for doing what all soldiers have always done in war since the beginning of history: kill the enemy. Pathetic.
Collateral damage happens. So what. Move on.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 3:38 PM
That’s not what the charges are about. IF the charges are accurate … “shoot first and ask questions later” while clearing a house is NOT “collateral damage.” It’s murder.
And I believe you insult the Marine Corp when you suggest it’s …
Gregor on December 21, 2006 at 3:42 PM
Does this mean I need to apologize to Murtha for skewering him about his “In Cold Blood” remarks?
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 21, 2006 at 3:46 PM
A bomb accidently goes off course and kills a few women and children: collateral damage.
A Marine kicks down a door and shoots women and children to death as they huddle in a corner and plead for their lives: murder.
You excusing this action: pathetic.
JaHerer22 on December 21, 2006 at 3:48 PM
I can remember a bygone, more innocent time, when up was up, down was down, and the purpose of the Marine Corps Fire Team was to “…locate, close with, and DESTROY the enemy by fire and maneuver…or by close combat”.
Kid from Brooklyn on December 21, 2006 at 3:53 PM
You excusing this action: pathetic.
JaHerer22 on December 21, 2006 at 3:48 PM
Your failure to read the original post by AP and slandering the marines further: even more pathetic:
Hint:
thirteen28 on December 21, 2006 at 3:54 PM
A leftwing gasbag vomited:
Oh, and you were there in Haditha when this happened? You have first hand knowledge of what its like to fight against terrorists? Amazing. But you support the troops, right? You are ignorant of battle and the nature of the enemy. Now go play in the street and leave the discussion of war to the adults.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 3:56 PM
Wrong. Its war. People die in war. Innocent and not so innocent. I’m not willing to send men into combat to kill the enemy while risking their own lives and saving YOUR ass at home, and then question the manner in which they do it. You want our soldiers to fight using Marquis of Quennsberry rules, I want them to fight like our lives depend on it. I’d rather be alive and hated than dead and loved. It we fight like that in Iraq, there’d be no insurgency.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 4:02 PM
I’m a little torn on this issue. On one hand, if they did something wrong I want them to be punsihed. On the other hand I don’t want them to be acquited. Because they didn’t do anything wrong, obviously.
“Shoot first, ask questions later,” as far as I know, is not an illegal order. If he said, “Shoot those civilians in there,” that would be a different issue. To be honest if I were in a similar situation I’d say about the same thing to my squad.
What really frosts my balls about this whole mess is the treatment these guys are getting in the media. Already they are guilty, but the dirtbags at Guantanamo are receiveing Christman cards from Americans. It really makes me wonder if, as a culture, we are really worth defending.
JasonG on December 21, 2006 at 4:06 PM
Amen. You want to win the war in Iraq? Let the military fight the war. We’re not police and we’re certainly not diplomats. Untie our hands and let us win this thing.
JasonG on December 21, 2006 at 4:08 PM
wow. The differing points of view on this thread are rather disheartening.
If the charges are true there were about a dozen people killed who were not only unarmed but uninvolved in combat, right? If the charges are true he pressured a couple of someones into lying for him, right?
I believe that would make him a criminal. Apparently the Marines agree.
One Angry Christian on December 21, 2006 at 4:09 PM
If these marines are guilty then they need to be tried for their misdeed.
But I better not hear one idiot democrat whine about how “Military Tribunals” are unfair to try terrorists under yet they are OK to try these marines under.
For once stick up for American service personell rights and stop defending terrorist’s rights democrats !
William Amos on December 21, 2006 at 4:09 PM
Should have said: I want them to be acquited
JasonG on December 21, 2006 at 4:14 PM
Seems to me it’s the military authorities questioning the manner in which these Marines behaved. I hope these charges are not true, but if they are and these soldiers are found guilty by courts martial, I hope they are punished appropriately.
The UCMJ says that if a soldier is “engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life,” such as the alleged order Wuterich gave, then that is considered murder.
Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 4:14 PM
Do I want Marines killing indiscriminately? No. Do I want Marines’ hands tied behind their back while I ask them fight for my freedom? No. Did these Marines make mistakes? Yes. Should they be hammered to the wall so some bureaucrat can feel good about himself at Georgetown cocktail diners? You bet. Far be it for anyone to harsh their mellow.
These Marines are screwed.
spmat on December 21, 2006 at 4:18 PM
liberals like JaHere22 & other liberal trolls here on this board rather defend a terrorist rights (so they won’t offend their terrorist pals) then they would a U.S. Millitary person’s rights.
Starblazer on December 21, 2006 at 4:23 PM
Agreed, but they are Marines, not soldiers.
A sound argument, however I’d have to say that the order did not entail shooting civilians. This is part of the problem. You’re going into a house from which people are shooting at you. To be honest, I’d probably give a similar order if in the middle of a firefight.
JasonG on December 21, 2006 at 4:23 PM
Of course I wasn’t in Haditha when this happened but neither were you. I don’t know exactly what happened but I have read enough accounts to draw conclusions and it’s clear I know much more about this then you ever will. In your world it seems soldiers not only have an AMA card but also should be encouraged to kill every Iraqi man, woman, and child they see.
I don’t believe these men are evil, but I do believe they made an evil mistake. They got caught up in the moment and let their desire for revenge take over. Understandable certainly, but not excusable. They are Marines; the best trained soldiers in the world, right? They are trained and expected to handle the stress and horrors of war and if they cannot do so they should not be Marines. Anyone who points a gun at an innocent child and pulls the trigger is a murderer in my book, regardless of the uniform he is wearing.
Do I support the troops? I support them when they kill terrorists, I do not support them when they kill women and children.
JaHerer22 on December 21, 2006 at 4:26 PM
Whoops. Mea maxima culpa.
I would agree, but I think that’s what the case is going to rest on - the intent of the order, and how it was interpreted in the heat of the moment. Or whether, in the heat of the moment, this particular group of Marines just snapped. I really hope these Marines are exonerated, but can’t get rid of the sinking in my gut.
Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 4:28 PM
I’m sorry Andy, but you are so far off base it’s ridiculous. First off, I said “IF” the charges are true …
But regardless of that … we’re not talking about a Marine unit raiding an enemy bunker. We’re talking about Marines “clearing a house.” I admit that in this type of warfare it’s almost impossible to know the difference at times, and I’d be the first to defend soldiers who believe they are shooting at the enemy in self defense but accidentally shoot civilians in the line of fire. I have no problem with that.
But this looks to be about a Marine who orders his men to “shoot anything that moves.”
If your argument is that we should just kill them all, which it seems to be … then why waste time “clearing houses?”
Why not simply drop a bunker buster on top the house? I’d be more inclined to defend carpet bombing a town known to be infested by enemy fighters. I’ll gladly argue that we should not be waltzing through town playing cops, but that’s what they were assigned to do.
It’s one thing to defend the Marines based on the belief that the charges are false. But you seem to be defending the choice to purposely kill non-combat civilians.
Gregor on December 21, 2006 at 4:28 PM
What a joke. You know what? The people in these Muslim countries are all terrorists at heart. Surah 9:29. These guys probably understood all too well the minds of your average Muslim, and acted as they saw fit. I haven’t been to that hellhole of a country, but I’ve talked to guys that have. Right is wrong and wrong is right over there. How did we even win WWII with attitudes like our Marine brass has now? The UCMJ applies only when the Marine brass wants to apply it. God help us after this war.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 4:29 PM
See that’s where you are wrong: I defend everybody’s rights. Should these soliders have a fair trial? Absolutely, and it looks they are.
Should captured terrorist suspects also have a fair trial? Of course, but unfortunately it looks like they never will.
JaHerer22 on December 21, 2006 at 4:31 PM
Then how can you say unequivicoally say this (as you do above)? -
So you weren’t there, but you know that they shot women and children to death as they huddled in a corner and plead for their lives? Oh, yeah, you read it somewhere (probably the Daily Kos) so it must be true, never mind the fact that they weren’t charged with any premeditated killing. But hey, it’s just the troops, so a rush to judgement is ok for them, right?
thirteen28 on December 21, 2006 at 4:31 PM
There it is.
For me, a jury of their peers will include only other door-kickers. I mean for real live-fire door-kickers. Ain’t gonna happen though.
Stephen M on December 21, 2006 at 4:32 PM
The men charged will get their day in court to answer the charges against them, as is their right. Further, despite what a,ssholes like Murtha and trolls like JaHerer22 say, these men are innocent until proven guilty.
None of us posting here were present at the incident. None of us knows anything other than what others have said in news accounts and hearsay.
The charges against Lt. Ilario Pantano were even more severe, with the possibility of the death sentence upon conviction. Pantano had his day in court and was cleared of all charges. Read his book “Warlord” for details.
YOu can contribute to their defense by visiting http://defendthedefenders.org/
georgej on December 21, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Boo freaking hoo.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Well, hell…in that case let’s just kill ‘em all, then!
America, F**K YEAH!
/snark
Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Exactly. Instead, they’ll be tried by a bunch of generals and colonels who’ve never even been shot at.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 4:34 PM
JaHerer22-please respect those who serve. Soldiers should always be capitalized as should be Marines. You of course want the terrorists to be treated with respect. Please try doing the same for those who enable you to support your beloved terrorists.
Catie96706 on December 21, 2006 at 4:34 PM
that’s about what it comes down to.
jummy on December 21, 2006 at 4:34 PM
Hey, that’s how it used to be. Ever hear what we did to Tokyo during WWII? We burned 100,000 people with napalm from 30,000 ft. You going to call those b-29 crews baby killers? War is cruelty, as General Sherman put it. Go hard or go home.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 4:38 PM
we would have been better off dropping a nuke on the bad guy, our country refuses to let our armed forces fight to win..
retired on December 21, 2006 at 4:41 PM
Viewpoints like these are the reason the right has (and deserves, to an extent) the reputation it has as bloodthirsty bigots. I’ll be the first to admit we have plenty of crazies on my side too, but you can’t say the left just makes this stuff up when it attacks you.
Allah, Slublog, Gregor and all the other thoughtful, reasonable ones out there…God bless you and hopefully you can show the rest the way.
JaHerer22 on December 21, 2006 at 4:41 PM
Like I said, I actually believe that’s how we should be fighting this war, but that’s not what the orders were. You can’t have soldiers running around doing whatever the %*ck they want.
Gregor on December 21, 2006 at 4:42 PM
Since there seems to be a significant amount of puzzlement over this, let me see if I can clarify. The problem is
1) only a small number of people died,
2) those that died were killed overtly in a combat situation, and
3) the “perpetrators” were low ranking U.S. soldiers.
Now
1) if a LARGE number of people had died, and
2) if they had been killed in a diabolical way (for instance, by way of a car-bombing or some other form of assasination, by starvation, or through the use of some WMD like poison gas), and
3) if Yassar Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Manuel Ortega (or some other notorius “celebrity” of the left) were responsible,
THEN I am sure that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ramsey Clark, and many other liberals would rush in to make certain that the people charged were exonerated. So the lesson here is, if you are going to kill people, kill A LOT of them, and do it in an especially nasty and CLEVER way. That way, everything will turn-out just fine and dandy for you.
/sarcasm off
CyberCipher on December 21, 2006 at 4:42 PM
Read the Qur’an, then get back to me on that one. Better yet, just read chapters 8 and 9. They abrogate the rest.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 4:43 PM
Are American military personnel held to a higher standard?
Heck yes, and as a veteran, I’m proud and glad that we are! Pardon me jingoism but we are better than the rest of the world! We shouldn’t forget it…EVER!
These Marines deserve a fair trial. A trial free from a cover up of the incident and also free from the pressure of leftists who want to publicize it for political gain.
If they are guilty, let them be punished as prescribed by the UCMJ. Bad things happen in wars and this is admittedly a bad thing. It might or might not be a crime but it is definitely NOT an indictment on the war in Iraq.
irishsquid on December 21, 2006 at 4:44 PM
Huh. You make a valid point.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 4:44 PM
I was about to say the same thing Gregor just said - the political constraints put on this war have proven to be counterproductive and I think that we need to allow the military to fight the war necessary to win.
I do not believe that when fighting an insurgency, the tactics of the doctrine of total war are particularly effective. We should not be indiscriminate in the killing of civilians based on what we think they might believe.
To clarify - I’m not saying that’s what happened in Haditha.
Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 4:47 PM
The very nature of war is hell and the first casualty of war is truth.
The second casualty of war are soldiers & civilians.
This sucks.
We train and arm young men to kill, place them into obsfucated combat situations, then punish them for killing.
Discipline must be maintained, but soldiers cannot go into combat with a lawyer in their pocket.
Dammit!
Some type of punishment may be warranted in this case, but this man should not forfeit his youth in prison for his service in hell.
locomotivebreath1901 on December 21, 2006 at 4:47 PM
Could someone tell me, in Hiroshima, were all of the people who died soldiers? Or did we do that because we are fighting a war, soldiers aren’t diplomats and we needed to win the war?
If Marines knocked down a door, and gunned down innocent women and children, that’s one thing. However, if a Marine has to gun down Muhammed because he is reaching for his gun under a pillow that is entirely different.
I guess a jury of peers will have to decide what happened.
amerpundit on December 21, 2006 at 4:52 PM
well said catie
Starblazer on December 21, 2006 at 4:52 PM
The doctrine of total war hasn’t yet been tried, so how do you know? If we’d nuked Sadr city to begin with, and an appropriate Sunni city (Fallujah), we’d probably have several hundred thousand more Iraqis alive by now.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 4:52 PM
Welcome to Fringeland. Population: You
JasonG on December 21, 2006 at 4:55 PM
Now that you are done brown-nosing, JaHerer, are you going to address the issue I raised above, or are you going run away from it like a coward?
thirteen28 on December 21, 2006 at 4:56 PM
no. he made it up himself. its an ornament rather than a factoid. people like jaherer will ornament, exagerate and dramatize haditha untill the marines involved have fangs and notches on the barrells of their guns especially for babies. its because they hate american soldiers, are indifferent to iraqis and oppose the truth. soldiers, civilians and facts are to them nothing more than ore which has to be purified of the complexities of what really happened and liquified in order to reshape them into a cudgel they can use against their great satan, the united states.
not to us. what actually, really happened is important to us. and unfortunately what actually, really happened seems to be that a marine unit acted in callous disregard. these charges came from a military court and will be tried in a military court. we should focus on the findings of that process and tune the jaherer22’s out. they don’t know anything and their contributions merit no attention.
jummy on December 21, 2006 at 4:57 PM
Thanks. I’m just following the reasoning of my forebears like Truman. If you’ve got a better approach, I’d appreciate being steered in the right direction.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 4:58 PM
How can a Marine tell the difference between a terrorist and an innocent civilian? (This is not the beginning of a joke btw). Often times a Marine cannot. Oh, but the civilians can, but do they TELL the Marines who the jihadis are? Noooooo! Because they just might agree in principle with the jihadis. So what is a Marine to do? Let his guard down and get killed or kill the other SOBs? I vote for the latter. As for killing them all, we may get to that point.
People claim: well Israel doesn’t have this problem. Oh yes they do. Not very often though because Israelis SPEAK Arabic, they are VERY familiar with the people in the territories, and they have experience in close combat. Now, you are asking a 20 year old Marine from middle America, that is 15000 miles from home, his first time in the Middle East, and doesn’t speak Arabic or know the cultural norms there, to bust down a door and act like nothing is gonna happen to him. Bull-f’ing-sh*t!!! For all you upstanding arm-chair generals, you ain’t got the guts to do what those Marines are doing. And now you’re gonna prosecute them???
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 5:00 PM
PRCalDude,
Someone needs to read Bill Whittle.
Those people aren’t all anything. There are all kinds, and they aren’t anymore all anything then we Americans are.
Do you really think the Kurds are “terrorists at heart”?
Pablo on December 21, 2006 at 5:06 PM
Sure thing. First, get rid of RoE that disallows us to shoot guys that drop their weapons. Allow us to go into mosques when bad guys run into them. Allow us to fight bad guys where we find them (Al Sadr and such). Keep the media from Soldiers’ backs. PAO should be taking a more aggressive role in dealing with the media. Allow leaders on the ground more leeway during a fight.
Put the fear of God into these people. Show them that ‘no better friend, no worse enemy’ actually means something. When there are no attacks in a neighborhood, go out and meet the population, give them food and water and such. When there is an attack against the military stop doing it. Go to the tribal elders and explain why you are no longer going to help them. When there are attacks against Iraqi civilians beef up security in those areas. Show them that we are there to help.
Not all of these suggestions are realistic. However, the one about RoE is crucial to success in Iraq.
JasonG on December 21, 2006 at 5:09 PM
I’ll read it if you read “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.” http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Islam-Crusades/dp/0895260131/sr=8-2/qid=1166739092/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-0012528-6182549?ie=UTF8&s=books
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 5:11 PM
I agree with you about RoE. However, we’re trying to scare the jihad out of the jihadis.
What the heck. Let’s just pull out and give weapons to the Sunnis and the Shia and let them fight it out.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 5:14 PM
If it ever come to this (and I pray that it doesn’t), I wouldn’t recommend nuking cities in Iraq (or in Syria, or in Iran, or in Afghanistan, or in Pakistan, etceteras). If you are going to commit yourself to total war (like General Sherman’s “war is hell” scorched earth policy in the American Civil war), I believe that you HAVE to address the ROOT problem. Killing Muslims en mass would not be my first choice. I’m thinking that the only way to end the strife is to END Islam. One way to do this would be make their holy cities of Mecca and Medina uninhabitable (end their ability to make their pilgrimage, and you end Islam). Of course, anyone who suggests this idea is immediately branded a lunatic by the left. Other the hand, the pragmatist in me is still waiting for the bleeding hearts to offer a “more sane” solution to the problem.
CyberCipher on December 21, 2006 at 5:16 PM
They should give him a medal instead for killing insurgents before they were actually insurgents…..saves time later.
And makes no difference to me at all.
quax1 on December 21, 2006 at 5:16 PM
I’ll brand myself a lunatic to save everybody the time.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 5:19 PM
Blech.
This case was a no-bill until the prosecution had leaned heavily enough on the weakest among the accused, stone-walling the defense’s pleas for access to evidence and conducting an “investigation” that, at best, can be classified as a joke.
Then, at the same time as one of the accused finally breaks, after months of treatment that would have the bleeding heart morons in this thread moaning and wailing and tearing their hair if it had been applied to certifiable Mujs in Abu Ghraib, and starts “remembering”, all of a sudden the JAG-offs have a case.
Well isn’t that interesting?
If my old unit had come under fire from a building, I’d have given the exact same order. Get in there, and if it moves, shoot it. You see, in my native army, we had an obligation to bring our soldiers home alive, and there is f*ck all time to sit around on your d*ck and evaluate the situation when you’re taking fire.
And our ROE wasn’t written by Miss Manners and assorted empty suits bravely fighting the war from the comfort of a mahogany desk.
I’ve officially changed my mind: Bring the troops home now. There’s absolutely no reason why we should lose a single one of them when all of the wankers back home insist that they can only fight if nobody gets hurt on the other side.
*Puke!*
Misha I on December 21, 2006 at 5:21 PM
Pablo the terrorist-apologist said:
Do you understand Islam? Do you know what sharia is and how the Koran calls for it to be imposed? Do you know what taqqiya is? Or a hudna? If one is a true muslim, one believes that infidels are to be enslaved, converted, or killed. F’ing clue-in.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 5:25 PM
Bravo!
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 5:27 PM
Hammer. Nail. Head.
thirteen28 on December 21, 2006 at 5:27 PM
If Pablo’s response makes him a terror apologist in your eyes, then it seems attempting dialogue with you is an exercise in futility and frustration.
Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 5:35 PM
you are a mirror on the progressive social justice movement.
jummy on December 21, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Not so. Islam is a religion of terror. Robert Spencer is a frequent guest video blogger on this website. I suggest you heed him.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 5:48 PM
Careful Andy. Many of us you speak of have already served our time in the military. Granted, I never saw action such as these Marines, but I guarantee you that if I wasn’t over the age limit I would join back up and be there now, and I’d have no problem with it either.
And nobody is prosecuting them. Speaking for myself … I’m only saying that there IS such a thing as a bad soldier and blind defense without all the facts is not the way to go. I’m guessing here, but I would lay odds that you haven’t had any problem joining the crowd accusing John Kerry of shooting Vietnamese in the back.
Gregor on December 21, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Hey, great riposte! That was very clever. You must be a college graduate.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 6:21 PM
As a former Marine,I had no moral conflicts about killing my enemies. I would not do harm to innocent civilians, most especially children. In this thread, there are plenty of hot button emotional issues, and it seems to be having a negative effect on some of us.
For me, it comes down to this. If they are proven to be guilty, then they must be punished. If the charges are found to be true, then they must be punished because they do not represent my Corps, and such a lack of discipline, and such loose cannons,cannot be tolerated in my Corps. I hope to see all of the facts come out clearly in this case. From what I have read recently, in sites such as”Sweetness and Light.”,there were many questions and issues raised, which I have yet to see be addressed by the media or the military. Such as contradictory accounts, questionable witnesses, Time magazine changing its story, not once but twice, the refusal to exhume bodies as evidence, and so on. There is plenty of smoke there, enough to make me think there might be a fire.
If even half of these things are even half true, then there should not even have been any charges. Again, if they are guilty than they need to be punished. If they are innocent, then they need to be exonerated. But if it is found that these Marines received in any way shape or form, anything less than a fair trial, or that they were sacrificed on the altar of political correctness so that some politicians could say to the rest of the world “See, how nice we are”,then there needs to be holy hell to pay.
tomk59 on December 21, 2006 at 6:23 PM
You’re right. I didn’t mean to say terrorist-apologist. I meant to say errant ignoramus. There. That’s better. And as for your “futility”, not one of “you” have answered my questions or FACTUALLY challenged my assertions. So, put up or shut up.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 6:24 PM
My relatives have. And in relating their experiences to me, they were often in these situations and they OFTEN chose to shoot first. But hey, they’re alive and the enemy ain’t. That’s all that needs to be said.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 6:27 PM
any bets that Colmes will make a big deal out of this on tonite’s show.
Starblazer on December 21, 2006 at 6:30 PM
Justice
Opinionnation on December 21, 2006 at 6:36 PM
This is a travesty. We cannot send men into a war zone on the other side of the world and expect them to operate under the same rules of engagement as a NYC police officer. We cannot expect these men to establish order in Iraq if we are going to prosecute them for murder whenever a civilian gets killed.
How does the treatment of these Marines square with all those complaints that the U.S. was at fault for not “shooting the looters” during the early days of the liberation?
billy on December 21, 2006 at 6:41 PM
A most excellent question. One that I’m sure those anxious to see our Marines thrown away for life (e.g., JaHerer et al.) will not be too anxious to answer.
thirteen28 on December 21, 2006 at 6:53 PM
So well answer it: should the looting in the early days of liberation been dealt with by a “shoot-to-kill” order?
and if so would the men responsible be held for criminal charges?
and if not, then don’t you have to admit that the chaos in Baghdad was not the a result of Rumsfeld’s incompetence?
billy on December 21, 2006 at 6:59 PM
What I see here are a lot of folks condemning this young man and those in his charge, I would hint to you however that were he not under immense pressure and desensitized from continuous exposure to violence this may not have happened, bottom line; the ROE is a recipe for disaster, the rotation schedule, again recipes for disaster, the lack of clear enemy combatants, recipe for disaster..
I dont excuse the actions, but I dont condemn 8 Marines for doing thier job in some of the worst conditions possible.
Let them do thier jobs or bring them home, its that simple.
Viper1 on December 21, 2006 at 7:16 PM
I guess I’m a fringe-lander too. I can’t stand that these men have already been tried in the media. It’s war. S*it happens. Some of these lawyers need to get out of the courtroom and onto the battlefield. I doubt us US civillians will be given any benefit of the doubt when jihadis come through our towns.
It will take more attacks for Americans to wake up to the fact that this is a war for survival. More Patton, less patent leather.
NTWR on December 21, 2006 at 7:19 PM
I don’t know anything about any of the posters here, so all I’ll say is that until you have shots fired at you in anger, you have no idea how you’ll react.
Lonevoice on December 21, 2006 at 7:21 PM
Even when you have had shots fired at you in anger, your reactions vary.
Official Charge List
That they remain unconfined gives me some confidence that there is hope for them yet. I would, facing such an accusation of which I was not guilty, prefer to be being courtmartialed rather than being tried in a civilian criminal
circuscourt. I hope that this turns out to have been blown all out of proportion in an insurgent media operation, and that they’re going to trial to show that, publicly.htom on December 21, 2006 at 7:40 PM
These are allegations against these Marines.
These charges have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Seems these Marines acted aggressively, maybe to the point of being criminal.
Let the Corps police its own. Let the evidence be heard.
I seem to remember another Marine recently, who was reported to be guilty - but guess what, he was found innocent.
Marvin on December 21, 2006 at 7:44 PM
Fair enough. except…
this is war, indicting Marines in the field should be done only in slam-dunk cases. If it isn’t abundantly clear that these Marines acted improperly, then drop the case. To do otherwise has a…how do the liberals put it?… a chilling effect on every other soldier serving in Iraq.
billy on December 21, 2006 at 7:51 PM
They need to courts-martial the Marine brass. As NTWR said, more Patton, less patent leather.
PRCalDude on December 21, 2006 at 7:53 PM
Remember the Marine officer who was also accused with killing a civillian about 2-3 years ago? Has an italian name and wrote a book. He was acquited.
EF on December 21, 2006 at 8:00 PM
How can you factually challenge an assertion, exactly? Assertion does not equal argument, nor does ad hominem make a particularly compelling argument.
Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 8:01 PM
You can hope in one hand and crap in the other, then let me know which one runs full first.
The NCIS and the Corps have been pushing like crazy to get a couple of sacrificial lambs here, to the point where they’ve abused our Marines in ways that the armchair “hearts and minds” dipwits here at home would NEVER accept if it was used against terrorists.
All that to get a case, a case that they didn’t have until they managed to “convince” the weakest links to suddenly “remember” things.
“Justice?”
Don’t make me laugh.
The JAG-offs associated with this case wouldn’t recognize it if it jumped up and bit their rear-echelon, shriveled pistachio nads off. Try reading this instead of the MSM shibboleths you’ve become accustomed to. Oh, and take a gander at this too.
If we’d start treating our own troops to just 10% of the respect and benefit of the doubt that “American Idol” worshippers here at home demand that we extend to decapitating subhumans, we’d have taken a huge step toward victory.
But that ain’t going to happen.
This is a nation without balls, and it deserves to be wiped out.
Misha I on December 21, 2006 at 8:06 PM
I agree with letting the enemy do their jobs but you cant go around killing innocents because you are enraged about your guys being killed by the enemy…in the end we become what they are…I say kill the enemy without mercy but this “kill them all let God sort them out” mentality does not fit what our country is about.
EnochCain on December 21, 2006 at 8:07 PM
EF — 2LT Ilario Pantano; the book is Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy
htom on December 21, 2006 at 8:08 PM
What you are not geting is that “what this country is all about” is, increasingly around the world, being completely spineless and lacking resolve.
billy on December 21, 2006 at 8:13 PM
Follow these steps:
1. How can you factually challenge an assertion, exactly? Assertion does not equal argument, nor does ad hominem make a particularly compelling argument.
Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 8:01 PM
1. assert
2. provide facts to prove assertion
3. draw conclusion
See, its just like college. Only with real consequences.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 21, 2006 at 8:42 PM
That sounds easy.
Perhaps you could actually try it and demonstrate.
Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 8:44 PM
Tomk59……semper fi…..yours was the most intelligent comment I have read here…..
robo on December 21, 2006 at 9:48 PM
robo, thanks for pointing out that comment. I missed it earlier. It was excellent. Tomk59 - agreed.
Slublog on December 21, 2006 at 9:54 PM
No it isn’t. It was SOP during WWII, specifically in Okinawa, but also in France I know it happened. I also read about soldiers in the Bulge who said they tossed grenades into building BEFORE checking if they were friendlies (or civies) in the building.
No, that is a historical fact. After ever major action in every major war (even WWII) after the fight people who were done fighting or weren’t involved in the fight were executed. Campaigns in Canaan were like that. Darius conquering Babylon had it. Numerous Roman campaigns including those in Britannia, Gual and Punic Wars. Hell, Sherman murdered all sorts of Americans on his march to the sea, and let’s not forget his rapes! Lincoln also promoted a guy who murdered and raped. Lincoln also executed a huge number of Indians to win the Minnesota vote
War is hell, we should just move on.
Tim Burton on December 22, 2006 at 3:24 AM
Let me get this straight. You people are trying to tell me these people were neutrals, yet a bomb just happened to explode in their neighborhood?
There is no neutrality.
If they didn’t attempt to stop the Marines and warn them, those women took a side and were just as liable for their lives as was a German citizen that was being carpet bombed in ‘44.
I’m still waiting for all these “moral high ground” folks to explain why it is morally acceptable for the US to burn to the ground by carpet bombing 37 CITIES with populations being civilians in Japan, but it isn’t Ok to kill 20 people who turned a blind eye to the ambush that was set up in their neighborhood?
Anyone have the courage to attempt that one?
How about this one…
Why is it not Ok to execute terrorists on the battlefield, but it was Ok for General Bradley to order the summary execution of all Snipers and SS officers in the field after they had surrendered?
Tim Burton on December 22, 2006 at 3:33 AM
Tim,
You couldn’t be more right. We’ve gotten entirely too soft in our approach to war. Nothing is wrong with our enlisted men, NCOs, or JOs, mind you. They’re superb. Our brass is a bunch of pansies that are more interested in pleasing the media than taking care of their troops.
The point of war is to win, and make the enemy fear you, as the Germans feared Patton.
PRCalDude on December 22, 2006 at 9:13 AM
“How does the treatment of these Marines square with all those complaints that the U.S. was at fault for not “shooting the looters” during the early days of the liberation?”
Heh.
They are basing these charges, ie deliberately shooting to kill civilians, on doctor’s reports? From a local Iraqi doctor?! WTF? No exhumed bodies = no case. Muslim sensibilities do not outweigh American legal practices.
When you clear a building that has hostiles in it, you throw grenades into each room before entering, then go in guns blazing. SOP. It’s freakin combat, and this trial is a disgrace.
JohnW on December 22, 2006 at 9:40 AM
Unfortunately this is nothing new. You ask your young people to take on Herculean tasks, some will react badly or were just bad apples from the get go. Investigate quickly and thoroughly, exonerate or convict, and move on.
honora on December 22, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »