only those who have spent time under direct fire have a right to make any judgement of this matter. this does not include media people. when the danger of being killed at any moment sinks in, you will shoot first and ask questions later. anyone left in that zone is a combatant and available for dispatch. mcole
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shooting the wounded
- Thread starter Cal4D4
- Start date
Vietnam and Korea weren't technically wars either, yet we not only expected GC behavior of our troops, but of the enemy as well.
This idea that only those in combat have the right to determine use of force is absurd. Rules of engagement are determined beforehand and are part of the soldiers' orders and training.
If you want to use that kind of logic, let's never file a police brutality lawsuit again - a jury certainly has no right to judge.
This idea that only those in combat have the right to determine use of force is absurd. Rules of engagement are determined beforehand and are part of the soldiers' orders and training.
If you want to use that kind of logic, let's never file a police brutality lawsuit again - a jury certainly has no right to judge.
I have watched the video. It is impossible to see what the USGI saw when he shot. The camera view is at a totally different angle, and a some distance from it. So there is no way to tell based on the video if there should be any questions about it. I can only assume that the USGI saw a threat of some kind and ended that threat.
I see this comparison alot.If you want to use that kind of logic, let's never file a police brutality lawsuit again - a jury certainly has no right to judge.
A cop ain't a soldier, no matter how much some people want to seperate them from us mere "civilians".
The comparison is apples to oranges.
I agree with the poster who said that if you haven't been there , you don'y know.
Sitting behind a computer screen that bullets can't pass through it is easy to say that he acted wrongly or hastily(sp)
k_dawg
There has not been any war in history where there have been no such acts committed by at least some members of both opposing sides at one time or other.
The facts of this particular case aside; all this means is that our current enemies can simply say, "Likewise!".
When an enemy has violated all common decency in war, and pays no heed to the Geneva Convention.. and has proven to kill to his last dying breath.. a badly wounded soldier is STILL a deadly threat that must be taken care of.
There has not been any war in history where there have been no such acts committed by at least some members of both opposing sides at one time or other.
The facts of this particular case aside; all this means is that our current enemies can simply say, "Likewise!".
OrangeSkies
New member
I just think it's interesting that people like Handy have no problem with Kerry awarding himself a medal for shooting an unarmed, injured, TEENAGED, Viet Cong, but now when a Marine does something similar, he's calling for a bloodlust.
Terrorist appeasers come in all forms, including those who hide themselves under the guise of being "teachers".
Whatever happened to the old saying, "All's fair in love and war"?
Terrorist appeasers come in all forms, including those who hide themselves under the guise of being "teachers".
Whatever happened to the old saying, "All's fair in love and war"?
Orangeskies,
I think its interesting that people like you feel so free to talk about people like me. I wouldn't invent BS to insult you if I don't like the point you're making, so what gives you the right?
And what in the hell have you been reading? Are you drunk? Do imaginary people whisper to you? How could you be reading what I wrote, otherwise?
This board has certain rules of conduct that are restrictive enough that:
A. I can't tell you exactly what sort of person you are for your extremely prejudiced and insulting libel.
B. You're not going to be warned by the mods, despite hurling insults that are far greater than anything spelled with four letters.
Unquestionably, you are the type of person who can't process information independantly or formulate opinions not provided to you on AM radio. I would suggest that if you want to be part of this little community you stop with the personal stuff and try debating the point. As I have never shown any support for Kerry, insurgents aren't terrorists, and I've made no call for any action in this thread, you obviously don't know what a debate, or a point, is.
I can barely believe a grown person would stoop as low as you have. I hope enough thinking people read your post to get your full measure.
I think its interesting that people like you feel so free to talk about people like me. I wouldn't invent BS to insult you if I don't like the point you're making, so what gives you the right?
And what in the hell have you been reading? Are you drunk? Do imaginary people whisper to you? How could you be reading what I wrote, otherwise?
This board has certain rules of conduct that are restrictive enough that:
A. I can't tell you exactly what sort of person you are for your extremely prejudiced and insulting libel.
B. You're not going to be warned by the mods, despite hurling insults that are far greater than anything spelled with four letters.
Unquestionably, you are the type of person who can't process information independantly or formulate opinions not provided to you on AM radio. I would suggest that if you want to be part of this little community you stop with the personal stuff and try debating the point. As I have never shown any support for Kerry, insurgents aren't terrorists, and I've made no call for any action in this thread, you obviously don't know what a debate, or a point, is.
I can barely believe a grown person would stoop as low as you have. I hope enough thinking people read your post to get your full measure.
IZinterrogator
New member
In the 19 November issue of the Washington Times, there is an article by Diana West called "Marine just doing his job". It has to be the best opinion article I've read in weeks. It's also on the Early Bird, if you have access to that.
Marine Just Doing His Job
Marine Just Doing His Job
Last edited:
If you don't think the Geneva Conventions apply since the insurgents don't meet the criteria of Article 13, then what about those old-fashioned concepts of Pride and Honor? It doesn't strike me as honorable to kill an unarmed and unconscious enemy, or something to be proud of.
John Marshall
New member
Amazing. Four pages of hollering in the wind. The only post that makes any sense is trapshooter's last.
From what I have read here, it is apparent there is no one, including me, who really knows what happened in that mosque other than a Marine shot an enemy combatant in the head. I have heard it reported that, previous to this encounter, another group of Marines cleared the mosque of enemy combatants, leaving 5 behind after field dressing their non-life threatenting injuries. Sometime after they left, it was believed the mosque had been re-occupied by enemy combatants who continued to fire on Marines and GIs from within. That report may have been in error. However, can anyone state,as a certainty, that all of the "wounded" found in the mosque were, indeed, the same 5, and 5 only, that were left there previously?
If we wish to bandy about the idea of rules of engagement, we had best find out exactly what rules of engagement those Marines were operating under. They can be formulated to reflect the exigencies of the operation at hand and the top of the list is always the absolute right to self defense and the defense of your unit members.
If this Marine commited a war crime by shooting that enemy combatant, wounded or not, then he also stopped the continuance of a war crime commited by the enemy combatant, that of feigning death to prevent detection. Yes, I know one does not excuse the other. But.
And, please, until we know for a fact whether or not all of those found in that mosque were Iraqis, let's call them what they have made of themselves; enemy combatants . They could quite possibly be Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Saudis, Iranians, Egyptians, you chose.
Now I've grown hoarse yelling into the wind.
From what I have read here, it is apparent there is no one, including me, who really knows what happened in that mosque other than a Marine shot an enemy combatant in the head. I have heard it reported that, previous to this encounter, another group of Marines cleared the mosque of enemy combatants, leaving 5 behind after field dressing their non-life threatenting injuries. Sometime after they left, it was believed the mosque had been re-occupied by enemy combatants who continued to fire on Marines and GIs from within. That report may have been in error. However, can anyone state,as a certainty, that all of the "wounded" found in the mosque were, indeed, the same 5, and 5 only, that were left there previously?
If we wish to bandy about the idea of rules of engagement, we had best find out exactly what rules of engagement those Marines were operating under. They can be formulated to reflect the exigencies of the operation at hand and the top of the list is always the absolute right to self defense and the defense of your unit members.
If this Marine commited a war crime by shooting that enemy combatant, wounded or not, then he also stopped the continuance of a war crime commited by the enemy combatant, that of feigning death to prevent detection. Yes, I know one does not excuse the other. But.
And, please, until we know for a fact whether or not all of those found in that mosque were Iraqis, let's call them what they have made of themselves; enemy combatants . They could quite possibly be Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Saudis, Iranians, Egyptians, you chose.
Now I've grown hoarse yelling into the wind.
kathaksung
Moderator
What the soldier did was an epitome of Bush
What the soldier did was an epitome of Bush
There is plenty for the soldier to defend himself. "The wounded man posed imminent danger to me. Even he is weaponless, he has intention. He is a terrorist. The world will be safer when I killed him. Why you blame me for it? I just follow President Bush. Why he can do it but I can't? "
Bush started a war by a lie. He caused mass civilian death in Iraq and he should be responsible for the death of more than one thousand US soldiers. The soldier is only a tool of that mass killing machine. Why should he be blamed while the mastermind is out law?
What the soldier did was an epitome of Bush
There is plenty for the soldier to defend himself. "The wounded man posed imminent danger to me. Even he is weaponless, he has intention. He is a terrorist. The world will be safer when I killed him. Why you blame me for it? I just follow President Bush. Why he can do it but I can't? "
Bush started a war by a lie. He caused mass civilian death in Iraq and he should be responsible for the death of more than one thousand US soldiers. The soldier is only a tool of that mass killing machine. Why should he be blamed while the mastermind is out law?
The guy who 'shot' the video
Here is the guy who 'shot' the video's website:
http://www.kevinsites.net/
---
Here is the letter I wrote to him:
---
Kevin,
I read your report.
After going through the whole thing, it appears to ME that the main reason the wounded guy was shot was that YOU BROUGHT ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS STILL ALIVE.
So, perhaps you are feeling guilty over the fact that YOUR ACTIONS got a terrorist dead? If said terrorist did NOT WANT TO KILL AMERICANS, why was he in the mosque in the first place? He got what he deserved. Make no mistake, had he been able to do so, he would have killed YOU and every American he could have. You have seen it for years, yet seem confused about who 'THE GOOD GUYS' are.
As a FREELANCE photojournalist (motorcycles mainly), you and I know that there are stories that ARE NEVER REPORTED, regardless of their 'merit' or timeliness. Mainly because editors CHOOSE what the public sees, NOT THE REPORTER. Again, it appears you are feeling guilty BECAUSE your editor ran this report when it should have probably been held UNTIL ALL THE FACTS have been known AND the event was reviewed by higher ups in the military. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN and perhaps you are feeling guilty because of that. You could have easily turned the tape over to the MILITARY COMMANDERS and NOT turned it into the pool. You even state you considered this option. Now, because YOU CHOSE WRONGLY, American soldiers lives are at stake. Your report, being run three or four times PER HOUR on Al Jazeera just inflames those in the Arab world who ONLY WANT TO KILL AMERICANS. Perhaps that too plays into why you are so confused.
While what happened in the mosque would have been REPORTED, only YOUR PICTURES fanned the flames of hatred of Americans. So, you chose incorrectly and NOW American soldiers are paying for your choice. Again, perhaps that's another reason why you are feeling so guilty. BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW YOU HANDLED THIS WAS WRONG. Hindsight sucks, eh?
HAD the Iraqi TERRORIST DIED FROM HIS WOUNDS BEFORE you got there, this would NOT have been a story. Your bringing attention to the fact that (as you say) the terrorist did not move and then got shot is haunting you. IT SHOULD. YOU ARE THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH. Not the Marine that reacted to the fact that a guy that looked 'dead' was not. YOU BROUGHT THAT TO THE MARINES ATTENTION by getting 'inches away' and then started filming him. Had you NOT DONE SO, that terrorist would have either died of his wounds unnoticed OR been taken into custody and his wounds would have gotten him the medical attention he needed. He would have then spent the rest of his life (possibly) in an American Military prison.
So, it appears that YOU are the REASON why the MARINE shot the guy that was supposed to be dead. YOU WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT. Especially AFTER the Marine has been cleared of all wrong doing.
Sincerely,
Jim W
---
H,
We may NOT have killed Japanese during WWII here in USA intentionally, but I worked with one who 'survived the camps' we sent them to. Sitting down, listening to TOSH tell stories of how they survived. Sawdust bread, shoe leather soup. Was NOT PRETTY. No, we didn't take several out a day and cut their heads off, but American Japanese DIED in our camps. Mainly from exposure and malnutrition.
It was a WAR and most rations went to the troops. Go ask the wife of a WWII vet. She will tell you all about 'meatless' days. No sugar, no butter, no eggs, no ... fill in the blank. And that was IF you had a rations book. The Japanese in concentration camps were considered subhuman AT THAT TIME. So the got the 'leavings' of the rest of our society. We confiscated all they owned, with the exception of what SOME of them were allowed to carry out.
War sucks. People die. ESPECIALLY civilians. But neither of the guys in this mosque who were in the video WERE civvies. They were wounded terrorists who had been shot and disarmed the day before.
Here is the guy who 'shot' the video's website:
http://www.kevinsites.net/
---
Here is the letter I wrote to him:
---
Kevin,
I read your report.
After going through the whole thing, it appears to ME that the main reason the wounded guy was shot was that YOU BROUGHT ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS STILL ALIVE.
"I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him."
"In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the Marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat -- the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing."
So, perhaps you are feeling guilty over the fact that YOUR ACTIONS got a terrorist dead? If said terrorist did NOT WANT TO KILL AMERICANS, why was he in the mosque in the first place? He got what he deserved. Make no mistake, had he been able to do so, he would have killed YOU and every American he could have. You have seen it for years, yet seem confused about who 'THE GOOD GUYS' are.
As a FREELANCE photojournalist (motorcycles mainly), you and I know that there are stories that ARE NEVER REPORTED, regardless of their 'merit' or timeliness. Mainly because editors CHOOSE what the public sees, NOT THE REPORTER. Again, it appears you are feeling guilty BECAUSE your editor ran this report when it should have probably been held UNTIL ALL THE FACTS have been known AND the event was reviewed by higher ups in the military. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN and perhaps you are feeling guilty because of that. You could have easily turned the tape over to the MILITARY COMMANDERS and NOT turned it into the pool. You even state you considered this option. Now, because YOU CHOSE WRONGLY, American soldiers lives are at stake. Your report, being run three or four times PER HOUR on Al Jazeera just inflames those in the Arab world who ONLY WANT TO KILL AMERICANS. Perhaps that too plays into why you are so confused.
"I considered not feeding the tape to the pool -- or even, for a moment, destroying it. But that thought created the same pit in my stomach that witnessing the shooting had. It felt wrong. Hiding this wouldn't make it go away. There were other people in that room. What happened in that mosque would eventually come out. I would be faced with the fact that I had betrayed truth as well as a life supposedly spent in pursuit of it."
While what happened in the mosque would have been REPORTED, only YOUR PICTURES fanned the flames of hatred of Americans. So, you chose incorrectly and NOW American soldiers are paying for your choice. Again, perhaps that's another reason why you are feeling so guilty. BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW YOU HANDLED THIS WAS WRONG. Hindsight sucks, eh?
"So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us."
HAD the Iraqi TERRORIST DIED FROM HIS WOUNDS BEFORE you got there, this would NOT have been a story. Your bringing attention to the fact that (as you say) the terrorist did not move and then got shot is haunting you. IT SHOULD. YOU ARE THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH. Not the Marine that reacted to the fact that a guy that looked 'dead' was not. YOU BROUGHT THAT TO THE MARINES ATTENTION by getting 'inches away' and then started filming him. Had you NOT DONE SO, that terrorist would have either died of his wounds unnoticed OR been taken into custody and his wounds would have gotten him the medical attention he needed. He would have then spent the rest of his life (possibly) in an American Military prison.
So, it appears that YOU are the REASON why the MARINE shot the guy that was supposed to be dead. YOU WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT. Especially AFTER the Marine has been cleared of all wrong doing.
Sincerely,
Jim W
---
H,
We may NOT have killed Japanese during WWII here in USA intentionally, but I worked with one who 'survived the camps' we sent them to. Sitting down, listening to TOSH tell stories of how they survived. Sawdust bread, shoe leather soup. Was NOT PRETTY. No, we didn't take several out a day and cut their heads off, but American Japanese DIED in our camps. Mainly from exposure and malnutrition.
It was a WAR and most rations went to the troops. Go ask the wife of a WWII vet. She will tell you all about 'meatless' days. No sugar, no butter, no eggs, no ... fill in the blank. And that was IF you had a rations book. The Japanese in concentration camps were considered subhuman AT THAT TIME. So the got the 'leavings' of the rest of our society. We confiscated all they owned, with the exception of what SOME of them were allowed to carry out.
War sucks. People die. ESPECIALLY civilians. But neither of the guys in this mosque who were in the video WERE civvies. They were wounded terrorists who had been shot and disarmed the day before.
Blackhawk6
New member
A few points.
1. The Law of Land Warfare provides protected status for a number of entities on the battlefield, among them wounded personnel. However, if your side abuses your protected status, you lose it. (For example, if you wave a white flag of surrender and shoot at me when I come forward to accept your surrender, I am no longer obligated to honor your white flag.)
2. When conducting an offensive operation, I am permitted to engage enemy personnel on the objective. If you are wounded beyond the capacity to fight and pose no threat, I can not shoot you. If you are not wounded beyond the capacity to fight (weapon or not) or I believe you pose a threat, you are fair game.
3. Since the Marine in question has not had an opportunity to publicly state what it was that caused him to engage the terrorist on the ground, any speculation regarding his guilt or innocence is premature. Any characterization of his actions as murder is irresponsible.
1. The Law of Land Warfare provides protected status for a number of entities on the battlefield, among them wounded personnel. However, if your side abuses your protected status, you lose it. (For example, if you wave a white flag of surrender and shoot at me when I come forward to accept your surrender, I am no longer obligated to honor your white flag.)
2. When conducting an offensive operation, I am permitted to engage enemy personnel on the objective. If you are wounded beyond the capacity to fight and pose no threat, I can not shoot you. If you are not wounded beyond the capacity to fight (weapon or not) or I believe you pose a threat, you are fair game.
3. Since the Marine in question has not had an opportunity to publicly state what it was that caused him to engage the terrorist on the ground, any speculation regarding his guilt or innocence is premature. Any characterization of his actions as murder is irresponsible.
Wallew
This was also true of many of those that died in camps of various countries in the european theatre, with the added numbers from diseases that were rife at the time, both during and after the war was over.
We may NOT have killed Japanese during WWII here in USA intentionally, but I worked with one who 'survived the camps' we sent them to. Sitting down, listening to TOSH tell stories of how they survived. Sawdust bread, shoe leather soup. Was NOT PRETTY. No, we didn't take several out a day and cut their heads off, but American Japanese DIED in our camps. Mainly from exposure and malnutrition.
It was a WAR and most rations went to the troops. Go ask the wife of a WWII vet. She will tell you all about 'meatless' days. No sugar, no butter, no eggs, no ... fill in the blank. And that was IF you had a rations book. The Japanese in concentration camps were considered subhuman AT THAT TIME. So the got the 'leavings' of the rest of our society. We confiscated all they owned, with the exception of what SOME of them were allowed to carry out.
This was also true of many of those that died in camps of various countries in the european theatre, with the added numbers from diseases that were rife at the time, both during and after the war was over.
Geoff Timm
New member
Isn't it interesting? The Noose media seems to want soldiers in combat to meet the legal requirements of citizens defending themselves.
Geoff
Who notes the John Kerry standard, "I know everything, I'm always right and I'm perfect." :barf:
Geoff
Who notes the John Kerry standard, "I know everything, I'm always right and I'm perfect." :barf:
Fred Hansen
New member
They were neither detained, nor were they interned. They were enemy combatants in a Mosque. No one was guarding them or supervising them.This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel
Too bad, so sad.
Blackhawk6
New member
Basic U.S. policy underlying the treatment accorded EPW and all other enemy personnel captured, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody during the course of a conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final release or repatriation. The observance of this policy is fully and equally binding upon U.S. personnel, whether capturing troops, custodial personnel, or in whatever other capacity they may be serving. This policy is equally applicable for the protection of all detained or interned personnel, whether their status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other category. It is applicable whether they are known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses which could be characterized as a war crime. The punishment of such persons is administered by due process of law and under the legally constituted authority. The administration of inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national law, international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The excerpt posted pertains to treatment of personnel after the have been detained/captured, as inidicated by the words "or otherwise held in U.S. Army custody." In other words, if I capture OBL, I can not beat him, burn him with cigarettes, deny him food or medical care, etc. and then use the fact that he is a terrorist leader responsible for killing thousands of innocent people to justify my behavior.
The passage has nothing to do with my ability to engage a wounded enemy combatant on a legitimate military objective whom I believe poses a threat to me or a fellow Soldier/Marine.