Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Finally couch potato soldiers get off real soldiers backs
Marine cleared in videotaped shooting
Wounded Iraqi killed inside Falluja mosque
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Navy investigators have determined a U.S. Marine acted in self-defense when he shot an apparently wounded and unarmed Iraqi inside a Falluja mosque in November, a senior Pentagon official said Wednesday.
The Marine corporal, who will not face charges, was under investigation in the shootings of four enemy combatants as part of an operation during the siege of Falluja on November 13, 2004. The mosque shooting was captured on videotape by an embedded reporter.
An investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service determined that the Marine acted in self-defense, within military law and the law of armed conflict.
Although that Marine has been cleared of wrongdoing, the investigation remains open because autopsies of some of the bodies found in the mosque turned up bullets that were not from his gun.
The incident occurred during house-to-house fighting in southern Falluja, less than a week after U.S.-led forces launched an offensive to rout insurgents from the restive Iraqi city.
The corporal said in a sworn statement that he opened fire at the people because he thought they were threat to the Marines in the mosque, according to a military news release.
The investigators who considered the facts of the incident agreed.
"The evidence indicates that based on the actions of those AIF (anti-Iraqi forces), the corporal reasonably believed that they posed a hostile threat to him and his fellow Marines and justifiably fired in self-defense.
"The enhanced videotape of the shooting supports the corporal's claim that the wounded AIF was concealing his left arm behind his head," the Marines said in a statement.
The report said that while it isn't "clear" whether insurgents in the videotape "made any overtly threatening gestures, it is clear that the Marines "were aware that feigning death was a common enemy" tactic.
"Accordingly, it was reasonable to believe that the corporal fired on the AIF after reasonably believing that the individual was committing a hostile act" by feigning death and subsequently moving his concealed arm.
Investigators weighed "multiple witness accounts, close review of video showing the incident captured by an embedded reporter and review of detailed ballistics and forensic evidence."
The incident was recorded by a television journalist embedded with the Marines. The Iraqi was among several wounded men found in a mosque that Marines said had been the source of small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire the previous day.
The Marine approached one of the men against a wall, saying, "He's [expletive] faking he's dead. He's faking he's [expletive] dead."
The Marine raised his rifle and fired at least one shot into the wounded man, at which point a companion said, "Well, he's dead now."
When told on the tape by the reporter that the men were among those wounded in an earlier firefight at the mosque, the Marine who fired the shot said, "I didn't know, sir. I didn't know."
At the time, U.S. commanders said they were concerned the video might encourage more insurgents to fight to the death rather than surrender, and Iraqis who watched the scene on television said they were stunned.
The Marine seen on the videotape was part of a squad from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
Goal for 2008: Half as many penalties.
They resolved this three weeks ago on JAG! Only on the discrepancy from the TV version and reality was in the TV version there was a IED (bomb) just out of reach of the killed Iraqi. Not kidding anyone else see the show!
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Serious question, and not trying to flame anything, or attack this Marines: would you feel the same way if the positions were reversed?
This is gonna sound like I'm pissed (and I'm not) but I think this has to be kept in perspective.
By asking if the positions were reversed do you mean reversed as in:
1) Going into a country where all you do every single day is try and HELP these people and every single day someone, somewhere is shooting, mortaring, or RPG'ing your fellow soldiers? Or:
2) Driving down the streets everyday in UN-Armored soft-skinnd HMMWV's and having to watch EVERY single vehicle and person when it is congested as bad as LA? Or:
3) Driving down those same roads and trying to watch every rock pile, animal carcass, brush pile, abandoned vehicle, old tire, canvas bag, etc because you are driving by in the same said HMMWV and you don't even have doors on the thing and you have no idea which of those things I mentioned is an IED? Or:
4) Having to watch every rooftop, overpass, alleyway, balcony, window, doorway, group of trees or bushes, passing car, motorcycle, bus, pedestrian, bicycle, etc. because you don't know from which of these someone is going to fire an RPG, toss a grenade, blow themselves up, fire on you etc? Or:
5) Go into a town and enter places that a normal person would consider safe/sacred (like a......oh I don't know........let's see........a mosque?) only to have the occupants inside begin firing at you? Or:
6) Approach a disabled vehicle with the sincere intention of assisting only to have the driver blow himself and you to pieces?
My point is, no one can carte blanche say "If the roles were reversed". These insurgents are fanatical animals. You CAN NOT treat them as humanely as you were raised to treat people. If you go in there with wonderful idealistic intentions of saving the world, you end up dead.
I, as well as my soldiers acted like straight up a-holes at times because I insisted on it. It was a fine line we tried to walk between helping the people that deserved it and still making sure we all came home alive.
There is no way to make the comparison or ask the question you did. The taking of Fallujah was the madness of warfare to the extreme. That Marine did what he had to do with a split second to make the decision, and he made that choice knowing he was dealing with lunatics.
__________________
Bob Melvin is an idiot. Period.
This is gonna sound like I'm pissed (and I'm not) but I think this has to be kept in perspective.
By asking if the positions were reversed do you mean reversed as in:
1) Going into a country where all you do every single day is try and HELP these people and every single day someone, somewhere is shooting, mortaring, or RPG'ing your fellow soldiers? Or:
2) Driving down the streets everyday in UN-Armored soft-skinnd HMMWV's and having to watch EVERY single vehicle and person when it is congested as bad as LA? Or:
3) Driving down those same roads and trying to watch every rock pile, animal carcass, brush pile, abandoned vehicle, old tire, canvas bag, etc because you are driving by in the same said HMMWV and you don't even have doors on the thing and you have no idea which of those things I mentioned is an IED? Or:
4) Having to watch every rooftop, overpass, alleyway, balcony, window, doorway, group of trees or bushes, passing car, motorcycle, bus, pedestrian, bicycle, etc. because you don't know from which of these someone is going to fire an RPG, toss a grenade, blow themselves up, fire on you etc? Or:
5) Go into a town and enter places that a normal person would consider safe/sacred (like a......oh I don't know........let's see........a mosque?) only to have the occupants inside begin firing at you? Or:
6) Approach a disabled vehicle with the sincere intention of assisting only to have the driver blow himself and you to pieces?
My point is, no one can carte blanche say "If the roles were reversed". These insurgents are fanatical animals. You CAN NOT treat them as humanely as you were raised to treat people. If you go in there with wonderful idealistic intentions of saving the world, you end up dead.
I, as well as my soldiers acted like straight up a-holes at times because I insisted on it. It was a fine line we tried to walk between helping the people that deserved it and still making sure we all came home alive.
There is no way to make the comparison or ask the question you did. The taking of Fallujah was the madness of warfare to the extreme. That Marine did what he had to do with a split second to make the decision, and he made that choice knowing he was dealing with lunatics.
This could only come from someone whos been there and done that. My hats' off to you HR and all the other young and not so young men and women who risk their lives for this country on a daily basis. There is no way to repay a debt that size.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
This is gonna sound like I'm pissed (and I'm not) but I think this has to be kept in perspective.
By asking if the positions were reversed do you mean reversed as in:
1) Going into a country where all you do every single day is try and HELP these people and every single day someone, somewhere is shooting, mortaring, or RPG'ing your fellow soldiers? Or:
2) Driving down the streets everyday in UN-Armored soft-skinnd HMMWV's and having to watch EVERY single vehicle and person when it is congested as bad as LA? Or:
3) Driving down those same roads and trying to watch every rock pile, animal carcass, brush pile, abandoned vehicle, old tire, canvas bag, etc because you are driving by in the same said HMMWV and you don't even have doors on the thing and you have no idea which of those things I mentioned is an IED? Or:
4) Having to watch every rooftop, overpass, alleyway, balcony, window, doorway, group of trees or bushes, passing car, motorcycle, bus, pedestrian, bicycle, etc. because you don't know from which of these someone is going to fire an RPG, toss a grenade, blow themselves up, fire on you etc? Or:
5) Go into a town and enter places that a normal person would consider safe/sacred (like a......oh I don't know........let's see........a mosque?) only to have the occupants inside begin firing at you? Or:
6) Approach a disabled vehicle with the sincere intention of assisting only to have the driver blow himself and you to pieces?
My point is, no one can carte blanche say "If the roles were reversed". These insurgents are fanatical animals. You CAN NOT treat them as humanely as you were raised to treat people. If you go in there with wonderful idealistic intentions of saving the world, you end up dead.
I, as well as my soldiers acted like straight up a-holes at times because I insisted on it. It was a fine line we tried to walk between helping the people that deserved it and still making sure we all came home alive.
There is no way to make the comparison or ask the question you did. The taking of Fallujah was the madness of warfare to the extreme. That Marine did what he had to do with a split second to make the decision, and he made that choice knowing he was dealing with lunatics.
One, thanks for not being pissed. I was afraid my original question would be taken the wrong way. For the record, not only do I not blame this soldier, I feel the soldiers at Abu Gharib received a raw deal as well. I blame the situation -- the soldiers are only dealing with it the best way they can. I just want to make that clear.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, as the old saying goes, we judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions. That is all.
This is gonna sound like I'm pissed (and I'm not) but I think this has to be kept in perspective.
By asking if the positions were reversed do you mean reversed as in:
1) Going into a country where all you do every single day is try and HELP these people and every single day someone, somewhere is shooting, mortaring, or RPG'ing your fellow soldiers? Or:
2) Driving down the streets everyday in UN-Armored soft-skinnd HMMWV's and having to watch EVERY single vehicle and person when it is congested as bad as LA? Or:
3) Driving down those same roads and trying to watch every rock pile, animal carcass, brush pile, abandoned vehicle, old tire, canvas bag, etc because you are driving by in the same said HMMWV and you don't even have doors on the thing and you have no idea which of those things I mentioned is an IED? Or:
4) Having to watch every rooftop, overpass, alleyway, balcony, window, doorway, group of trees or bushes, passing car, motorcycle, bus, pedestrian, bicycle, etc. because you don't know from which of these someone is going to fire an RPG, toss a grenade, blow themselves up, fire on you etc? Or:
5) Go into a town and enter places that a normal person would consider safe/sacred (like a......oh I don't know........let's see........a mosque?) only to have the occupants inside begin firing at you? Or:
6) Approach a disabled vehicle with the sincere intention of assisting only to have the driver blow himself and you to pieces?
My point is, no one can carte blanche say "If the roles were reversed". These insurgents are fanatical animals. You CAN NOT treat them as humanely as you were raised to treat people. If you go in there with wonderful idealistic intentions of saving the world, you end up dead.
I, as well as my soldiers acted like straight up a-holes at times because I insisted on it. It was a fine line we tried to walk between helping the people that deserved it and still making sure we all came home alive.
There is no way to make the comparison or ask the question you did. The taking of Fallujah was the madness of warfare to the extreme. That Marine did what he had to do with a split second to make the decision, and he made that choice knowing he was dealing with lunatics.
Moon Lander Champion!
All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
Linear Mode
