Military investigates shooting of wounded insurgent

Commanders fear tape will discourage surrendering
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Posted: 0807 GMT (1607 HKT)

FALLUJA, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military is investigating whether a Marine shot dead an unarmed, wounded insurgent during the battle for Falluja in an incident captured on videotape by a pool reporter.

The man was shot in the head at close range Saturday by a Marine who found him among a group of wounded men. The wounded men were found in a mosque that Marines said had been the source of small-arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire the previous day.

The Marine in the videotape has been removed from his unit and taken to the headquarters of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, and the Navy's Criminal Investigative Service said it plans to question one of the other wounded Iraqis as part of the probe, according to the pool reporter embedded with the unit.

"Let me make it perfectly clear: We follow the law of armed conflict and we hold ourselves to high standard of accountability," Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler said Tuesday. "The facts of this case will be thoroughly pursued to make an informed decision and to protect rights of all persons involved."

The investigation will determine whether the Marine violated any rules or should be charged with any crime. Lt. Col. Bob Miller, a staff judge advocate for the 1st Marine Division, said wounded insurgents who pose no threat generally "would not be considered hostile."

The Marine seen shooting the man was part of a squad from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, which had been part of intense house-to-house fighting in southern Falluja.

U.S. rules of engagement prohibit American troops from killing any prisoner who does not pose a threat, and commanders say they are worried the video might encourage more insurgents to fight to the death rather than surrender.

The military asked that networks obscure the names and recognizable faces of the Marines inside the mosque when they broadcast video of the incident. The request came from Marine judge advocate Col. John Weil to NBC News, which videotaped the killing, and was based on privacy concerns.

Friday, the Marines were fired upon by snipers and insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades from a mosque and an adjacent building. The Marines returned fire with tank shells and machine guns.

They eventually stormed the mosque, killing 10 insurgents and wounding five others, and showing off a cache of rifles and grenades for journalists.

The Marines told the pool reporter that the wounded men would be left behind for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents and attacked it again, only to find the same wounded men inside.

Four of the men appeared to have been shot again in Saturday's fighting, and one of them appeared to be dead, according to the pool report. In the video, a Marine was seen noticing that one of the men appeared to be breathing.

A Marine approached one of the men in the mosque saying, "He's [expletive] faking he's dead. He's faking he's [expletive] dead."

The Marine raised his rifle and fired into the apparently wounded man's head, at which point a companion said, "Well, he's dead now."

When told by the pool reporter that the men were among those wounded in Friday's firefight, the Marine who fired the shot said, "I didn't know, sir. I didn't know."

The Marines said they are investigating why the wounded Iraqis were left behind for 24 hours and whether the man was killed illegally. Navy investigators said they believe they have located the fifth Iraqi -- the only one not wounded a second time -- who said he wanted to provide information about the killing.

Before the Marines entered the mosque Saturday, a lieutenant from one of two squads involved in the fighting was told that there were people inside.

"Did you shoot them?" he asked.

"Roger that, sir," one of the men replied.

"Were they armed?" the lieutenant asked. The other Marine shrugged.

The Marine who shot the Iraqi man had reportedly been returned to duty after suffering a minor facial wound Friday.

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.

The human rights organization Amnesty International raised concerns about violations of the rules of war last week, after a British news program broadcast video of what it said was the killing of another wounded insurgent by U.S. troops.

Amnesty also noted reports that insurgents have used mosques as fighting positions, and in one incident appear to have used a white flag to lure Marines into an ambush.

"All violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law must be investigated and those responsible for unlawful attacks, including deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, and the killing of injured persons must be brought to justice," the group said in a statement issued Thursday.

What can you say about stuff like this ? It's war, **** happens. i'm sure if it were the other way around, the insurgent in question wouldn't hesitate to kill an unarmed marine. It's easy to lose your cool in a place where even dead bodies can be boobytrapped. The marine only did his job, and from where i stand he did well.

Erm.... nope, I wouldn't go that far, Johnny.

- "Was he armed?"
- *shrug*

Just a teentsie weentsie callous if you ask me. More important, violative of the law.

To say nothing of stupid ...

This is a case where one says the guy appeared armed & seemed threatening. If/When the tapes -- and I'm still not ecstatic over the fact that each platoon has its own pet reporter -- prove him wrong, it's obvious that he made an honest mistake ...

There is no law in Fallujah, that's why they went in in the first place, no ? He probably had a weapon before the mosque got hit, and his buddies probably left him behind for the vultures and took all the firearms they could carry with em. At this point i don't think there's any "normal" citizen left in that town. Although i think killing him in cold blood is wrong, i can understand where the marine's emotion is coming from, i think anyone would get a little triggerhappy in a place like that.

Violation of Law in WAR? ROTHFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

This is not an isolated incident involving a few sleep deprived and overly drugged Marines.

It's a problem in the command climate, a general careless disregard for life that permeates the USMC (and other branches of our armed forces).

@johnny: The rules of war have been agreed on by international convention for many decades now. The conflict of noncombatant immunity vs. military necessity has long been argued, and almost always falls on the side of the noncombatant (read: anyone without a gun).

Read Just and Unjust Wars, by Michael Walzer, for greater depth on the issue. Basically, several qualifications must be met in order for a conflict to be considered just (IMO, this current fight does not come close to meeting the classical definition of a Just War). However, whether a fight is just or not aside, the rules of engagement when already in a fight do not change.

One need not fight the good fight in order to fight justly.

Michael Walzer has a new one called Arguing War that I was able to read a few chapters from. It seems to do the same thing, but talks about more recent wars and even terrorism. If I'm not mistaken, the book Aleph mentioned is from 1978, and talks about Vietnam mostly. Not that it's not worth reading of course. Arguing War is bright orange - you can't miss it.

It suffers from a bit of ethnocentrism, but it goes a long way towards analyzing war - in its causes and its execution - on an ethical standard. It was interesting how he categorized the war in Iraq as unjust from the US perspective, but also unjust from Hussein's perspective, since he was sacrificing people for defense of his regime (which wasn't exactly serving the country to the best of its capacity). It's quick reading, especially for a writer who's got extensive philosophical training; philosophy texts are rarely easy reading.

[ 11-17-2004, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

Can you name ONE side that actually gives a **** about that convention, just one ? Because as far as i know, nobody plays by those rules, and that includes the nations that signed it.

And just because he didn't have a weapon at THAT particular time doesn't mean he's a noncombatant, i'd say the Americans caught him with his pants down, so he tried to play dead.

I don't blame the soldier for shooting however the guy is because who can you trust in the violent streets of Iraq? Most of the time those who look innocent end up blowing up in soldiers faces.

'77, and I'll be the first to say that it's out of date -- Desert Storm was the last thing the US was involved in that fit a classical definition of a just war (i.e. violation of territorial integrity by another sovereign nation, international accord on plan of action, &tc.)

It's important to read because, though the theories it supports are ignored by the US in modern war, none have really come to replace them. Certainly none have reached any sort of concensus in the international scene ...

@Johnny - I think the British troops still respect that convention. And I'm sure many other European nations do the same - I'd be rather surprised if the Dutch army didn't.

Re. the story, this article quoting a former SAS (British special forces) officer points out that it was self defence because the marines feared the body was booby-trapped like others they have stumbled across.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004531757,00.html

Be warned, it's British tabloid reporting though ;)

I tend to agree with the article (even if it is in the Sun [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] ). In the same situation, in light of what has happened in the past, I'd be more inclined to shoot first and take the consequences later. At least I'd be around to tell the tale.

[ 11-17-2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Skippy1 ]

The vast majority of the "Laws of war" are/were writen for and by countries that have fought wars over silly things, trade/power/greed/etc. The leaders of said countries didn't want their people killed unnessisarily(sp?) over silly things because they knew 1)the people would rise against them and they'd lose power. 2) If their people were killed it would take to long to rebuild an amry to wage war again. For the troops on the ground it becomes a matter of survival one of the only things that is not silly and therefore transends any "Laws of war" This enemy the troops are fighting HAS no problem with taking civilains out of their homes and killing them, no problem setting bombs in market places and in the streets to kill. This enemy is fighting a war of "No quater given", if they give no quarter then none should be given to them.

alepha, the purpose of the military is to KILL, blowing up things is gravy. "the job of the military is not to die for their country but to make the other poor bastard die for theirs".

There is no law in Fallujah, that's why they went in in the first place, no ? He probably had a weapon before the mosque got hit, and his buddies probably left him behind for the vultures and took all the firearms they could carry with em. At this point i don't think there's any "normal" citizen left in that town. Although i think killing him in cold blood is wrong, i can understand where the marine's emotion is coming from, i think anyone would get a little triggerhappy in a place like that. </font>[/QUOTE]johnny - you need to wait until you've seen the tape. When you do you'll realise that in this case you are wrong.

Just to clarify - when the footage was shown in the UK the action was frozen at the moment the bullet was fired.

It seems some of us forget the fact that there is law applicable to warfare. And, you know, it's been that way for thousands of years. Now, I know some of you haven't learned much in the last thousand years or so, and certainly haven't advanced any morally in that time frame, but the bulk of society has moved on without you.

This incident is wrong, yes. I think there is sufficient merit for mitigating circumstances though.

Here's what the insurgents do. Booby trapping bodies and equipment, suicide bombers, flying white flags and playing dead so you can ambush are common occurances here. Using mosques, civilians, and hospitals as shields and military command posts is common too. The kidnapping and killing of non-combatants is no problem for them.

These are the times our military is living in. He made a mistake yes, but don't holler to crucify him unless you're willing to go pick up his rifle and put on his boots.

Depends on the situation, when with their backs against the wall, some troops can take pretty drastic measures. A certain sunday afternoon in Belfast comes to mind. Now...those were English soldiers, right ?

And the Dutch were guilty of Atrocities in Indonesia too, one particular regiment's name still gives older Indonesian people the shivers. No country on this planet has truly a clear conscience, we all have our skeletons in the closet. The Geneva convention is nothing more than "feel good" agreement, but i don't think anyone actually lives up to it.

Btw... i saw the footage now on some Spanish site, and it's true, it's pretty bad to see a thing like that happen, but on the other hand, they've been tricked by virtually unarmed men before, so once again i'll have to say i can relate to the marine's action.

Patton ... there's a reason the man was retired as soon as possible :D

If you believe our leaders, the military exists to enforce the will of the people, through the NCA and his appointed deputies. This is why all officers are commissioned by Congress: to keep the tie to the republic more real. This is why civilians control the armed forces.

Peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, deterrence, and general self defense aside, though, you're quite right. Killing still remains something of a last resort, and (one hopes) it will continue to become so even more.

i saw the pictures just last nite. if it's what i saw, this is deplorable. vietnam flashbacks anyone?

Can someone post a link to the footage. They're better at reporting this kind of US news abroad than they are in the US, of course. Thanks.

THANKS, BAGHDAD BOB!! :D