The W
Views: 98521916
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.8.07 1523
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Marine shoots unarmed Iraqi?
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(493 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (13 total)
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 660/763
EXP: 1431823
For next: 54114

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 526 days
Last activity: 142 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on 16.11.04 1814.25
Reposted on: 16.11.11 1815.00
From the Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)


Im a big supporter of our troops, but I dont see how anyone could defend shooting an unarmed, defenseless guy. I know battlefield stress is a bitch. I also know that there is a chance that the body may have been booby-trapped (though I dont know how shooting him fixes that). But the facts are, we just cannot have that kind of stuff happen. Each one of these incidents further undermines what we need to accomplish in Iraq. We have to be above the acts of barbirism, if we are going to succeed in Iraq. Were not ehnic cleansing, were supposed to be bringing freedom. And we cannot appear to condone the murder of innocents. You cant have it both ways.
Promote this thread!
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 2177/6261
EXP: 32666849
For next: 619638

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#2 Posted on 16.11.04 1829.20
Reposted on: 16.11.11 1829.36
Well, either way, if the guy was as mortally wonded as they are claiming he may have been, at least he was "put out of his misery" so to speak. Still not right, but, better than letting him live to fight another day I suppose.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1663/1759
EXP: 4899612
For next: 93258

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1261 days
Last activity: 27 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 16.11.04 1856.30
Reposted on: 16.11.11 1856.32
OK - you have been in combat for days. You find someone who may or may not be wounded, in a position you just hit HARD pretending to be dead. He has not surrendered, and is doing nothing to indicate that he will surrender.

He is NOT a Prisoner of War. He is an enemy soldier who has not surrendered, and a viable target.

Do you - shoot him, or do you let him live, knowing that if you let him live, he could return and attack you and your unit from behind, or knowing that he might be armed with an explosive waiting for the right time to explode killing all of you? Hell, knowing that any number of unimaginable scenarios could occur?

That was a combat zone. These were marines, not social workers walking around with clip boards polling the insurgents to see if maybe they had been attacked enough.

Yup - it seems tragic, but it is war. War is messy. If the dude surrendered, and then got shot, I could see your point. But as it is, this is not an issue. Perhaps it bears looking into, yes. But as the facts stand now, there was not a single thing wrong with that kill.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 661/763
EXP: 1431823
For next: 54114

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 526 days
Last activity: 142 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 16.11.04 1905.00
Reposted on: 16.11.11 1908.41
If the guy is laying there possibly wounded, unarmed and not moving, he doesnt need to say "I surrender." Perhaps he was physically incapable of speaking, maybe he was scared to move for fear of being shot. There are a million things wrong with shooting someone thats unarmed and non-threatening. This doesnt help our cause.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 2953/5999
EXP: 31670390
For next: 797137

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 16.11.04 1917.54
Reposted on: 16.11.11 1918.26
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    OK - you have been in combat for days. You find someone who may or may not be wounded, in a position you just hit HARD pretending to be dead. He has not surrendered, and is doing nothing to indicate that he will surrender.

    He is NOT a Prisoner of War. He is an enemy soldier who has not surrendered, and a viable target.

    Do you - shoot him, or do you let him live, knowing that if you let him live, he could return and attack you and your unit from behind, or knowing that he might be armed with an explosive waiting for the right time to explode killing all of you? Hell, knowing that any number of unimaginable scenarios could occur?

    That was a combat zone. These were marines, not social workers walking around with clip boards polling the insurgents to see if maybe they had been attacked enough.

    Yup - it seems tragic, but it is war. War is messy. If the dude surrendered, and then got shot, I could see your point. But as it is, this is not an issue. Perhaps it bears looking into, yes. But as the facts stand now, there was not a single thing wrong with that kill.


You have a blatant ignorance of the Geneva Conventions.

    Originally posted by Convention I (http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention1.html)
    Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.


    Originally posted by Definintions (http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/definitions2.html#h)
    hors de combat

    Combatants who are hors de combat are out of the fight are and entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. They are to be protected and treated humanely, without adverse discrimination. (Convention I Art. 3; Protocol I, Art. 4)

    Attacking a person who is hors de combat is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

    Persons are hors de combat if they have been captured, if they have surrendered, or if they are unconscious or otherwise incapacitated provided that they do not attempt to fight or escape. (Protocol I, Art. 41, Sec. 2)

    Parachutists who eject from a damaged aircraft cannot be attacked while they are descending. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 1)

    Parachuters who have landed in hostile territory must be given a chance to surrender, unless they are clearly acting hostile. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 2)

CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 212

Posts: 5374/16171
EXP: 140164806
For next: 870980

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on 16.11.04 1943.13
Reposted on: 16.11.11 1944.49
This story has made the cable news rounds for ...I think 18 hours now, although it feels much longer by now - the price I pay for watching MSNBC, I think, since they're really proud of Kevin Sites. Anyway, plenty of (grey areas|excuses) have already been advanced by all sorts of people who know more than (me|you) but that doesn't mean I'm not hoping we won't rehash them all over here, all over again!
SlipperyPete
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 91/102
EXP: 62390
For next: 5334

Since: 13.8.04

Since last post: 3545 days
Last activity: 3545 days
#7 Posted on 16.11.04 2015.19
Reposted on: 16.11.11 2015.47
I was going to post a comment but this portion of an AP story sums it up better than I could. It's also worth pointing out that a man in this marine's unit had been killed just the day before by either an insurgent pretending to be dead or injured, or a body that had been rigged with explosives.

    Originally posted by AP
    Charles Heyman, a British infantry veteran and senior defense analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in London, defended the Marine, saying soldiers are taught that the enemy "is at his most dangerous when he is severely injured."

    Other experts contacted by The Associated Press were careful to avoid a public judgment because of the dangerous and uncertain situation in Fallujah, where U.S. troops were still fighting insurgents.

    "It's clearly recognized that people in combat situations are under enormous strain," international Red Cross spokesman Florian Westphal said in Geneva. "Obviously, we were not on the spot so we cannot judge the precise circumstances of what was being shown here."

    Westphal said the Geneva Conventions are clear: Protection of wounded combatants once they are out of action is an absolute requirement.

    However, the status of the wounded man was unclear. A different Marine unit had come under fire from the mosque on Friday. Those Marines stormed the building, killing 10 men and wounding five, according to Sites. He said Marines treated the wounded and left them.

    The same five men were in the mosque Saturday when Marines from another unit arrived. Westphal said he couldn't say for sure from NBC's account whether the man was a prisoner.

    Heyman said there is a danger that a wounded enemy may try to detonate a hidden firearm or a grenade, and if the man made the slightest move "in my estimation they would be justified in shooting him."
There is no way to know if the man was "hors de combat" considering that insurgents have faked injury or surrender in order to fire on US troops. If it turns out that the man was unarmed and not a threat, the marine made an unfortunate decision. But then, barring evidence that changes the circumstances, the issue becomes his judgment in a dangerous situation with little time to react, similar to a cop shooting a suspect who turned out to be reaching for his wallet and not a gun.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1391/1528
EXP: 4060641
For next: 130507

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2775 days
Last activity: 2618 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 17.11.04 0011.20
Reposted on: 17.11.11 0011.54
Guru,

Does the Geneva convention apply to these irregulars?

Secondly, plenty of stories have surfaced about the insurgents playing dead, then shooting Americans, and of bodies wired with bombs. SlipperyPete posts the relevant facts above. Do you want to tell this kid's parents that he was shot by a terrorist playing possum, all in the name of a convention that they've likely never heard of, and will never abide by? This man was no innocent.

(edited by PalpatineW on 17.11.04 0112)
Merc
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 273/680
EXP: 1205457
For next: 28420

Since: 3.1.02
From: Brisbane, Australia

Since last post: 1234 days
Last activity: 1212 days
#9 Posted on 17.11.04 0350.54
Reposted on: 17.11.11 0351.31
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Do you want to tell this kid's parents that he was shot by a terrorist playing possum, all in the name of a convention that they've likely never heard of, and will never abide by? This man was no innocent.

There's a whole lot of supposition going on in those 2 sentences. What I saw on TV looked BAD. Especially when they took another guy who "surrendered" 10 feet away.
The one thing I don't get in all of it, is why the first Marines/whoever to go through the site apparently fought the Iraqis and left them there after patching them up. And if they did, couldn't they get a message to the following units that they had patched up however many fighters and taken their weapons or something like that?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 4306/4700
EXP: 21451628
For next: 385034

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1214 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#10 Posted on 17.11.04 0628.12
Reposted on: 17.11.11 0629.01
    Originally posted by Merc
    What I saw on TV looked BAD.
That's the biggest problem right now. It was on TV with no context whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is that we do not know the situation. There is no context.

If the Marine in question openly killed a wounded soldier in cold blood, he will be court martialed. But I don't think this is as cut and dry as the media is trying to make it out to be.

But at least this is more relavant than the picture of the Marine smoking...
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 2180/6261
EXP: 32666849
For next: 619638

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#11 Posted on 17.11.04 0810.32
Reposted on: 17.11.11 0815.55
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Guru,

    Does the Geneva convention apply to these irregulars?


I believe that any person that takes up arms against another nation's forces are protected, if they are actually in a military unit themselves or not.

However, if I am wrong about that, then this is obviously something that MAY be considered a "war crime".

Either way, makes the guys over there look like crap.
wordlife
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 293/324
EXP: 376389
For next: 28386

Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3307 days
Last activity: 2591 days
#12 Posted on 17.11.04 0847.45
Reposted on: 17.11.11 0848.16
From what I have heard, there is an unedited copy of this tape where after the guy shoots the insurgent, they go over and tend to someone who is truly wounded. The soldier who did it felt the guy was a threat and had a weapon, so he made a decision. Maybe it wasn't the right decision, but I can say that I probably would have acted in the same manner, it's kill or be killed and he preserved his life.

Stagger can probably attest to this better than I will EVER be able to, but war is hell. Our troops know that these people have played coy and detonated themselves. As stated earlier, this happened to one of this guy's battalion members the day before.

This is one of our problems with a war like this, is that we follow the Geneva Convention while our enemy does not.

I really feel bad for the guys over there, like Stagger said they are being made to look like crap while they are over there risking their lives everyday.
Oliver
Scrapple
Level: 126

Posts: 1047/4918
EXP: 23015307
For next: 68860

Since: 20.6.02
From: #YEG

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on 17.11.04 1001.38
Reposted on: 17.11.11 1003.16
Funny, hearing political correctness and the Geneva convention mentioned, concerning a war that wasnt' even sanctioned by the UN.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: It's Rossi, by 0.0093%
Next thread: Beginning of the end?
Previous thread: Tom Ridge, heading out as well....
(493 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Marine shoots unarmed Iraqi? Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.169 seconds.