Haditha Marines you can do so by going to these sites.
Posted on 05/13/2007 10:50:11 PM PDT by ScaniaBoy
Hiya, Justa. Congressman murtha is a lying sack of (you fill in the appropriate term). That cannot be said loud enough or often enough.
The marines had just experienced an IED and a dead buddy, they then had 2 events take place:
1. Received fire from building to one side,
2. Car raced up from another.
The photo of the dead from the car shows them all on one side of the car, as if they’d piled out and gone to that one side for cover.
It is a rule of war that you don’t let yourself be flanked so the enemy can fire on you from both front and flank. That’s what these Marines were facing, and it is why those men from the car had to neutralized.
Bum for the Truth !!
Thanks for the ping.
Yes, indeed...insurgents were killed at Haditha.
I pretty much agree. The bigger problems are the civilians killed in the houses.
I agree, that is a big problem.
Question: Being a young girl has admitted that she was aware that an IED would be detonated, under the UCMJ can every person that was in the home be considered to be an insurgent or a collaborator?
Nope. Under Geneva 4 (to which the US is a signatory), collective punishments and all other punishments for offenses they did not personally commit are expressly forbidden.
Practically, such a reprisal is a bad idea anyway. The Army Counterinsurgency manual (FMI 3-07.22, the magnum opus of Gen. Patraeus) observes
The proper application of force is a critical component to any successful counterinsurgency operation. In a counterinsurgency, the center of gravity is public support. In order to defeat an insurgent force, US forces must be able to separate insurgents from the population. At the same time, US forces must conduct themselves in a manner that enables them to maintain popular domestic support. Excessive or indiscriminant use of force is likely to alienate the local populace, thereby increasing support for insurgent forces. Insufficient use of force results in increased risks to US and multinational forces and perceived weaknesses that can jeopardize the mission by emboldening insurgents and undermining domestic popular support. Achieving the appropriate balance requires a thorough understanding of the nature and causes of the insurgency, the end state, and the military’s role in a counterinsurgency operation. Nevertheless, US forces always retain the right to use necessary and proportional force for individual and unit self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.
Jude24, Good to see you here again!
I would say the taxi occupants would definitely be perceived as a threat, given:
a. A huge IED (rattled windows/walls 2-3 km away at their FOB)had just blown a vehicle apart killing one and wounding two
b. All occupants were military aged males
c. They stopped between the IED and where shots were thought to be coming from.
d. They exited the car
e. What happened after this depends on whether one believes Wuterich or Dela Cruz. Wuterich says he shot them after ordering them to stop, but they ran instead. Dela Cruz says they were shot after surrendering. Dela Cruz has given a variety of stories about the taxi incident. Wuterich has given one that we know of, and has not been cross-examined in a hearing as of yet.
Proving they were insurgents would just be the nail in the coffin at this point. I agree with Just a Nobody, if our Marines are going to be called cold-blooded murderers, I say we call these guys insurgents. Just seems fair. :-)
Thanks, jude. There has been much talk of this on many threads and I was curious as to the actual legalities.
I would have to infer, based upon that information, that had the Haditha Marines only shot the occupants of the vehicle, suspecting them to be insurgents, they would not be facing prosecution. What caught the eye of the NCIS, the JAGs, and (most unfortunately) Congressman Murtha, was the homicides in the houses. The Marines will have to convince a jury that those killings were reasonable. They face an uphill battle on that argument. It's winnable, but going to be tough.
It depends. It's not likely the Marines were aware of who knew what, so this would be irrelevant. Arguing that the occupants knew the IED was going to explode, and so they were legitimate targets won't get them anywhere under Geneva IV. What the Marines need to show is that they reasonably believed at the time that the occupants of the house presented a threat themselves.
It's not unusual for civilians to know what insurgents are up to, since the line between insurgent and civilian is fuzzy to start with (insurgency is, by definition, a civilian resistance). One of the warning signs that an IED is around is an absence of civilians nearby. The problem is that the civilians, whether because of conflicted loyalties or fear, are unwilling or unable to warn the American or Iraqi forces of impending attacks.
And that's no problem if they were receiving fire from any of that row of houses. An infantry troop who wants to live doesn't knock on the front door and ask "Are there any civilian garbed enemy in here?"
Obviously, for anyone who knows Geneva/Hague conventions, the blame for all of this rests with those who dress as civilians and fight amongst them. The requirement for forces to wear identifying uniforms or insignia is a legal measure by nations to protect civilians. I taught any number of classes on battlefield ethics for the Army, and I'm sure of this one.
If there was EVEN ONE civilian-garbed enemy, then this entire case should be thrown out. It's not reasonable to ask soldiers to distinguish in the heat of battle between civilian-garbed enemy and civilian-garbed civilians. That was the POINT of that Geneva protocol.
The culprits in the killing of the civilians were the INSURGENTS, who intentionally violated the safety of those civilians.
Makes sense on the checkpoint mistakes.
When it comes to the houses,
a. Cpl Salinas said he saw muzzle flashes, possibly a person firing, as well.
b. Lt. Kallop ordered a team to take the house
c. The Marines training for clearing a house, especially if you think you hear an AK-47 being ratcheted, is to throw in grenades and enter the room firing multiple rounds. (Best I can tell after doing a litte reading).
d. They entered the second house after seeing an open door from the first house which lead directly to the second house (thinking that’s where the insurgents(s) had gone.
e. Capt. Dinsmore testified that “it’s fairly well established through the (unmanned aerial vehicle) coverage that there were insurgents in those homes.” - I don’t know if he specifically meant the 1st and 2nd houses.
Assuming these facts are true, clearing the first house seems also quite reasonable.
d. They entered the second house after seeing an open door from the first house which lead directly to the second house (thinking that’s where the insurgents(s) had gone.
I think this is going to be the biggest problem. That may not be enough to justify the deaths of the civilian women and children in that house.
This case is, from start to finish, a mess. It's not cleanly for the defense or the prosecution. That should be expected, since the defendants seem to be, at worst, decent guys who screwed up big-time.
Last week, Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore, the intelligence officer for the battalion, testified that "it's fairly well established through the (unmanned aerial vehicle) coverage that there were insurgents in those homes," referring to the homes where civilians were killed.
Very interesting.
A woman survivor in the first house directed the Marines to the second house, indicating to them that that is where the terrorists had gone. One Marine remained to guard the woman, two Marines pursued into the second house.
Very good....;
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.