Marine accused of wrongful shooting needs our help...

"oh, and that "right" he has...it's one of the ones guaranteed by the First Amendment... ;-)"

that does not mean he HAD to release it; responsibility, prudential judgment come into force.

since he DID release it, knowing or anticipating its shocking and inflammatory effect -- HIS motives and -- dare I say: AGENDA -- are fair game. Esp. NOW - to the extent that the video is still being played/discussed here or anywhere else in the world -- i.e. still actively doing damage to the reputation of the Marines and the way our forces conduct war.

The mistake "we" made in the VN era was letting the libs and media get away with thinking that they were righteous, on the right side, and that they "won". Well. WE aren't going to LET the argument of "freedom of the press" turn into disparaging our servicemen and losing the war THIS time. We KNOW better. We are not going to take away freedom of the press, but . . .

How about adding to that "freedom of the press" also RESPONSIBILITY of the press? If they tell a selective few facts, it is fair game that we demand "the rest of the story." If they are not going to make RESPONSIBLE use of the data the military allows them to collect, i.e. reasonable prudence, self-censorship (which we ALL engage in every day in life) THEN they will have to be denied real-time info. and given reports after the info. cannot cause unnecessary HARM.

Re: "Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall"

The discussion we had at CGSC in the 80s included updating with data from the VN war. Wish I could remember more of the details. It hasn't come up much in the past 20 years! ;)

Yes, when NOT to fire too; that is also trained; but that was not the problem in that there was too MUCH hesitancy to fire.

Re: releasing the video

If the point was to investigate it, as you and I would desire, that was happening; the tape did not need to be released for that. The Marines had pulled the unit and were investigating in his original report with the video.

SO since that goal was accomplished, what OTHER goal could be accomplished BY releasing the tape? Confusing the American public who does not still have enough info. to judge properly? OR advancing Sites' agenda as outlined on his Blog? Hmmm?

re: "(the Marines had already shot up unarmed men that had surrendered) "

still confusing in my mind; HOWEVER:

Statement to be issued to the world by the DoD:

we are humane, etc. and follow rules of warfare and etc.
HOWEVER OUR ENEMY DOES NOT. IF the enemy did not VIOLATE THE RULES OF WAR by boobytrapping bodies, pretending to surrender ,etc. , , , our forces would not HAVE to reshoot the dead to make sure they are really dead, etc.

We play by higher standards than the terrorists do; HOWEVER, this is one area where the forces CANNOT do otherwise than protect themselves AS LONG AS THE TERRORISTS USE THESE ILLEGAL TRICKS.

end of controversy

Thank you also for your thoughtful commentary.

And I thought I was done with this episode! ;)

I have to prepare for a long period out of town, so I won't reply in detail, but I want to say that I agree that responsibility is required, but I don't think Sites was out of bounds. I blame the network's editing. Funny thing is, yesterday, I typed up a statement that should be our response (but didn't post it), and it's very similar to yours.

I think another mistake made in the VN era was fighting militarily, but losing politically. We have to be more aggressive in fighting the latter. Thus, our actions shouldn't let anyone say we are suppressing negative information.

Re: S.L.A. Marshall, there are some books out recently that deal with the topic, including how "video game warfare" might change (increase) troops' willingness to use deadly force. (Certainly, though, house to house isn't "video game warfare.") I haven't read them, but my brother has. Now I wish I'd asked more about them!

If the point was to investigate it, as you and I would desire, that was happening; the tape did not need to be released for that.

I think that there is ample evidence that in the absence of oversight, many people and groups do not investigate as thoroughly. This isn't to question our Marines specifically, but just an observation on human and institutional nature. The video needed to be released, IMHO. But I can understand not everyone agrees.

"The video needed to be released, IMHO. "

I guess you mean based on other words in this post, that it should have been released as a different, more complete version of the video. However, that did not happen. So I think we have to make media responsibility an issue. Somehow. Take the initiative ;) and not just sit back and react to "negative information" when it hits the fan -- in an incomplete and, ergo, biased manner.

IMHO it should not have been released until there could be a complete explanation and response, and in a responsible manner which would not inflame the Middle East; i.e. after the investigation, when the true sequence of events is discovered, and the appropriate actions taken. BUT the media wouldn't want to give the military a chance to get the information or clean up their act before going public, and that is the problem with this video.

In the mean time, maybe releasing our statement(s) would help! ;)

I know they cannot comment on the investigation. But can't they issue a statement of the rules of engagement that are given to the troops? I know it is "weapons free", but that only means you can shoot at a perceived threat; it does not mean gunning down innocents, as some people seem to think. They SHOULD say loud and clear, in an OFFICIAL statement, THESE are the violations of humane behavior and the laws of warfare committed by the enemy. And this is the reasoned and logical response a b c etc.

OR is it like the Bush campaign leaving the Kerry stuff to the Swifties, and the Guard memos to Buckhead, FR, etc.?

As for oversight, the problem is that the audience of TV viewers is not QUALIFIED to exert that oversight, not knowing enough details. So this is not the WAY to exercise oversight: in response to an emotionally-charge TV story. That is the WRONG way to get objective analysis -- at least from THIS media. Esp. when said video is INLAMMATORY in the Arab territories, and hence doing MORE HARM than the amount of good it is contributing to oversight.

Like swatting a fly with an M-1 tank. or something.

Re: video games; I have heard of studies that the video games desensitize as much as military training; however, not all these kids are going to join the Marines, and don't all need to be desensitized! They (kids playing violent video games) are not even getting trained on the rules of engagement, Geneva conv. etc. -- before they go out an kill a cop or something. So civilian use of such violent methods is not warranted because it could desensitize the kids -- that is the conclusion I heard.

Have a safe trip. BTW maybe some posters on FR think you are on the side of the devil because you play the devil's advocate so convincingly! ;)

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.