haditha

[BrockVond]

Thanks for the insight. It really wasn’t necessary however. I was just trying to give you a bit of insight into what my general feeling is on these subjects since you erroneously assumed it was impeachment.

I understand that. So if Marines murder innocent people and you think the leaders who put them there should be held accountable. What and who should be punished and how?

Simply because the political leadership created an environment where things like this can happen.

No. These marines are responsible for their actions. If they did what has been alleged, they are not marines, and perhaps never were.

No argument here. But Bush and Co. deserve a good measure of blame for a whole host of stupid decisions that have made incidents like this, or the more mundane accidental shooting of civilians that were thought to be insurgents, just about inevitable.

I would agree, normally. This episode, if true, goes far beyond what I would consider mundane.

[BrockVond]

thats fine. i say not holding the decision makers responsible is a cop out.

Do you ever place any blame on the terrorists or Saddam?

What terrorists? Current estimates suggest the insurgency numbers something like 20,000. Do you suggest they're all members of al-Qaeda?

Current estimates? Translation:sh*t guesses with political motivations at their core.

[BrockVond]

thats fine. i say not holding the decision makers responsible is a cop out.

Do you ever place any blame on the terrorists or Saddam?

What terrorists? Current estimates suggest the insurgency numbers something like 20,000. Do you suggest they're all members of al-Qaeda?

They're terrorists. No need to sugar coat it.

No doubt some are. No doubt some are just assholes taking advantage of the confusion. No doubt alot of them are just people who want foreigners off their soil and will do anything to make that happen.

I have doubt. I doubt that "a lot of them are just people who want foreigners off their soil." If a majority of the insurgency are not alquaeda, but just Iraqis opposed to US presence, then I say f*ck those saddamists and step into the sunlight so we can kill you the way we should have back in 89.

If someone invaded the US and you started building IEDs and taking pot shots at soldiers would you be a terrorist or just some poor slob who's trying to defend his home?

jesus f*cking christ. Let me know the next time you see "some poor slob" surrounding his well manicured fallujah lawn with IED's "to defend his home".

You don't defend your home by blowing up troop convoys on the road to baghdad airport.

[BigKahuna13]

Do you ever place any blame on the terrorists or Saddam?

What terrorists? Current estimates suggest the insurgency numbers something like 20,000. Do you suggest they're all members of al-Qaeda?

They're terrorists. No need to sugar coat it.

No doubt some are. No doubt some are just assholes taking advantage of the confusion. No doubt alot of them are just people who want foreigners off their soil and will do anything to make that happen.

I have doubt. I doubt that "a lot of them are just people who want foreigners off their soil." If a majority of the insurgency are not alquaeda, but just Iraqis opposed to US presence, then I say f*ck those saddamists and step into the sunlight so we can kill you the way we should have back in 89.

If someone invaded the US and you started building IEDs and taking pot shots at soldiers would you be a terrorist or just some poor slob who's trying to defend his home?

jesus f*cking christ. Let me know the next time you see "some poor slob" surrounding his well manicured fallujah lawn with IED's "to defend his home".

You don't defend your home by blowing up troop convoys on the road to baghdad airport.

I've heard numbers that went from a low of 10,000 (which I think is the number the U.S. government pushes) to a high of 30,000.
In any case, it's a large number and probably growing. It's stupid to assume they're all terrorists, which XJ and our government apparently do and which was - analogy aside - my point.

Seriously, even the French managed to put together some form of armed resistence against their German occupiers, why would anyone assume that Iraq is incapable of the same?

[XtremeJibber2001]

Seriously, even the French managed to put together some form of armed resistence against their German occupiers, why would anyone assume that Iraq is incapable of the same?

I see your point. This is my question.

Let's assume 20,000 'insurgents' is an accurate number. Let's also assume that 50% or 10,000 of these 'insurgents' are Iraqi's defending their homes because they would like the occupying to leave their country.

Why would 80-90% of these 'insurgents' that are not part of Al-Qaeda ... go into markets and plant IED's and car bombs that primarily kill their own people, not the 'occupying force'? The statistics speak for my point IMHO.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Hmm ... wonder what DMC and 2knees have to say now about this.

Funny Murtha publicly desecrated these Marines verbally and now the charges are dropped and he's silent .... what a disgrace.

WASHINGTON -- "Innocent until proven guilty" is a favorite, if sometimes ignored, American trope.

We are reminded of that once again with charges being dropped against two Marines in the so-called "Haditha Massacre" of November 2005. As well, we are reminded of the difficulty in applying civilian perceptions and standards to military conflict.

Murtha Has No Comment

Those exonerated, Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt and Capt. Randy W. Stone, were among eight (seven Marines and one sailor) charged in the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians after a roadside bomb had killed a Marine.

Sharratt, 21 at the time of the incident, was charged with three counts of unpremeditated murder and faced life imprisonment. Stone, a military attorney, was charged with two counts of dereliction of duty and one count of violating a lawful order for allegedly failing to properly investigate the killings.

Other Marines involved in the incident, including one charged with 13 counts of unpremeditated murder, are either awaiting hearings or dispensation of their cases.

Haditha is one of those wartime horror stories that rivets and divides nations. There's no question that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, were killed during what appears with hindsight -- and from the comfort of American living rooms -- to have been a gratuitous rampage.

Allegations also were made that the U.S. military tried to cover up the killings and mischaracterized them as collateral damage during the roadside bombing and ensuing skirmish, rather than as the result of a "shoot first, ask later" order.

From a civilian perspective, the case seemed clear-cut. How does one ever justify intentionally killing civilians? The answer is: We don't.

Americans struggle with the horror of civilian casualties, while insurgent and terrorist forces in Iraq devise ways to effect more, not fewer, civilian deaths. What we deplore -- and punish -- they celebrate. And replicate.

There is a difference, one that is both our strength and our weakness. Though some Americans, like other mortals, are capable of inhumanity, our national conscience compels us to examine the impulses that degrade our character and purpose.

Our attention to moral warfare -- always our goal, if not always met -- also nourishes our enemies, who suffer no such burden. They know that demoralization and flagging commitment tend to follow our moral introspection.

War does not become us.

We simply don't like killing as much as our enemies seem to, though you wouldn't know it to have read early reactions to Haditha. After Time magazine first reported the incident, sparking an investigation, other breathless stories followed that all but convicted the Marines of atrocities.

The perception of guilty-as-charged gained traction when former military men such as Rep. John Murtha, who served in the Marine Corps, said the Haditha Marines had killed civilians "in cold blood."

From video and photographs of unarmed families apparently killed at close range, it was easy to infer that we were witness to yet another My Lai-type massacre.

But did the Marines kill in cold blood? Or were they under fire from insurgents, some of whom hid among civilians in their homes, as the accused Marines claimed? Or were some guilty as charged and others not?

Those questions are being answered in part with the dropping of charges against Sharratt and Stone. Sharratt did kill three men, there's no dispute there. But he testified that he shot only after one of the men pointed a gun at him. Investigators apparently found his defense compelling.

Lt. Gen. James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force who decided against court-martialing Sharratt and Stone, wrote Sharratt explaining his decision. Noting the difficulties in applying civilian standards to military circumstances, he quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who served as an infantryman in the Civil War and described war as an "incommunicable experience."

Holmes also said that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Mattis was most eloquent in describing the unique challenges in Iraq, posed by "a shadowy enemy who hides among the innocent people, does not comply with any aspect of the law of war, and routinely targets and intentionally draws fire toward civilians."

"As you well know, the challenges of this combat environment put extreme pressures on you and your fellow Marines," Mattis wrote. "Operational, moral, and legal imperatives demand that we Marines stay true to our own standards and maintain compliance with the law of war in this morally bruising environment."

Other Haditha investigations may yet lead to findings of guilt in some cases. Meanwhile, second-guessing how Marines should act under hostile fire before the facts are known is not only unfair, but dishonors the immense courage required to survive in the midst of such an incommunicable experience.

[Bubba]

Hmm ... wonder what DMC and 2knees have to say now about this.

Funny Murtha publicly desecrated these Marines verbally and now the charges are dropped and he's silent .... what a disgrace.

WASHINGTON -- "Innocent until proven guilty" is a favorite, if sometimes ignored, American trope.

We are reminded of that once again with charges being dropped against two Marines in the so-called "Haditha Massacre" of November 2005. As well, we are reminded of the difficulty in applying civilian perceptions and standards to military conflict.

Murtha Has No Comment

Those exonerated, Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt and Capt. Randy W. Stone, were among eight (seven Marines and one sailor) charged in the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians after a roadside bomb had killed a Marine.

Sharratt, 21 at the time of the incident, was charged with three counts of unpremeditated murder and faced life imprisonment. Stone, a military attorney, was charged with two counts of dereliction of duty and one count of violating a lawful order for allegedly failing to properly investigate the killings.

Other Marines involved in the incident, including one charged with 13 counts of unpremeditated murder, are either awaiting hearings or dispensation of their cases.

Haditha is one of those wartime horror stories that rivets and divides nations. There's no question that Iraqi civilians, including women and children, were killed during what appears with hindsight -- and from the comfort of American living rooms -- to have been a gratuitous rampage.

Allegations also were made that the U.S. military tried to cover up the killings and mischaracterized them as collateral damage during the roadside bombing and ensuing skirmish, rather than as the result of a "shoot first, ask later" order.

From a civilian perspective, the case seemed clear-cut. How does one ever justify intentionally killing civilians? The answer is: We don't.

Americans struggle with the horror of civilian casualties, while insurgent and terrorist forces in Iraq devise ways to effect more, not fewer, civilian deaths. What we deplore -- and punish -- they celebrate. And replicate.

There is a difference, one that is both our strength and our weakness. Though some Americans, like other mortals, are capable of inhumanity, our national conscience compels us to examine the impulses that degrade our character and purpose.

Our attention to moral warfare -- always our goal, if not always met -- also nourishes our enemies, who suffer no such burden. They know that demoralization and flagging commitment tend to follow our moral introspection.

War does not become us.

We simply don't like killing as much as our enemies seem to, though you wouldn't know it to have read early reactions to Haditha. After Time magazine first reported the incident, sparking an investigation, other breathless stories followed that all but convicted the Marines of atrocities.

The perception of guilty-as-charged gained traction when former military men such as Rep. John Murtha, who served in the Marine Corps, said the Haditha Marines had killed civilians "in cold blood."

From video and photographs of unarmed families apparently killed at close range, it was easy to infer that we were witness to yet another My Lai-type massacre.

But did the Marines kill in cold blood? Or were they under fire from insurgents, some of whom hid among civilians in their homes, as the accused Marines claimed? Or were some guilty as charged and others not?

Those questions are being answered in part with the dropping of charges against Sharratt and Stone. Sharratt did kill three men, there's no dispute there. But he testified that he shot only after one of the men pointed a gun at him. Investigators apparently found his defense compelling.

Lt. Gen. James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force who decided against court-martialing Sharratt and Stone, wrote Sharratt explaining his decision. Noting the difficulties in applying civilian standards to military circumstances, he quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who served as an infantryman in the Civil War and described war as an "incommunicable experience."

Holmes also said that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Mattis was most eloquent in describing the unique challenges in Iraq, posed by "a shadowy enemy who hides among the innocent people, does not comply with any aspect of the law of war, and routinely targets and intentionally draws fire toward civilians."

"As you well know, the challenges of this combat environment put extreme pressures on you and your fellow Marines," Mattis wrote. "Operational, moral, and legal imperatives demand that we Marines stay true to our own standards and maintain compliance with the law of war in this morally bruising environment."

Other Haditha investigations may yet lead to findings of guilt in some cases. Meanwhile, second-guessing how Marines should act under hostile fire before the facts are known is not only unfair, but dishonors the immense courage required to survive in the midst of such an incommunicable experience.

I'm sorry....source for the article? Time it was posted, if any? And, in deference to Cong. Murtha, did the writer even ask Murtha for comment? Congress is in recess I believe, so he may not even be in Washington at the moment.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I'm sorry....source for the article? Time it was posted, if any? And, in deference to Cong. Murtha, did the writer even ask Murtha for comment? Congress is in recess I believe, so he may not even be in Washington at the moment.

Can't find the original, here is the reuters article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 3920070809

This is a bit dated, but still relevant.

The head of the U.S. Marine Corps briefed Rep. John Murtha on the Haditha case after the vocal war critic publicly said Marines had killed innocent civilians in that Iraqi city, the Corps said on Thursday...

Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He (Murtha) had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians.

But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha. Murtha had made comments on the case as early as May 17.

On May 17, for example, he said at a news conference, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

A spokeswoman for Murtha was not immediately available.

We'll see if he apologizes, but lets not hold our breath. Obama made the same claim ...

[Bubba]

Most reputable writers would write something like the following:

Congressman Murtha was not available for comment (if they asked but couldn't get hold of him) or Congressman Murtha was asked for comment but declined (if they, in fact, asked for a response and didn't get one).

The way the posted article was written leaves one wondering if the writer asked at all.

The Reuters article is straightforward; I have no problem with it. Maybe you should've posted the news instead of the obviously biased story/editorial/commentary?

[2knees]

Hmm ... wonder what DMC and 2knees have to say now about this.

I'd say you still have no grasp of what i was yelling about.

even a year later.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Hmm ... wonder what DMC and 2knees have to say now about this.

I'd say you still have no grasp of what i was yelling about.

even a year later.

I'll be honest, all I looked at was this post:

this is what happens when misguided american policy is put into play. It is our My Lai. it is our burden. f*** you idiots who think this is a war worth fighting. f*** you assholes who blame the marines who may or may not have pulled the trigger. f*** you to all you so called americans who can not see the whole picture. Our so called leaders sent children into a no win situation AGAIN. WTF assholes. wakeup. it's time to change our course.

Your guilty until proven innocent tone is overwhelmingly obvious .... that's why I wondered how you feel now that charges are being dropped on these Marines.

[2knees]

what part of "may or may not have pulled the trigger" conveys a guilty before proven innocent tone?


I dont have anymore tickets to ride your assinine merry-go-round kid.

[XtremeJibber2001]

what part of "may or may not have pulled the trigger" conveys a guilty before proven innocent tone?


I dont have anymore tickets to ride your assinine merry-go-round kid.

You compared the Haditha incident to My Lai, essentially saying the Marines are guilty of atrocities (just like the US Army did in Vietnam) .... perhaps that's not what you intended, but when you say "It is our My Lai", that's how it reads.

In addition, you seem to believe our foreign policy forced these Marines to pull the trigger ... undoubtedly some odd attempt to place blame on the Administration instead of the Marines.

Oh well, today we find that the soldiers are innocent, although the tone of your post seems to indicate that you believe the Marines pulled the trigger and the Administration should be held accountable.

If that's not the big picture you were talking about, I'm not sure what is.

[BrockVond]

Hmm ... wonder what DMC and 2knees have to say now about this.

I'd say you still have no grasp of what i was yelling about.

even a year later.

I'll be honest, all I looked at was this post:

It is our My Lai. it is our burden. f*** you idiots who think this is a war worth fighting. f*** you assholes who blame the marines who may or may not have pulled the trigger. f*** you to all you so called americans who can not see the whole picture. Our so called leaders sent children into a no win situation AGAIN. WTF assholes
.

Your guilty until proven innocent tone is overwhelmingly obvious .... that's why I wondered how you feel now that charges are being dropped on these Marines.

Point taken. The idiotic refrain: "It is our My Lai", assumes guilt.

The investigation continues, even to this day. I hope Wuterich has said his prayers.

What seems apparent is that :
1) Atrocities occurred at Haditha.
2) said atrocities were committed by american forces
3) the investigation continues. Some individuals suspected at inception are cleared, while others (Mr. Wuterich) become the focus.

btw, Murtha has nothing to apologize for.

[2knees]

what part of "may or may not have pulled the trigger" conveys a guilty before proven innocent tone?


I dont have anymore tickets to ride your assinine merry-go-round kid.

You compared the Haditha incident to My Lai, essentially saying the Marines are guilty of atrocities (just like the US Army did in Vietnam) .... perhaps that's not what you intended, but when you say "It is our My Lai", that's how it reads.

In addition, you seem to believe our foreign policy forced these Marines to pull the trigger ... undoubtedly some odd attempt to place blame on the Administration instead of the Marines.

Oh well, today we find that the soldiers are innocent, although the tone of your post seems to indicate that you believe the Marines pulled the trigger and the Administration should be held accountable.

If that's not the big picture you were talking about, I'm not sure what is.

i musta found a ticket somewhere.

Thanks for the laugh, Barry