US Marines expected to be charged with Haditha war atrocities

Pat McCrotch wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: First, if I could ask that when typing Marines that you capatalize the "M". I appreciate the courtesy.

JHC

Would you prefer I just call them jarheads?

just like God?

Doctor? wrote: we had the same thing here in terms of shooting out cars at roadblocks. the way I see it, if someone says (or implies by the presence of a roadblock) "stop or i will shoot", and you choose to be shot it's yer own fault.

Having said that, all Armies have their share of bloodthirsty dickheads.

I completely agree with the roadblocks. . .but when something high profile happens over there that would evoke mass media attention, the highers throw out more rules and regulations.

I understand that the civilian population can see many of us as "bloodthirsty". In 9 years and many different operations, and units, I have yet to meet anyone that is bloodthirsty, not to say they don't exist, but it's an image-thing.

What could lead these Marines to such actions can be complicated. Here are some of the things they are up against:

• The fog of war - a term to describe the confusion that happens during war. This can be failure of comm equipment, lack of intel, bullets being fired from many directions, being tired, etc.

• Mass amounts of patrols. Most patrols are done on foot. Imagine walking for 3 hours with 50lbs on your back,constantly being alert for any enemy or IED in the area. It gets tiring, and sometimes there is a lack of sleep involved.

• Anger - due to loss of buddies, killed by the enemy.

• Constantly surrounded by death/injuries - After a long time of being surrounded by this, there starts to be a mentality that you could and will die at any moment. You lack the care and the normal fear of death. You feel that you won't ever come home, and change to a different person.
  the more deployments that one goes on the less toll this takes on the individual, but first deployment military members get effected by this substantially.

• Everyone looks the same,and all the Iraqi civilians are being decpetive. It builds to a lack of trust and a division between the civilians and the military.

• There are so many rules that it has become more burdensome to accomplish the mission.

• The simple becomes difficult. This is the course when a skirmish ensues, and trying accomplish many life-important decisions all within a few seconds. . .add more rules and it makes it even more so.

• We are trying to act like a police force within a war. There have become so many rules that we have to spend time investigating, CSI style. Time that could be used more efficiantly towards the war.

• The enemy has no rules. While we are burdening ourselves with Genevea Conconvention rules, rules to appease the press and the world, the enemy is not doing so. It hurts us in two ways:

1. The enemy looks more terrible in the press, which aides to thier cause.
2. They can move about and use thier time more efficently to thier cause.

• Alot of the press have thier own selfish careers or agenda in how they report then to give the cold hard facts.

• Many 18 - 22 yearolds are making decisions that are on the world's microscope. Imagine if all your decisions held world-politics in the balance at that age.

There are other things as well. My main point is that these Marines might have caused an autrocity, but there is alot more leading up to it than a casual murder.

We have training, assistance, etc. in place to help us through these things. . .but training and real life are two different animals.

JHC

Maybe...

My grandfather did his life in the army. When it turned to a professional army (by 1996), he told me that it was not a good idea. He said that it was better to keep appelés ("called" I do not know the word in English to name the ones who do their national service) within it. In his idea, professionals drill and drill whereas the others are here for a shorter time term, having another state of mind, the ones of the outside of the barracks. They do not have this will to shoot at once even if they are the first to be out of ammunitions when shooting is needed...

So after this little, erm, foreword, don't you think that too many people in professional armies are here to be a soldier, an hero ? I do not know if I express myself clear. It is quite a romantic way of thinking... Be one of the ones who landed on Normandy's beaches, Guadalcanal, the battle of the Ardennes rather than being a policeman in a crazy place ? In my opinion there is a need to face the fact that, in matters of military actions, the invasion of Iraq was more a trip comparing to a campaign with all kind of embushes on the way... Where was the third more powerful army ? Where were the aircrafts ? Navy ? Tanks ? And so on ? How many times the soldiers of the coalition faced Iraqi soldiers, in a wartime action ? In a few weeks time, the allied found themselves in the city centre of Baghdad... And no warm welcoming like on Broadway... Meanwhile in this short period of time, the Iraqi may have lost their pride because, even if they disagreed with Saddam Hussein, they realised that their army was shit and that their country capitulated in a while. In this situation, you find yourself in a position of some kind of occupying "colonialist" army which has already bombed some places around before (a plus for logistics I guess). Then, the ennemy becomes invisible - which was almost already the case with Iraqi's army, which is translated by more stress. He is not in a uniform and with a helmet warning you that he is around...

So it leads me to conclude that a lot of soldiers there live in a state of anger on one hand and nonstop fear on the other. They must feel undesigned for the job, also disappointed by it... Also... the fact that when some soldiers of the coalition are killed, there is no way of having an eye-to-eye response because the ennemy does not play with the same rules : the military ones.

Easy to understand that some may have a heavy finger on the trigger...

It is only a point of view and you can laugh at me because I never found myself in these situations.

Jify, Wrote up something and the damn thing disappeared on me. Have to go to bed, but I'll get back to you tommorrow.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Doctor? wrote: we had the same thing here in terms of shooting out cars at roadblocks. the way I see it, if someone says (or implies by the presence of a roadblock) "stop or i will shoot", and you choose to be shot it's yer own fault.

Having said that, all Armies have their share of bloodthirsty dickheads.

I completely agree with the roadblocks. . .but when something high profile happens over there that would evoke mass media attention, the highers throw out more rules and regulations.

I understand that the civilian population can see many of us as "bloodthirsty". In 9 years and many different operations, and units, I have yet to meet anyone that is bloodthirsty, not to say they don't exist, but it's an image-thing.

What could lead these Marines to such actions can be complicated. Here are some of the things they are up against:

• The fog of war - a term to describe the confusion that happens during war. This can be failure of comm equipment, lack of intel, bullets being fired from many directions, being tired, etc.

• Mass amounts of patrols. Most patrols are done on foot. Imagine walking for 3 hours with 50lbs on your back,constantly being alert for any enemy or IED in the area. It gets tiring, and sometimes there is a lack of sleep involved.

• Anger - due to loss of buddies, killed by the enemy.

• Constantly surrounded by death/injuries - After a long time of being surrounded by this, there starts to be a mentality that you could and will die at any moment. You lack the care and the normal fear of death. You feel that you won't ever come home, and change to a different person.
  the more deployments that one goes on the less toll this takes on the individual, but first deployment military members get effected by this substantially.

• Everyone looks the same,and all the Iraqi civilians are being decpetive. It builds to a lack of trust and a division between the civilians and the military.

• There are so many rules that it has become more burdensome to accomplish the mission.

• The simple becomes difficult. This is the course when a skirmish ensues, and trying accomplish many life-important decisions all within a few seconds. . .add more rules and it makes it even more so.

• We are trying to act like a police force within a war. There have become so many rules that we have to spend time investigating, CSI style. Time that could be used more efficiantly towards the war.

• The enemy has no rules. While we are burdening ourselves with Genevea Conconvention rules, rules to appease the press and the world, the enemy is not doing so. It hurts us in two ways:

1. The enemy looks more terrible in the press, which aides to thier cause.
2. They can move about and use thier time more efficently to thier cause.

• Alot of the press have thier own selfish careers or agenda in how they report then to give the cold hard facts.

• Many 18 - 22 yearolds are making decisions that are on the world's microscope. Imagine if all your decisions held world-politics in the balance at that age.

There are other things as well. My main point is that these Marines might have caused an autrocity, but there is alot more leading up to it than a casual murder.

We have training, assistance, etc. in place to help us through these things. . .but training and real life are two different animals.

JHC

Fook's sake, they fookin' gang-raped some poor woman before killing her, apparently. How does any of this tripe account for that?

These Marines are un-American. They've brought shame on America, and have done more damage to this country than any anarchist flag-burner could ever have hoped to have done.

I spent a little time watching telly today...

Enough to see the images of this affair. Well, a bit shameful to talk frankly...

Funny, after that, I watched a programm about the battle of Sedan (1871). That was the first time that the Red Cross was involved in a war and that the Geneva agreements were to be the new rules of a new kind of war...

Then, a bit confusing when you have seen the pictures of Haditha... and the way the US general said that the soldiers were not guilty...

1. The soldiers should be charged with something...
2. The general deserves the guillotine for what he has said. His behaviour is a motorway to impunity...

Digital Mike Binoshed wrote: I wanna see BUSH charged with crimes against Humanity

what are you talking about? he has god on his side!

and as for this turning into another vietnam: it very well may be. keep in mind that it took several years before vietnam became a major conflict. the first few years had minimal (i use that word loosely) combat causalties, and then it all went to hell. plus, as i said before, it's extremely difficult to defeat guerrillas. especially on their own territory.

You better stow that attitude Christie or you'll be waiting for NO to announce their Cuban Dates.

Tis true what was said above tho...shooting up a car coming at a roadblock is just darwinism, you;ve removed some fucking morons from the world....gang rape? SLIGHTLY harder to explain away. Can you imagine if one of those "filthy iraqis" gang rape a Marine LOL....fuckwitt would nuke the place.

I suppose americans are just worth more eh?

PS...as far as I am aware, neither the USA nor UK are actually signatories to the Geneva convention...leaving them free to ignore it while contantly yipyapping about others violations of it.

AgentWood wrote: what are you talking about? he has god on his side!

this old man should change his glasses...

Doctor? wrote: PS...as far as I am aware, neither the USA nor UK are actually signatories to the Geneva convention...leaving them free to ignore it while contantly yipyapping about others violations of it.

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

Actually, that is incorrect. By all legalities, Genevea Convention rules do not apply to terrorists or insurgents. The rules apply to national armies.

Jiphy wrote: Then, a bit confusing when you have seen the pictures of Haditha... and the way the US general said that the soldiers were not guilty...

1. The soldiers should be charged with something...
2. The general deserves the guillotine for what he has said. His behaviour is a motorway to impunity...

Jiphy, A general's position is highly political. For him to stand out on the limb like this is not usual, and could cost him his career if proven incorrect.

I was not aware of the rape portion, as the news I saw on this was a couple days ago and did not include this. If this is true, than it is a sad day. (I had more to say on your other post, but it would get lost amongst the rest of this stuff)

Before everyone does jump to conclusions we do have to take in account the source. The Iraqi Press does not have the best credibility. Hell, all press for that matter doesn't. I've seen firsthand how the press can twist things around for certian career advancements and political stances. I'd wait for the trial to happen before jumping to conclusions.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

Actually, that is incorrect. By all legalities, Genevea Convention rules do not apply to terrorists or insurgents. The rules apply to national armies.

WRONG!.. The term 'terrorist' was not generally used in 1950 when the Convention was last revised. It refers to treatment of prisoners of war, and doesnt specify. If such a distinction was made you could class anyone as a terrorist and treat them like shit. Don't forget no one person in Guantanamo Bay has been charged with anything, so classifying them as terrorists four years on, is a bit rich. If the camp was on US soil, the UN would have gone crazy by now. Its been a long standing US policy to move 'suspects' to countries not recognising the Geneva Convention, in order presumably to 'extricate' information from them by dubious means. Shamefully the Blair administration supports this policy too.

Perhaps this is where the US Marines are going wrong; they are classifying Iraqis as insurgents and terrorists and paying scant regard to the Convention. The amazing thing is, is that the US are the invading force. You can hardly blame them for being insurgent can you?

Weren't the people killed and tortured civilians?

Cath wrote: Weren't the people killed and tortured civilians?

Certainly were, as far as we know. Mebbe they were insurgent civilians. Mebbe they shouted nasty words at the invading Marines.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Cath wrote: Weren't the people killed and tortured civilians?

Certainly were, as far as we know. Mebbe they were insurgent civilians. Mebbe they shouted nasty words at the invading Marines.[/quote

People sitting in ther homes praying aren't insurgents.

There's no excuse for what occured.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Doctor? wrote: PS...as far as I am aware, neither the USA nor UK are actually signatories to the Geneva convention...leaving them free to ignore it while contantly yipyapping about others violations of it.

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

guantanamo bay is american soil. it was sold to the US and cuba has no jurisdiction over the land.

Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

AgentWood wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Doctor? wrote: PS...as far as I am aware, neither the USA nor UK are actually signatories to the Geneva convention...leaving them free to ignore it while contantly yipyapping about others violations of it.

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

guantanamo bay is american soil. it was sold to the US and cuba has no jurisdiction over the land.

A) cath: fix your post! B) Guantanamo is a perpetual lease from Cuba, and the U.S. has complete jurisdiction and control of the base, but ultimately it is under Cuban sovereignty.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

The Bush regime argues that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to the prisoners because they're illegal combatants. The Bush regime has also argued somewhat less successfully that the prisoners have no constitutional rights.

Yep, they're stuffed, just like democracy in the United States.

United States of America, 1776-2001, R.I.P.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

do you think they wouldn't be stuffed if they were considered terrorist suspects held in a supermax in the US? i think not!

AgentWood wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

do you think they wouldn't be stuffed if they were considered terrorist suspects held in a supermax in the US? i think not!

Aye. The good thing about democracy is that you have to eventually charge people with a crime. That would actually be enforced in a a supermax. When you are held in Cuba, who gives a fuck about rights?

The Brit detainees that finally got sent home last year, after much pressure from the UK, are now regarded as clinically insane, following their ordeal. They were released, without charge.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Aye. The good thing about democracy is that you have to eventually charge people with a crime. That would actually be enforced in a a supermax. When you are held in Cuba, who gives a fuck about rights?

israel is a democracy (technically), but palestinians can be held for an indefinite period without being charged with a crime.

and, i believe, the bush administration is planning on eroding the right to due process as part of the homeland security act. fun, fun, fun.

cath, you chicken.

ghost rider wrote: cath, you chicken.

balk balk

chicken

Burt Reynolds wrote:

WRONG!.. The term 'terrorist' was not generally used in 1950 when the Convention was last revised. It refers to treatment of prisoners of war, and doesnt specify. If such a distinction was made you could class anyone as a terrorist and treat them like shit. Don't forget no one person in Guantanamo Bay has been charged with anything, so classifying them as terrorists four years on, is a bit rich. If the camp was on US soil, the UN would have gone crazy by now. Its been a long standing US policy to move 'suspects' to countries not recognising the Geneva Convention, in order presumably to 'extricate' information from them by dubious means. Shamefully the Blair administration supports this policy too.

Perhaps this is where the US Marines are going wrong; they are classifying Iraqis as insurgents and terrorists and paying scant regard to the Convention.

Burt,

Your point might be correct about Cuba, but alot of it I think has to do with "out of sight out of mind".

The Genevea Convention rules state that they apply if they are a prisoner of war (WAR being the key word). A couple things on why that one word is so important:

1. Wars are only between two or more acknowledged countries, which have their own standing armies with specific uniforms.

2. The war in Iraq officially ended the day Bush was on the carrier and stated "we won the war in Iraq". It is no longer a war, but an occupation.

Terrorists and insurgents do not fight for any recognized country. They do not, by legalities, fall under the rights of the Genevea Convention.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: Terrorists and insurgents do not fight for any recognized country. They do not, by legalities, fall under the rights of the Genevea Convention.

JHC

Yes until the day when...

Last time that my country was occupied, Nazis used to say, according to the Genova Convention, that Patriots were terrorists... And when the Allied landed to free us, these terrorists became heroes - at least the ones who were not communist... By the time, it was all about ideology, not religion...

And, by the way, as some may think I am an horrible anti-American Frenchman, I would like to thank all the ones of your families (Americans, British and others) who landed on the beaches of Normandy 61 years ago... This is already June 6th on the Continent.

Jiphy wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Terrorists and insurgents do not fight for any recognized country. They do not, by legalities, fall under the rights of the Genevea Convention.

JHC

Yes until the day when...

Last time that my country was occupied, Nazis used to say, according to the Genova Convention, that Patriots were terrorists... And when the Allied landed to free us, these terrorists became heroes - at least the ones who were not communist... By the time, it was all about ideology, not religion...

And, by the way, as some may think I am an horrible anti-American Frenchman, I would like to thank all the ones of your families (Americans, British and others) who landed on the beaches of Normandy 61 years ago... This is already June 6th on the Continent.

You're right. Actually to be "right", in short and sometimes long historical perspective, you have to win. That's why we must win the new war by any means, since we got stuck in that war.