Falluja mosque marine escapes charge

[Phatmasser777]

Democracy is suppose to make all equals, what kind of Democracy has the US?
A BLOODY AWFUL ONE!!!

Falluja mosque marine escapes charge

Thursday 24 February 2005, 6:12 Makka Time, 3:12 GMT

A US marine, captured on film shooting a wounded Iraqi at point blank range during last year's assault on Falluja, will not be formally charged.
CBS News on Wednesday said it had learned that military investigators had concluded insufficient evidence existed to formally charge the marine with murder.
However, US Marine Corps spokesman Captain Dan McSweeney said he had been informed by the Navy Criminal Investigative Services which is investigating the killing that "the case is still very much open".
The shooting on 13 November occurred during a search of a mosque.
The killing - filmed by an embedded cameraman working for the NBC network - sparked global outrage and was described by the International Committee of the Red Cross as a demonstration of "utter contempt for humanity".
In the incident, a soldier raised his rifle and shot point blank at an apparently unarmed, wounded Iraqi who was slumped against one of the mosque walls.
Unarmed
Although the Iraqis were found to be unarmed, investigators said the marine believed the man he shot was trying to reach for a weapon.
The rifleman was withdrawn from combat pending the results of the investigation, but the graphic footage enraged many.
The raid on Falluja was part of an attempt to regain the city before Iraq's January elections.
In a separate development, a London-newspaper has reported that as many as 11 more British soldiers could face a court martial over the case of a fatal beating of an Iraqi civilian and other instances of abuse.
British investigations
Without citing sources, The Times said army lawyers were considering bringing charges against 11 more soldiers linked to abuse cases that had led to deaths of Iraqis.
The report comes a day after two British soldiers were found guilty of mistreating Iraqis in the city of Basra. A third had already pleaded guilty to one charge of assault.
The defence ministry in London confirmed that army prosecutors were considering nine cases, three of them involving alleged abuse.
Seven soldiers from the 3rd Parachute Regiment have already been charged with murder and violent disorder, and face a court martial over the death of an Iraqi civilian in southern Iraq in May 2003.
The 11 new cases could be linked to that death, as well as two other alleged instances of abuse in Iraq that led to deaths, The Times said.

[url="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5C41ABE7-A613-47D1-AB91-C5298491BBFA.htm"]http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5C4...5298491BBFA.htm[/url]

========

And dont give me that 'ohh Al Jazeera' line BC.

[argent_paladin]

Please specify what exactly you object to. The two combatants were in a combat zone. When a soldier kills an enemy soldier, it is not considered a murder. Even less when a soldier kills a terrorist feigning death who may be wearing an explosive vest and could detonate it at any moment. The marines investigated and apparently it is still under investigation.
This wasn't a case of premeditated murder. Unfortuntately, since the insurgents don't play by the rules it is impossible to tell if someone is a civilian or a militant. The marine had a fraction of a second to decide. They were clearing rooms in house to house fighting and it was a combat zone. I am glad that they investigated, and I am glad that they didn' t press charges.
If you condemn this, do you condemn terrorists who kill without warning? Who blow themselves up in Marine mess tents? Who plant bombs to blow up military convoys? If you are then why not post news about that?

[JP2Iloveyou]

I have a few questions. How many people did Saddam Hussein and his cronies shoot at point blank range? What's that? Hundreds? Thousands? Wow. I had no idea.

You know, argent_paladin, it's unfortunate, don't you think, that those who are so quick to criticize our military do so by using a freedom won, by the very military they are criticizing. The ultimate in irony don't you think? Personally, I think we ought to take away the freedom of speech for everyone who is anti-military. It only follows from their premises. The military wins free speech for people. Those who oppose the military logically oppose the rights won by the military. On second thought, we ought to take away their freedom to worship, their ability to go to school, and their right to vote for their own leaders. In addition to the clear desire that (a racist desire if you ask me) that others around the world not enjoy the same freedoms we do here, by logical extensioin, had the U.S. not won any number of wars, our freedoms would be severely limited or non-existant.

On another, more serious, note, a fried of mine, who is a transitional deacon and will be ordained in a few months to the priesthood, lost his brother in Iraq on Monday. Please remember his family in your prayers. His brother was trying to help other wounded American liberators when he was mercilessly murdered by a terrorist. This American hero and the other two heroes who died with him will live on forever in the hearts of Americans and the Iraqis who are free because of them. Requiescat in pace.

Edited February 25, 2005 by JP2Iloveyou

[Guest Eremite]

I remember the tape of this incident, and it was hard to tell if he was justified in shooting the Iraqui. He can't be excused automatically just because he was in battle, because there have been enough cases of soldiers willfully abusing prisoners for no reason. At the same time, it HAS to be factored in that he was in battle, and may have acted on gut reflex.

If the military has investigated, and is satsified that he didn't kill him just to kill him, then I am satisfied.

Edited February 25, 2005 by Eremite

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 25 2005, 12:09 PM'] I have a few questions. How many people did Saddam Hussein and his cronies shoot at point blank range? What's that? Hundreds? Thousands? Wow. I had no idea.
[/quote]
Arguing that others do it too doesn't make it right.

[quote]You know, argent_paladin, it's unfortunate, don't you think, that those who are so quick to criticize our military do so by using a freedom won, by the very military they are criticizing.  [/quote]

Actually, it's a completely different military...unless there are some sort of zombie soldiers I don't know about.

[quote]The ultimate in irony don't you think?  Personally, I think we ought to take away the freedom of speech for everyone who is anti-military.  [/quote]

No, that second statement is. The whole [i]point[/i] of freedom of speech is that everyone gets it -- not just those with whom you agree.

[quote]It only follows from their premises.  The military wins free speech for people.  Those who oppose the military logically oppose the rights won by the military.  On second thought, we ought to take away their freedom to worship, their ability to go to school, and their right to vote for their own leaders.  [/quote]

See above.

[quote]In addition to the clear desire that (a racist desire if you ask me) that others around the world not enjoy the same freedoms we do here, by logical extensioin, had the U.S. not won any number of wars, our freedoms would be severely limited or non-existant.[/quote]

That's so arrogant as to be asinine. You don't seem to understand those you seek to criticize. One should come before the other.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Feb 25 2005, 01:21 PM'] Arguing that others do it too doesn't make it right.



Actually, it's a completely different military...unless there are some sort of zombie soldiers I don't know about.



No, that second statement is. The whole [i]point[/i] of freedom of speech is that everyone gets it -- not just those with whom you agree.



See above.



That's so arrogant as to be asinine. You don't seem to understand those you seek to criticize. One should come before the other. [/quote]
[quote]Arguing that others do it too doesn't make it right.[/quote]

I'm hardly arguing for that. I'm saying that had the U.S. not intervened, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. If he were still in power, he would still be out killing people in cold-blood. In addition to that, perhaps you should read an account of the events from a different point of view. Everyone in this soldier's troop backs him up. They all saw him lunge for what was thought to be a weapon or a switch to blowhimself up with.

[quote]Actually, it's a completely different military...unless there are some sort of zombie soldiers I don't know about.[/quote]

The point is not that the military is different. The point is that the military is what wins freedoms. It follows that if some people are completely opposed to military action, then they are by default opposed to everything gained by that action. It would be no different, for example, to say that I can't stand professional basketball. I dispise everything about it. The players are jerks and are overpaid. The game is more like five on five football. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I then decide to go out and profit from the NBA. It would be absurd. It is no more absurd though, than those who constantly criticize our military exercising rights and freedoms won by that military. The principle spans all ages. You don't think any U.S. soldiers shot any British soldiers at point-blank range in the Revolutionary War?

[quote]No, that second statement is.  The whole [i]point[/i] of freedom of speech is that everyone gets it -- not just those with whom you agree.[/quote]

No. It is called a principle of consistency. Don't come tell me how evil the military is then turn right around and try to use freedoms they win for you in your argument. Your freedom of speech extends as far as my nose and then it is my freedom of speech. Calling the U.S. military murderers is a slap in the face to me and my family.

[quote]See above.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]That's so arrogant as to be asinine.  You don't seem to understand those you seek to criticize.  One should come before the other.[/quote]

What is arrogant about my quote? Please tell me. If anything, I think it is arrogant to desire freedoms that you did nothing to earn and have done nothing to support those who earned them for you, then turn right around and tell others they can't enjoy those same freedoms on the simple basis that they live in a different country. I understand perfectly thoe I'm criticizing and I've had it up to here :angry: with them. Maybe they ought to try to understand where I'm coming from. I'm coming from a family where both of my grandfathers served in WWII. One lost his hearing in one ear permanently, the other was a foot soldier and was one of very few in his regimen to come home alive. I have a brother seminarian who just returned from Iraq and had been shot at for a year and a half. I have a friend set to be ordained a priest in about four months who just lost his brother in Iraq.

Look, I know this sounds angry. I'm sorry. If you have family over there, I sincerely thank you and them. Perhaps I'm being overly judgemental of you personally in this case, but my post is really intended for all of the anti-war, no blood for oil, Bush terrorist, moveon.ord crowd. It's not aimed at you personally.

[Jaime]

There are certainly some pieces of evidence that Phatmasser777 is missing, or just ignoring.

They are doing these types of raids daily. Very often, people will fake being injured and when approached by a soldier, they will detonate a grenade, bomb, etc. If I recall when this story first broke, that particular unit had lost a man to that tactic the day before.

Yes its sad that an unarmed man was killed at point blank range. It is an unfortunate consequence of war. However, when soldiers have to approach an "injured" man, they have to keep in mind that it is quite possible this man plans to "martyr" himself. That has to be terrifying.

As I said its sad. And its ugly. But now knowing the full extent of the situation, I wonder if anyone, including phatmasser777, could declare they wouldn't do the same thing.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 25 2005, 02:30 PM'] I'm hardly arguing for that. I'm saying that had the U.S. not intervened, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. If he were still in power, he would still be out killing people in cold-blood. In addition to that, perhaps you should read an account of the events from a different point of view. Everyone in this soldier's troop backs him up. They all saw him lunge for what was thought to be a weapon or a switch to blowhimself up with.
[/quote]
It amounts to the same thing. I'm not even arguing about what the soldier did here. You responded to an argument that a 'murderer' is going free by saying that Saddam killed a lot of people. This post wasn't even anti-war; it was simply anti-war crimes.

[quote]The point is not that the military is different.  The point is that the military is what wins freedoms.[/quote]

There was no such thing a "the military" when the United States won its freedom. There were many different colonies' militias. The problem is with the current incarnation and how it is being misused.

[quote]It follows that if some people are completely opposed to military action, then they are by default opposed to everything gained by that action.[/quote]

That is, of course, not what you said before -- anti-military != anti-military action. Some people believe a military is useful for defense purposes and still believe that it shouldn't be used for offense. A person can be anti-military and believe that freedom can be gotten through non-military means.

[quote]It would be no different, for example, to say that I can't stand professional basketball.  I dispise everything about it.  The players are jerks and are overpaid.  The game is more like five on five football.  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.  I then decide to go out and profit from the NBA.[/quote]

That would be so very, very American it's almost funny. Except, of course, that it's a terrible analogy, so its just sad.

[quote]It would be absurd.  It is no more absurd though, than those who constantly criticize our military exercising rights and freedoms won by that military.  The principle spans all ages.  You don't think any U.S. soldiers shot any British soldiers at point-blank range in the Revolutionary War?[/quote]

The military doesn't fight for our freedom anymore. We have them. As I said before, "the military" didn't exist when our freedom was won.

[quote]No.  It is called a principle of consistency.  Don't come tell me how evil the military is then turn right around and try to use freedoms they win for you in your argument.  Your freedom of speech extends as far as my nose and then it is my freedom of speech.  Calling the U.S. military murderers is a slap in the face to me and my family.[/quote]

My freedom of speech extends all the way from my mouth to your brain. Just because you don't like something I say doesn't mean you have the right not to hear it. This is a public forum and in public you will (most likely) be exposed to ideas that you don't like. Your options are to leave the public forum or accept it. It's unfortunate that you are offended by the fact that some members of the military are murderers, but that's simply the way it is (point of reference: I'm not talking about this particular case here). I know you were trying to make a play on the saying 'your right to swing your fist ends at my face' but in this case it doesn't work. I can say things that you find repugnant all day long and the only thing you can do about it is not listen.


[quote]What is arrogant about my quote?  Please tell me.[/quote]

You assume too much. You have no idea what anyone else desires -- whether it be the freedom of others or something more tangible. First you have to actually try to see the point of the opposing side, then you can criticize.

[quote]If anything, I think it is arrogant to desire freedoms that you did nothing to earn[/quote]

None of the present generation did anything to earn the freedom that we all enjoy.

[quote]and have done nothing to support those who earned them for you,[/quote]

Unless a person has never paid taxes (and almost everyone has in some form or another) then she/he [i]has[/i], in fact, done something to support the military -- whether he/she approves or not.

[quote]then turn right around and tell others they can't enjoy those same freedoms on the simple basis that they live in a different country.[/quote]

[i]No one[/i] has said that. You are putting words into other people's mouths to try and vilify them.

[quote]I understand perfectly thoe I'm criticizing and I've had it up to here  :angry: with them.  Maybe they ought to try to understand where I'm coming from.    I'm coming from a family where both of my grandfathers served in WWII.  One lost his hearing in one ear permanently, the other was a foot soldier and was one of very few in his regimen to come home alive.  I have a brother seminarian who just returned from Iraq and had been shot at for a year and a half.  I have a friend set to be ordained a priest in about four months who just lost his brother in Iraq.  [/quote]

You obviously don't or you wouldn't make such assumptions about them.

You don't have a monopoly on military related pain. My grandfather served in Korea when he was 14 and my uncle nearly died in Panama. He and his wife are both in the military. I have many friends who are members and I have others who have died or have siblings who have died in Iraq. None of this necessitates my approval of the current military action.

[quote]Look, I know this sounds angry.  I'm sorry.  If you have family over there, I sincerely thank you and them.  Perhaps I'm being overly judgemental of you personally in this case, but my post is really intended for all of the anti-war, no blood for oil, Bush terrorist, moveon.ord crowd.  It's not aimed at you personally.[/quote]

I'm not taking it personally, don't worry. However, considering the fact that have come to light, the 'no blood for oil' crowd do have some basis for their anger. And one can be anti-war without being what you have accused them of being. Some of us just believe that we have no right to push our beliefs onto others -- whether those beliefs be religious, political or otherwise.

[MichaelFilo]

Trust everyone like a child trusts everyone.All injustices against you will be retributed by God.

God bless,
Mikey

[curtins]

very true mikey but I just cant understand how these people can criticize our young men and women over there fighting for our freedom in harm's way. I'd like to see you go over there. And they truly are fighting for our freedom. The terrorists HATE our freedom they want to impose their islamic theocracys on all. IF we did not take any military action on them we would constantly be attacked and have to live in fear. Then they would probably take over the governement etc etc. We must wipe out the enemy because there is NO peace treaties with this enemy- they will try to kill us until they themselves are dead. and phatmasser777 like others have said- that article seriously fails to point out that the terrorist slime often puts bombs on dead or dying people. Why is it that you fail to agknowlege that these terrorists are absolute low, savage, slime that kill innocent men women and children all over the world???? Why dont you want to realize that??? Do you agree with them? do agree with their methods??? do you think those 3000 people deserved to die on 911??? do you think their kids and wives and husbands deserved to be left like that??? do you think millions others deserved the heart ache that will never full disapate??? Do you think the thousands that sadam killed deserved it?? do you think the women that his sons took off the streets and raped and killed deserved it?? do you think the kurds that he gassed deserved it???do you honestly symathize with these monsters??? why is it you do not condem the horrible actions of these criminals yet you try and make the brave United States military to be on par with the terrorists??
Honestly I have little or no respect for you because I cannot see how you can stoop so low.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Phatmasser777,
Why don't you go to Washington to protest, while at the same time relieving us of these trollish and asinine posts?

[Phatmasser777]

The freedom fighter was injuried from the previous days battle, and the US Medics told him to stay in the mosque with the other injuried fighters, and they will be brought to a US Hospital or Medic Centre the next day.

Even without this information, the man was pretty much crippled with no weapons near him, this was one of a long list of war crimes, but this was caught on tape, so now they can't deny it. Of course you'll get people that go 'that's war', no that's not war, and that line is has been used FAR TOO MANY TIMES, to have any real meaning, especially for the worlds 'greatest' superpower, & (according to themselves) the best, well-trained military.

---------------

As for [b]JP2Iloveyou[/b] & your comment. Your should be:

- Why did the US tell shiites to rise up, then not help them, with them ending up being gassed and slaughtered in the 100,000's?
- Why did the US, supply Iraq with weapons, that were turned against the people (not the Chemical Weapons Substances, but the armour)?
- Why did the US wait 12 Years to finally do it?
- Why did the US Back & Support a O-F-F program that ended up killing millions of iraqis (Majority Children), while US Oil Corporations got big fat pay checks?

They should be your questions, not these stupid 'OH saddam did this, and that.' YOU HELPED HIM STAY IN! YOUR THE CAUSE. Geez.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='thedude' date='Feb 25 2005, 06:35 PM'] Phatmasser777,
Why don't you go to Washington to protest, while at the same time relieving us of these trollish and asinine posts? [/quote]
For one, I'd have to give:

- My Face (which would go into a database, for future 'recognition' )
- My Fingerprints (")

No way in hell I want the US GOV owning that!

Anyways too do that, people require $$$.

[curtins]

yes the us helped Iraq a long time back when we hated iran but thats 25 30 years ago this is now in the age of global terrorism in a 911 world which you still deny!!!!!!!!!

[save ferris 101]

Ok, I didn't even read anything in here but the first post.

Phatmasser, they couldn't convict him because they couldn't prove that he did it without a reasonable cause, i.e. they couldnt prove that he didn't really think that the wounded insurgent posed a threat. The same thing would have happened had it been a cop in L.A., or a homeowner who sees someone in their house, or whatever. It has nothing to do whatsoever with America or it's politics or policies, it has to do with the legal system, and it is the right decision. And this is coming from a person who is not very supportive of current international policies.