It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sergeant Jimmy Massey: Marines killed 30+ civilians within 48 hours

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:37 AM
link   
During a tribunal probing an asylum claim by Jeremy Hinzman, a former US Marine Sergeant appeared as a witness and testified that men under his command killed over 30 civilians within 48 hours while on checkpoint duty in Baghdad.


abc.net.au
Mr Massey said that in some incidents, Iraqi civilians were killed by between 200 and 500 rounds pumped into four separate cars which each failed to respond to a single warning shot and respond to hand signals at a Baghdad checkpoint.

At the time, US soldiers feared suicide bombers would try to ram checkpoints, he said.

Searches found no weapons in the vehicles or evidence that those killed were anything but innocent civilians, he said.

He also said Marines killed four unarmed demonstrators, and more Iraqis the next day during another spell of checkpoint duty in the occupied Iraqi capital.


I remember seeing a story on a similar incident in the documentary, 'Deadline Iraq'.
I think this is probably commonplace in Iraq.




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I polled the Marines on my Marine group and besides being glad that he no longer serves, they all agree that if the men under his command did indeed commit the crimes he claims, he is subject to recall and court-martial. With the heat on the Pentagon over Abu Ghraib and the Seals incident(s), it seems unlikely that if there was substance to Massey's tales, he wouldn't be under investigation in a heart beat.

I think he's a liar and a weeny.

[edit on 04/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:22 AM
link   

abc.net.au
Mr Massey said that in some incidents, Iraqi civilians were killed by between 200 and 500 rounds pumped into four separate cars which each failed to respond to a single warning shot and respond to hand signals at a Baghdad checkpoint.

At the time, US soldiers feared suicide bombers would try to ram checkpoints, he said.

Apparently the penalty for trying to run through U.S. checkpoints is death.

I agree with that penalty. Anyone stupid enough to aim a car at soldiers firing warning shots and gesturing for them to halt is an automatic candidate for a Darwin Award.

In light of how many U.S. soldiers have been murdered under precisely such circumstances, I am unable to comprehend how anyone could fail to understand this policy.

At the very least, just stop the damn car.


From the source article:
"I do know that we killed innocent civilians," Mr Massey told the tribunal, relating the chaotic days after the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Massey's statement is misleading: Anyone who tries to plow through a U.S. checkpoint is not innocent.

Meanwhile, Hinzman's statements in this article only confirm what I have previously said about him. He is a fugitive criminal, and must be punished for his crimes.



[edit on 12/8/2004 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I don't see why you have trouble believing this as there have been many reports of similar incidents.


Iraqi Civilians Killed at Checkpoint (March 31 2003)WASHINGTON -- U.S. troops killed seven Iraqi women and children at a checkpoint today when the Iraqis' van would not stop as ordered, a military official said.

Two other civilians were wounded in the incident at a U.S. Army checkpoint on a highway near Najaf in southern Iraq, the official said. The military is investigating, he said.

The dead and wounded were among 13 women and children in a van that approached the checkpoint but did not stop, the official said. Soldiers fired warning shots and then shots into the vehicle's engine, neither of which stopped it, he said.




2 IRAQI CHILDREN KILLED IN CHECKPOINT SHOOTING (April 11 2003)
NASIRIYAH, IRAQ-- U.S. marines killed two children at a checkpoint in Nasiriyah, Iraq Friday when the driver of a minivan failed to stop, sparking fears of a suicide attack.

The driver ignored repeating warnings to stop and, in fact, picked up speed, a spokesman for the marine unit said.

The U.S. military says nine other people in the vehicle were wounded in the incident in the southern Iraqi city.




US troops kill Hungarian in Iraq (November 2003)
"US sources informed the ministry that the car driven by Peter Varga-Balazs approached a checkpoint at high speed... he failed to slow down despite calls to stop and warning shots," the ministry said in a statement.

"Therefore, US troops fired aimed shots at him, causing his death."




US troops 'shoot Arabic TV men' (March 18 2004)
Witnesses said the two men, both Iraqis, were in their car when another vehicle failed to stop at a checkpoint.

US troops then opened fire on both cars, al-Arabiya employees said.




Child is killed in US checkpoint shooting (July 6 2004)
A US military spokesman said: "Soldiers fired on the vehicle after the driver failed to obey verbal and visual instructions to stop, switched off the vehicle lights, and forced guards out of the way as he attempted to bypass the checkpoint."

The statement said the mother and the wounded child were taken to hospital following the shooting on Monday, while the father, who was driving, was questioned by police.

Many Iraqis accuse US soldiers of being too hasty to open fire and of killing many innocent civilians.



If you want to justify what they did, that's fine but don't try to deny that it's happening.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I polled the Marines on my Marine group and besides being glad that he no longer serves, they all agree that if the men under his command did indeed commit the crimes he claims, he is subject to recall and court-martial. With the heat on the Pentagon over Abu Ghraib and the Seals incident(s), it seems unlikely that if there was substance to Massey's tales, he wouldn't be under investigation in a heart beat.

I think he's a liar and a weeny.

[edit on 04/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]


Excuse me!! a weeny...sorry but the guy has a consceince and did'nt want to kill !! that makes him a weeny!! This is an occiupied city,people are afraid to roam their towns,Saddam is gone they're still beeing shot at ,almost for sport..please!! He has a 2year old son & wife,he's a diserter yes,if found guilty which most likely he will be then he sits a couple of years and he's garanteed to see his son again and not have anything on his conscience,meaning killed someone..He get's the thumbs up from me...now that's my first glance at the case and I have'nt studied it..and I don't intend to ...but this whole war has lost it's whole point a long time ago..Actually once they brought the statue down,and if not then ,than when they caught him(saddam)...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Apparently the penalty for trying to run through U.S. checkpoints is death.

I agree with that penalty. Anyone stupid enough to aim a car at soldiers firing warning shots and gesturing for them to halt is an automatic candidate for a Darwin Award.


Who says they aimed the car towards the soldiers?

Sometimes the soldiers are on top of a bridge and the Iraqi drivers may not see the signals and as they said in one of the articles I posted: "Baghdad residents say they often fail to notice poorly-lit and unannounced checkpoints while driving at night."

I'm not sure whether the incidents he referred to happened at night or during the day.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Not wishing to harp on..........but I think that this only goes to support my previous post regarding the 'out of control' tactics used by some US sub units. Don't get me wrong - If someone endangers the life of a soldier carrying out his lawful duties, then they have to be stopped. If the only way to stop them is the use of leathful force then so be it!.

However Rules of Engagement exist for a reason and it is the duty of sub unit commanders to enforce these.

Just so you all know.......I have now calmed down now and after catching the ear of a 1 star General the US Army is now back in my good books!



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Grady......forgot to say "Semper Fi" brother.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:59 AM
link   
It's become like the great scalping adventure for oil and 'honor?'of what i'm not yet sure....wait it's coming to me....aa;;upholding democracy...make me laugh or rather cry....misuse of power,all power corrupts,it may be wealth,it may be prestige,politics,or even psychic,it makes no difference.Whenever you feel powerful,if you don't have love as an antidote your power will become a calamity to others,a curse;because powwer blinds you,only love can open your eyes again...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Non-Euclidian Geometry


Originally posted by AceOfBase
Who says they aimed the car towards the soldiers?

If you can explain how a car can approach something without being aimed at it, I would be amused to hear it. Every case you cited, and every case I am aware of, involved cars approaching checkpoints with U.S. soldiers stationed at them.

Where's The Confounded Bridge?


Originally posted by AceOfBase
Sometimes the soldiers are on top of a bridge and the Iraqi drivers may not see the signals and as they said in one of the articles I posted: "Baghdad residents say they often fail to notice poorly-lit and unannounced checkpoints while driving at night."

I'm not sure whether the incidents he referred to happened at night or during the day.

None of the articles you have cited in this thread involved anyone claiming they didn't see the checkpoint. The article you are apparently quoting doesn't even mention a bridge, and I didn't see it in any of the other articles you posted either, so I have no idea where you got that from.

In fact according to the articles you cited, they all took action based on the fact that a checkpoint was there -- including the one that says checkpoints are hard to see:


From Scotsman.com

A US military spokesman said: "Soldiers fired on the vehicle after the driver failed to obey verbal and visual instructions to stop, switched off the vehicle lights, and forced guards out of the way as he attempted to bypass the checkpoint." [...]

Baghdad residents say they often fail to notice poorly-lit and unannounced checkpoints while driving at night.

Not a very convincing example, is it? In fact, the article doesn't bother to corroborate that claim with an actual example of someone who "didn't see the checkpoint".

Why Not Deny Ignorance, Instead?

Disingenuous quibbling like this is a waste of my time, and does nothing to Deny Ignorance.

Offering phony examples unsupported by the articles you posted links to does nothing good for your credibility. When your own sources disagree with you, that's a pretty serious problem.

If you wish to promote an agenda, it will go much easier if you choose one supported by the truth.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Where's The Confounded Bridge?


I should have said overpass, not bridge.

View this video clip:
mixallow.blogdns.net...


[edit on 8-12-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Offering phony examples unsupported by the articles you posted links to does nothing good for your credibility. When your own sources disagree with you, that's a pretty serious problem.

If you wish to promote an agenda, it will go much easier if you choose one supported by the truth.


My post, in which I quoted those articles, was in response to Grady who called the Sergeant a liar.

I responded:


If you want to justify what they did, that's fine but don't try to deny that it's happening.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Indiscriminate killing and 'sports' shooting happens alot in war.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I can't say that I blame the soldiers in all instances. If it was me, I'd be shooting first and asking questions later...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   


Others die when soldiers use “hand signals or verbal orders that Iraqis did not understand, sometimes with fatal results,” Human Rights Watch said in a 2004 report.

The danger posed to Iraqis by US soldiers’ conduct at checkpoints and roadblocks was eloquently portrayed by an American teacher and writer who visited Iraq in April 2004. Nearing Baghdad, Aisha Robertson came across a roadblock, which neither she nor her driver knew whether they could pass or not. An American soldier waved his hand to them “but it was not clear as to his meaning—even I as an American could not understand what he meant by his wave. We didn’t understand whether we could pass or not. I immediately thought of the numerous Iraqis who have been killed in their cars while approaching roadblocks such as this one.”

Occupation Watch


When I was in Iraq, sometimes it was hard to tell what exactly those MP's were trying to say with hand signals. Stop? Go? Do I need to show ID? I'm in freakin' HUMVEE! I imagine it would be more difficult at night.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
FYI, he is not a deserter. Jimmy Massey legally got an honorable discharge.

www.malaysia-today.net...

Blobber



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Once a week I travel through the Queens-Midtown Tunnel.

Because the tunnel is in midtown and a stone's throw away from the UN, and right smack in the middle of one of the busiest districts, there are checkpoints. Same for the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel.

Now these vary slightly from those in Iraq because most of the time the Police Officers stationed there will wave you through, but the fundamental concept remains the same. A checkpoint has been established for a reason. That reason is the safety of those in the area.

The US Army understands that there is a great danger facing them at those checkpoints. They understand that it is a HIGHLY common tactic used by this enemy to attack checkpoints simply because you're in a car, you can have bombs and guns etc. and the soldier is on foot and has to come up to you. This has been done numerous times, I don't have to draw you a picture.

The bottom line is that from outside the car it is absolutely impossible to determine who is inside and what they are up to. It could be a cleric on his way to prayers, it could be a soccer mom and her kids, or it could be a person with a bomb under his seat. No one knows.

Disastrous incidents of people not stopping and getting shot have been reported before as duly shown above. The intelligent civilian will therefore wish to avoid such a fate and will slow down and stop by the checkpoint. Obviously if he's a civilian going to do his thing he won't have any problems at the check and will be sent on his merry way. There is no reason not to stop unless you do have a bomb or something, right?

The bottom line here is that even if the driver didn't understand the hand signals or whatever, why not just slow down when you see the uniformed soldier in front of you with the big gun. I would see that as self preservation primarily, and also a contribution to Iraqi security. Make things easier by that you're not a threat.

The checkpoints must continue. The army must be overly cautious at the checkpoints due to past horrors. I'm not saying every incident can be avoided but why not help try and stop them.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
My post, in which I quoted those articles, was in response to Grady who called the Sergeant a liar.

I responded:


If you want to justify what they did, that's fine but don't try to deny that it's happening.


Massey's claims seem to be that he and his men killed civilians at checkpoints in Iraq either out of incompetence or for sport, because he allows himself to be used by the ant-war movement. If the men under his command killed civilians in vehicles because they tried to breach the checkpoints, then the Marines were doing their jobs. Those checkpoints are there to protect us as well as the innocent Iraqis. The insurgents have a well known history of using innocents as shields for their nefarious deeds. Still, thirty-eight is a high number for a forty-eight hour period.

So, I do not claim that such events have not happened, because I know that they have. But, I still think that Massey is both a liar and a weeny.

[edit on 04/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
MONTREAL: Canadian leaders, not the country's refugee system, should decide the fate of soldiers who have deserted the US military to apply for asylum in their northern neighbour, according to a support group.

One of those soldiers, Jeremy Hinzman, will go before Canada's refugee board on Monday for a hearing on whether he qualifies for asylum. The adjudicator who will decide the case has already announced he will not consider the argument that Hinzman did not have to serve because the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

"While that may provide good grounds of appeal, if an appeal is necessary, Jeremy would have preferred to be able to bring that up," said Lee Zaslofsky of the War Resisters Support Campaign. "It's a disappointing and obviously mistaken ruling," he told IPS from Toronto.

At the same time, "this is a political question," added Zaslofsky. "This is not simply a question of 'can we get the refugee board to agree that Jeremy and the others are refugees under the definition'? The issue here is, will Canada let these guys stay?"

Hinzman arrived in Canada on Jan 3 with his wife and child, fleeing his army unit, the 82nd Airborne Regiment, just days before it was to depart for Iraq. The army specialist, who had already served in Afghanistan, had applied to be discharged or reassigned as a conscientious objector (CO) but the military denied his request.

Going through the CO process can take up to a year, says Bill Galvin of the Washington, D.C-based Centre on Conscience and War, a member of the GI Rights network. "That's a year during which you have officially gone public saying you cannot in good conscience do this, and yet you are required to (serve)," he added.

Galvin told IPS that despite years of submitting Freedom of Information Act requests, the centre has yet to receive official figures from the defence department on the number of applications being made for CO status. But he says his group is now processing a "couple dozen" submissions and estimates that another 10 organizations country-wide are doing similar work. Some soldiers apply independently, he noted.

But Galvin, himself a CO during the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 1970s, cautions soldiers who have left their units without permission (making them absent without leave, or AWOL) to think hard before heading to the US-Canada border.

Let the man live with peace in his heart...I'll be hoping the best outcome possible for him..I'm thinking of the Little 2year old son he has and what he makes out of this mad world ,already....where normally he should be flushed with joy,love and innocence..he's already wondering "Where' the hell have i landed now??" God was'nt right on target andmisallowed for the strong negative pull the Earth is sending out,It must have fooled him too..with his targeting sensors off by atleast acouple of Galaxies..and this all from a two year old ,I hear you say...Well I tell you something else,that's when we're closest to God and the begining & end cycle of mortal life...thus a glimps into the understanding of the cosmic workings are but a few micro clicks towards the hypotallamus..deep deep down....once innocence is gone that distance grows to light years and mortal life cycles...



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I am sure it is just an misunderstanding since the US-army is the most honorable in the whole world and are uncapable of committing such crimes. Everyone who is against the US-army are insurgents and terrorists and deserves to die before they can commit more horrible terrorist acts against the brave US-army soldiers who are only there to help the Iraqis get their freedom and democracy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join