Video Evidence of US War Crimes in Falluja

Unbound by law

You obviously have no working clue of the US military regulations and guidelines known as the codes of conduct!
Here, try understanding these, k?
US military code of conduct

You really should curb your habit of spouting off and making false allegations and assertions! Take a few minutes to do a unbiased research and you will undoubtedly find that you speaketh with forked tongue!




seekerof

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
I wonder how many atrocities were not taken on camera by chance ...


Top news: 16 November 2004, Tuesday.

An American TV crew has filmed a US Marine shooting dead an unarmed Iraqi as he was lying on the floor of a Fallujah mosque.

A reporter at the scene said the marine shot in the head the Iraqi - apparently wounded - after saying he was "faking" death.

If the man had posed no threat to US troops, his death would be in breach of the US-led coalition's rules of engagement, CNN commented.

The footage, part of a television pool report by NBC, was not aired entirely because of its graphic pictures of violence, though audio of fired shots were broadcast.

The Marine seen shooting the man was part of a squad from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, which had been part of intense house-to-house fighting in southern Falluja.

The Marine in the videotape has been removed from his unit and taken to the headquarters of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.

The US military has launched an investigating into a possible war crime.

www.novinite.com...

killing an enemy is war, not crime. how was that soldier to know that that man didn't have a gun under the blanket. what little video i saw, the man on the floor never moved, meaning, he could have already been dead. there is no war crime here, this is pure and simple war and if you don't know that, you have no weight posting about it.

I invite all who are rushing to judgement in this case to submit to a trial based on a few seconds of videotape and wild speculation from a distance of ten thousand miles away.

Should you consider such a thing to be fair, I can give you your verdict now: you're guilty. Your punishment: self-delusion, probably for the rest of your life. The only appeal available is an appeal to your sense of reason, which will probably be denied.

With respect to this incident, I'll wait for the results of an investigation and, if it is found to be warranted, a trial.

No one is exempt from the consequences of their actions, whether a U.S. Marine in Fallujah, or a supposedly anonymous commentator in cyberspace.

What goes around comes around. If you want justice in this world, act justly.

Originally posted by Aelitahere
and
here

(what I was able to locate in just 30 sec).

Thanks.

You may be right. We haven't found Saddam's people shredder. I suppose I would have heard about it had we done so.

The video I have is pretty grotesque in its own right.

Originally posted by Loki


The 'holier than thou' attitude just won't fly anymore, and this is just an example of people showing how unrighteous they really are.

It isn't about good and evil, it's about hipocrisy.

It has nothing to do with a "'holier than thou attitude", whether someone is righteous or unrighteous, or about hypocrisy...it has to do with life and death.

If you have never been in that situation before where your enemy does not play by the rules, then you have absolutely NO RIGHT to judge. These kids have watched countless buddies go down in the exact same manner; a terrorist plays dead, draws our soldiers close, then rolls over and opens fire. If it was your life or his, which would you choose?

Anyone who says he would choose the OTHER guy is a liar, plain and simple...

Look, the Marines used the same tactics fighting in the Pacific. There is even footage of it. Now are people saying this was a war crime as well ?

Let's face reality, when an enemy conforms to no moral code and is willing to do anything to kill an american soldier, the soldiers have no choice but to protect themselves using deadly force.

Now people are going to say that he was unarmed, however he could have just as easily been holding a detonator or grenade. The marines are familiar with these tactics as they have experienced the same thing over many wars.

Bottom line they can't take the chance.

if it were me i would have pumped a couple of rounds into each of their heads. these crazies are killing people because Allah told them to. if those 5 had a wounded marine what would they do? i'm sure he would be on fire at the end of a rope behind a toyota pickup. if they want to kill from a church in the name of Allah put a bullet in every one of the bastards

if it were me i would have pumped a couple of rounds into each of their heads. these crazies are killing people because Allah told them to. if those 5 had a wounded marine what would they do? i'm sure he would be on fire at the end of a rope behind a toyota pickup. if they want to kill from a church in the name of Allah put a bullet in every one of the bastards

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Your title should read:

Video evidence of a possible US war crime in Iraq. Of course there is no doubt that the enemy commits war crimes on regular basis, but what the hey. They're the enemy.

You people make me sick.

Look at who we are dealing with Grady.........

Iraq signed the Geneva convention in 1956.

Military operations conduction against the people of Iraqi must conform to all provisions of the Geneva Conventin. If the people of Iraq do not conform to the guidelines thereof, they are guilty of war crimes. But, that does not diminish the protections granted by the Geneva Convention. And certainly does not justify the US also committing war crimes.


ARTICLE 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

The soldiers perception of the situation plays a very important part in whether he intentionally violated Article 3. If he perceived the Iraqi as a threat, i.e. the Iraqi was still taking an active part in hostilities, his intent would be not be to kill a "person taking no active part in the hostilities," and proving he acted in anyway other than self defense becomes difficult.

It is easy to perceive the man in the video as "a person taking no active part in hostilities" if you are not in the heat of combat and safely tucked away thousands of miles away behind a computer screen.

It is not so easy when you know injured insurgents have drawn soldiers in and detonated explosive devices. It is not so easy when it is your life depending on 5-10 seconds of perception and what action you take.

The only error the soldier made was to not verify that the wounded man was indeed a threat. But, by then it may have been too late for him or some of his team mates. It is a fine line that is often blurred in combat situations.

1. There were no banned weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Iraq was NOT defying the United Nations.

2. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

3. Saddam was NOT helping Al Qaeda. They were political opposites, with Al Qaeda favoring theocratic rule (like the fundies do in this country) while Saddam's was a secular government.

4. Saddam did not gas the Kurds. Iran did.

5. Saddam is in jail, even though nobody can actually find any evidence of the crimes he is accused of.


So you are there illegally, and anyone who you kill is viably defending their own country from invaders.

If you don't follow the Geneva Convention, you are tried and convicted. As opposed to terrorists who are either summarily executed or sent to Guantanomo or disappeared.

Deal with it. Start to try to act like a human being with compassion and some measure of decency.

Funny how the only people defending this are Yanks, huh? Haha, pathetic.

jako

bottom line - that Marine saved the insurgent the horror of having panties put on his head

Originally posted by Jakomo

1. There were no banned weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Iraq was NOT defying the United Nations.

2. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

3. Saddam was NOT helping Al Qaeda. They were political opposites, with Al Qaeda favoring theocratic rule (like the fundies do in this country) while Saddam's was a secular government.

4. Saddam did not gas the Kurds. Iran did.

5. Saddam is in jail, even though nobody can actually find any evidence of the crimes he is accused of.


So you are there illegally, and anyone who you kill is viably defending their own country from invaders.

If you don't follow the Geneva Convention, you are tried and convicted. As opposed to terrorists who are either summarily executed or sent to Guantanomo or disappeared.

Deal with it. Start to try to act like a human being with compassion and some measure of decency.

Funny how the only people defending this are Yanks, huh? Haha, pathetic.

jako

The past events have nothing to do with the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention.

As I said in my previous post:

Military operations conduction against the people of Iraqi must conform to all provisions of the Geneva Conventin. If the people of Iraq do not conform to the guidelines thereof, they are guilty of war crimes. But, that does not diminish the protections granted by the Geneva Convention. And certainly does not justify the US also committing war crimes.

But, let me phrase that in the opposite manner, just for you:

Insurgent operations conducted against the soldiers of the United States must conform to all provisions of the Geneva Convention. If the US military in Iraq do not conform to the guidelines thereof, they are guilty of war crimes. But, that does not diminish the protections granted by the Geneva Convention. And certainly does not justify insurgents also committing war crimes.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Your title should read:

Video evidence of a possible US war crime in Iraq. Of course there is no doubt that the enemy commits war crimes on regular basis, but what the hey. They're the enemy.

One young Marine stressed out from days of house to house combat, who was himself wounded the day before, who has seen his friends killed by insurgents faking death and bodies rigged with explosives, makes an error in judgement and the whole world is yelling "War Crimes."

You people make me sick.

War crime is part of US policy.

Water supplies to Tall Afar, Samarra and Fallujah have been cut off during US attacks in the past two months, affecting up to 750,000 civilians. This appears to form part of a deliberate US policy of denying water to the residents of cities under attack. If so, it has been adopted without a public debate, and without consulting Coalition partners. It is a serious breach of international humanitarian law, and is deepening Iraqi opposition to the United States, other Coalition members, and the Iraqi interim government.

On 19 September 2004, the Washington Post reported that US forces 'had turned off' water supplies to Tall Afar 'for at least three days' . Turkish television reported a statement from the Iraqi Turkoman Front that 'Tall Afar is completely surrounded. Entries and exits are banned. The water shortage is very serious'. Al-Manar television in Lebanon interviewed an aid worker who stated that 'the main problem facing the people of Tall Afar and adjacent areas is shortage of water' Relief workers reported a shortage of clean water . Moreover, the Washington Post reports that the US army failed to offer water to those fleeing Tall Afar, including children and pregnant women .

'Water and electricity [were] cut off' during the assault on Samarra on Friday 1 October 2004, according to Knight Ridder Newspapers and the Independent. The Washington Post explicitly blames 'U.S. forces' for this . Iraqi TV station Al-Sharqiyah reported that technical teams were working to 'restore the power and water supply and repair the sewage networks in Samarra' . Al Jazeera interviewed an aid worker who confirmed that 'the city is experiencing a crisis in which power and water are cut off' , as well as the commander of the Samarra Police, who reported that 'there is no electricity and no water' .

On 16 October the Washington Post reported that: 'Electricity and water were cut off to the city [Fallujah] just as a fresh wave of strikes began Thursday night, an action that U.S. forces also took at the start of assaults on Najaf and Samarra.' . Residents of Fallujah have told the UN's Integrated Regional Information Networks that 'they had no food or clean water and did not have time o store enough to hold out through the impending battle' . The water shortage has been confirmed by other civilians fleeing Fallujah, Fadhil Badrani, a BBC journalist in Fallujah, confirmed on November 8 that 'the water supply has been cut off'.

In light of the shortage of water and other supplies, the Red Cross Has attempted to deliver water to Fallujah. However the US has refused to allow shipments of water into Fallujah until it has taken control of the city.

Denial of water to Iraqi cities



[edit on 16-11-2004 by judge]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Your title should read:

Video evidence of a possible US war crime in Iraq. Of course there is no doubt that the enemy commits war crimes on regular basis, but what the hey. They're the enemy.

One young Marine stressed out from days of house to house combat, who was himself wounded the day before, who has seen his friends killed by insurgents faking death and bodies rigged with explosives, makes an error in judgement and the whole world is yelling "War Crimes."

You people make me sick.

You are bad and close minded person.

If "you" are better then them, then you are not goin to do what they are doin, even when that happen.

Regardless on everything you have a choice to do what you wana do at the end of the day.

We are talking about the human life here. Regardless on who side.

ALSO! VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION!

USA was not "invited" in Iraq in first place, so dont judge this people in "black&white" situation.

I.

Originally posted by Jakomo

Funny how the only people defending this are Yanks, huh? Haha, pathetic.

jako

Crazy how this thread has turned out. Amazingly, all is forgotten of the past and realvence is of the current. Jako, to quote you, yes, it is funny that all the people defending are yanks, not pathetic, just sick of being the blame of everything. Sure the Marine appears to have acted unjustly. However, given the circumstances, I'm not sure if I wouldn't have done the same. Let us not forget that this war just didn't start last year, this has gone on for well over 10 years. No one thought to bring up any discussion about the brutality of Saddam and his henchmen for invading Kuwait. It is funny and pathetic of how people cling to the thought that the United States is always the agressor and never the other. Imagine, just for a second, if you were held captive by these "Freedom Fighters", sure you're not a Yank, you're well, from Montreal Nonetheless, you think they would have mercy on your Western life? Doubt it.

War is not fair nor is war a game. Rules that were set are always broken. I don't agree with what I saw on the tape, nor will I condemn the Marine yet. I will say, that I can understand the actions, not that it's justifiable.

It is illegal to booby trap the dead, but that's what the insurgents do. It is illegal to surrender and then open fire, but that's what the insurgents do. It is worth noting that the incident took place in a mosque from which the Marines took fire. The now-decease insurgent was squirting blood out of his eye at the time he was killed by the Marine. The only way he could have been wounded was to have been wounded before the Marines entered the building. Thus he was attacking from a holy site. I think that is illegal, as well as immoral

No. They fought the insuregents 24 hrs before with a different Marine Company. The company on TV DID NOT receive any fire, and was doing mop-up. They met with the previous company, who adv they took fire "Yesterday", and went in to find a few surviving insurgents, all heavily wounded. Then one was shot.

Sensible news from the BBC




[edit on 16/11/04 by stumason]

until we can come to a full understanding of "the enemy", this type of situation will repeat itself

and until any of us can come up with one single reason/cause to strap explosives to our OWN child and send him to blow up a cafe or military checkpoint - we'll never be able to fully comprehend this enemy

veloracer:

Sure the Marine appears to have acted unjustly. However, given the circumstances, I'm not sure if I wouldn't have done the same. Let us not forget that this war just didn't start last year, this has gone on for well over 10 years. No one thought to bring up any discussion about the brutality of Saddam and his henchmen for invading Kuwait. It is funny and pathetic of how people cling to the thought that the United States is always the agressor and never the other. Imagine, just for a second, if you were held captive by these "Freedom Fighters", sure you're not a Yank, you're well, from Montreal Nonetheless, you think they would have mercy on your Western life? Doubt it.

If I went to Iraq as a Westerner, I would be doing so at my own risk because security there is non-existent.

War is not fair nor is war a game. Rules that were set are always broken. I don't agree with what I saw on the tape, nor will I condemn the Marine yet. I will say, that I can understand the actions, not that it's justifiable.

My point is that this soldier committed a crime. Is it some kind of indictment on the whole entire United States for me to say that this particular Marine may be a murdering bastard? Is that somehow an insult to Americans everywhere that one of your own freakin people might be guilty of murder?

You train people to kill and then you set them loose and you expect them to be all nice? Nope. If they DO end up following their baser instincts (see My Lai, Vietnam), you PUNISH them, as a message to the rest of the troops and to the world at large, that you don't tolerate murder.

Seems simple to me, but then again I guess I don't have the distinctly American view that all of you are perfect and beyond reproach.


j

Originally posted by Jakomo
veloracer:

Sure the Marine appears to have acted unjustly. However, given the circumstances, I'm not sure if I wouldn't have done the same. Let us not forget that this war just didn't start last year, this has gone on for well over 10 years. No one thought to bring up any discussion about the brutality of Saddam and his henchmen for invading Kuwait. It is funny and pathetic of how people cling to the thought that the United States is always the agressor and never the other. Imagine, just for a second, if you were held captive by these "Freedom Fighters", sure you're not a Yank, you're well, from Montreal Nonetheless, you think they would have mercy on your Western life? Doubt it.

If I went to Iraq as a Westerner, I would be doing so at my own risk because security there is non-existent.

War is not fair nor is war a game. Rules that were set are always broken. I don't agree with what I saw on the tape, nor will I condemn the Marine yet. I will say, that I can understand the actions, not that it's justifiable.

My point is that this soldier committed a crime. Is it some kind of indictment on the whole entire United States for me to say that this particular Marine may be a murdering bastard? Is that somehow an insult to Americans everywhere that one of your own freakin people might be guilty of murder?

You train people to kill and then you set them loose and you expect them to be all nice? Nope. If they DO end up following their baser instincts (see My Lai, Vietnam), you PUNISH them, as a message to the rest of the troops and to the world at large, that you don't tolerate murder.

Seems simple to me, but then again I guess I don't have the distinctly American view that all of you are perfect and beyond reproach.


j

You sit there and call this guy a murdering bastard from the comfy quarters of your computers, well thats real easy to do. You can't possibly understand the stress these guys are faced with every single day. Adrenaline and fear will make anyone act first and question later. His unit had been under constant attack, the guy had been wounded, seen a buddy killed by a booby trapped wounded combatant and you have the nerve to call this guy a murderer! Where's all the world outrage at the kidnapping, torture and murder of Civilian non-combatants, that are shot thru the head or beaten, disembowed mutilated, head chopped off brutally for trying to help your average iraqi citizen??? Hypocrites!