Murderer Marine

Remove all ads!

(emphasis added)

OK, maybe this isn't part of military training, but remember that the President is still the Commander-in-Chief. As early as 2002, he was advised by Justice Department officials and the White house lawyer who has now been nominated as US Attorney General "that Geneva Conventions on torture did not apply to 'unlawful combatants', captured during the war on terror."

In another memo, Mr. Gonzalez took the position "that the nature of the war on terror 'renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions'."

Quaint, indeed.
Here's the full article I'm quoting

 

It is really a sort of a bitter joke - that US soldiers are taught the Convention, and then are told that for their particular opponents it doesn't apply and thus can be ignored.

That was what I meant with 'lip service'.

 

@Ragusa- one minor disagreement with the France/Algeria metaphor: While the fact that the French wanted to live in Algeria might have given them a greater understanding of Algeria than the Americans currently have of Iraq, it also brought with it the *huge* disadvantage of being an overtly colonialist project, which is not precisely the case in Iraq. Even taking the cynical view, the most one could claim the Americans want from Iraq is beneficial terms of trade (and for neo-liberals, integration in a global market requires a certain amount of economic liberalization and democratic government). At no time, however, has anyone even gotten close to saying "Iraq is American" the way the French said "Algeria is French;" nor are there any plans to settle hundreds of thousands of "pieds noirs" in Iraq; nor are there any plans to annex Iraq to the US (the 51st state?). The Americans are quite happy leaving the Iraqis to be Iraqi, with the caveat of course that the channels of (business) communication remain free and clear. If this nonchalance about Iraqi culture is sometimes expressed negatively as cultural ignorance and miscommunication, it also has the positive side of avoiding the French-style policy of forcing the adoption of French culture: the US isn't forcing the Iraqis to salute the US flag and sing the national anthem. If Iraq becomes "Americanized," it won't be by fiat, but rather through the far more typical, gradual process of buying American products, watching American media, playing American video games etc. that takes place throughout the world. (I read somewhere that Oprah is very popular in Iraq....)

Having watched the Battle of Algiers again recently, I don't think it has much bearing on Iraq. Most of the Algiers in that film is *heavily* French, as France had been in Algeria for hundreds of years, and had annexed Algeria about 150 years before. The architecture is French colonial, the bars are French, etc. Hundreds of thousands of French settlers, some of whom had been there for generations, lived there as though they were living in Marsailles, and constituted, along with wealthy secularized Algerians, the upper class of Algerian society. Other than saying one or two things about guerilla warfare in an urban milieau, I'm not sure why this film is applicable to this situation in Iraq.

 

What I aim on is the ideological background of the Algerian resistance. The Algerians fought a war of independence, for self-determination.

I consider the motive of the Iraqi insurgency similar - clearly, they want the US out - be it only to pounce upon each other the moment they're gone. They don't blow up and shoot at Americans because they are evil people who happen to hate freedom - driving them to hate America. That is childish propaganda.

The impact of foreign fighters is probably neglegible considering that Iraq's population of some 20 million can easily provide more than enough fighters to sustain the insurgency and grant the US a persistent problem.

The similarity is that America, just like France in Algeria, fights a nationalist arab insurgency with an islamic element in Iraq - one that can describe it's fight as against a foreign occupier that is determined to control the country's political future.

 

I can guarantee that if the Iraqi election happens, and the elected leaders tell the US "take all your troops and go home now," the US will have no choice but to go. Even if Bush et al wanted them to stay, the US public wouldn't stand for it.

And when you say "Iraqi insurgency," I think you mean "Sunni insurgency," and even then, you might want to specify a "combined Baathist and Islamist Sunni insurgency," as many Sunni want nothing to do with the insurgency. Granted, there was a Shiite insurgency, but this is mostly turning into political opposition, and even when there was lip service to a joint Shia-Sunni insurgency, there was no real cooperation or exchange of tactics (i.e, there have been no (zero) Shiite suicide bombers). Most Shiites don't have any sympathy at all for the Sunni insurgents (tho they do for the civilians), while the Kurds have been strongly pro-American.

So when you say "they want they US out," and intimate that this is a generally held Iraqi position, you're really overextending yourself.

 

First off, when it comes to people it is perception that matters, not reality. The perception among the insurgents and I would dare say of the common Iraqi on the street is that the fate of their country now lies in the hand of the US and they dont have one thing to say about it. Whether this is true or not is up for debate but the fact is that this is the perception among the Iraqis and perceptions are always more important than reality.

The insurgents are fighting for self-determination be it only to annihilate themselves when they get it or perhaps even build something of their own out of the ashes they see it as their decision.

True there are some, quite a lot actually, Iraqis who are rational and pragmatic enough to understand that the best bet for Iraq is go along with the US cause even if they would end up as a protectorate they would still be better off than under yet another dictator. However, when have rationality and pragmatism ever controlled the hearts and minds of humans?

 

Well, look at the polls.

EDIT: Or listen to one arabic speaking Special Forces man in Iraq:

I daresay that you're prettying up the picture when limiting the resistance to the sunnis alone. I doubt it. And the hamfisted US approach to Fallujah for example is guaranteeing that the insurgency will grow. You don't win guerrilla wars with massive repression, unless you want to go Saddam-style and replay Halabja.

There may have been no shia suicide bombers, but just open street fightings with Sadr's shia goons, big difference, remember Najaf? The rest of the Shiites, has just put Sadr on the leash for a while, and is watching and waiting, but don't take for granted that goes on eternally - as soon as they feel the US will try to rip them off they'll be up in arms.
The Kurds are nice to the US because atm they benefit from them most, and have so in the past - but they want their thing and don't fighht there for some 30 years now because they like the US.
Truly, the sunnis have lost most and have to lose most - if the Shias get the upper hand they're about lose most of the influence they traditionally held.

So atm the US are just fighting Shias and Sunnis. Bad enough - and as for the kurds in the north, keep in mind that they make up just some 15- 20 % of the total population. And don't think the shias aren't Iraqi patriots too - the Shiites provided the bulk of Iraqs army in their war against theocratic shiite Iran - and to Khomeini's big surprise they didn't turn coats even though they had the chance.
I find it shortsighted to believe that Iraqi nationalism is something that might only motivate the sunnis.

And just look at all the regulations the CPA has imposed on the interim gvt and you wonder how much independent authority they have. How long I wonder would the US tolerate an Iraqi leader who demandes them to leave - after investing some 100+ billion dollar in occupying Iraq in first place? I just can't imagine them not being pissed off and trying to keep their foot in the door.

[ November 20, 2004, 03:40: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

@Caleb: I disagree with your statemet re bush, but one YEAR?! That's quite a while. Anyway, would you sit in the hospital while your friends, who you trained with, fought outside?

 

First:
about the geneva convention. it's NOT taught to US military enlisted forces. in fact it's advised that we don't even read it. this way there are no moral problems such as stated above about killing supposedly unarmed combatants.

Second:
most likely the marine won't get in any trouble about this. the military will hold a mock courtmartial notify the press that he has been either imprisoned for not following the geneva convention or was dishonorably discharged for same cause. meanwhile he will be stationed at some other place far away from any camera for a few years with just a slap on the wrist.

I know that this seems really **cked up but thats the way the US military tends to do things. Trust me I'm one of them.

 

(jaw drops away from mouth)
Holy ****.

 

@Arahar: You may have been sleeping during those lessons, but I wasn't. I received training on the Geneva Convention in boot camp, during officer ascention training, and during warfare training.

 

Here's what the cameraman has to say...

 

Thanks for posting that Bion, you beat me to it.

some questions:


@BOC
"The fact that this marine was afraid to confirm that the guerilla was incapicated and prefered to be safe than sorry, as Pac Man put it, is understandable but is still a war crime acording to the conventions and the protocols."

If he was afraid to CONFIRM that the guerilla was incapocated, doesn't that mean that he WASN'T incapocated? It seems to me that the soldier was afraid of him b/c cause he yelld out to the other marines in the room that he was "faking being dead". He wouldn't have been afraid if he thought that the man was truely incapaciated. When guerilla's, or even soldiers on an opposing military are willing to fight to the death, and are willing to employ suicide tactics to achieve enemy casualties, then it's a whole new ballgame. One only needs to look at WWII, and the combat in the Pacific theater against the japanese to see similar situations such as this one. It was quite common for allied troops to shoot seemingly dead or wounded japanese soldiers to prevent them from setting off explosive devices. It seems to me that the convention was written without situations such as these in mind.

@Rags
"The "but there were booby trapped bodies" part is equally unconvincing - the normal solution, so was I taught in the army, is then to pull out the probably mined body from distance and under cover with a rope - no need to shoot him preventively."

Oh really? How exactly in a combat situation are you supposed to find out if probably mined body doesn't have a living person in control of the explosive device? Especially when he is "fakeing being dead" when you and 5 of your fellow soldiers are in the "kill zone" of a possible explosive device.

 

@Llandon

If the marine was afraid to confirm that the insurgent was dead does this mean that he wasn't dead? The fact, that the marine was afraid and felt threatened, doesn't mean that the guerilla wasn't incapicated, it only shows the fear of the marine. I have said this before and I will repeat it, probably I would have done the same thing if I was in the place of this marine but this doesn't change the fact that an unarmed wounded man was executed and this according to the conventions and the protocols is a war crime, a grave breach if you want to use the terminology of the conventions.

As you wrote suicide attacks of this kind (body traps, faking dead etc) were common in ww2 in both pacific and european front. The conventions were written after the end of the war, so I think it is obvious that the authors had situations like this in their minds.

 

@T2Bruno

where are you from?? also you said during *Officer Ascention Training and Warfare Training* I never received those(US Navy) and my friends in the Army and Marines haven't either but we're enlisted not Officers. So this makes me wonder if you're part of the evil half(officer) of the military??

 

@ Arahar: Covered your specific question in a private message.

The Geneva Convention training in boot camp was done using drawings showing acceptable targets and unacceptable targets. It was mostly common sense stuff -- don't shoot the medic, don't bomb the hospital, "no women, no kids" type of stuff. We certainly did not have the articles set before us and was not very memorable (which is sad).

It was covered more in depth when you were in a job where you could actually engage an enemy.

 

@BOC
I didn't say afraid to confirm he was dead...i said to confirm that he was incapacated. He DID confirm that he was dead...by shooting him. Like I said...if he was afraid or more imporntantly felt threatened by him then he obviously, in the marine in question's mind, not incapaciated.

IIRC the conventions were written before WWII and ammended after the war, but I could be wrong here, no time to look it up right now.

The problem is that I don't see how you can infer that this was a clear cut violation. It's not like the guy was in a POW camp and had been searched throughly and confrimed to be disarmed/incapaciatated, and then executed. I don't feel like this is a clear cut violation.

 

@Llandon

The first convention was signed in 1864 and the most recent in 1977. The ones I am refering to are the conventions of 1949 and 1977. Also, I think that the following paragraph (Part III, Article 37, paragraph 1) proves that the authors had situations like the one in Fallujah in their mind when they were writing the conventions:

I consider what happened a clear violation because according to the conventions the guerilla was considered hors de combat (see one of my posts in the first page of this thread) and therefore he was under the protection of the conventions.

I didn't say that you said dead, I was just trying to show that the fear of the marine cannot prove the condition of the insurgent. Perhaps it would be more clear if I had written "If the insurgent was dead and the marine was afraid to confirm that he was dead, does this mean that the insurgent cannot be considered dead". (I hope that this makes some sense in english)

 

It is a question of being hors de combat. If the marine felt that the enemy was using perfidy (feiging death of incapacitation) then he was well within his rights. Remember that the burden of proof in a combat situation such as this is on the shoulders of the enemy combatant, not the marine.

I did read your earlier post, but do not agree that the gurella could be clearly considered to be hors de combat.

some other interesting obsevations from the convention:

"In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention."

It can, and will be, argued that the fighters in Iraq are not even entitled to protection under the convention. Specificially not wearing uniforms, and being "foreign fighters/Mercenaries".

And furthermore, when engaged in combat where the enemy is openly known to use suicide tactics, and openly known to violate the convention, such as the case in Iraq, then they are not even entitled to protection.

 

Llandon

It's still a violation, since the judgement of the marine was wrong but you can give him the benefit of non-intention (not sure if this the correct term in english), which means that he didn't have the intention to execute the insurgent.

I cannot see how a wounded man, who can barely move, will prove that he is incapicated.

As far as the uniform is concerned, the minimum requirement is to carry their arms openly and not to wear a uniform. Also, the conventions state clearly that if a combatant fails to meet all the requirements of the combatant status, he is still under the protection of the conventions (Article 44, paragraph 4).

As for the merceneries I think that your interpretation is wrong. The conventions state that a mercenery is not considered a combatant and that he isn't entitled to the POW status. This doesn't mean that it is legal to execute merceneries, it means that if a mercenary gets caught, he will face the penal law.

Could you please tell me where is this one in the conventions, because I can't locate it. On the contrary what I have found is this (Article 44, paragraph 2):

[ November 23, 2004, 23:37: Message edited by: BOC ]