marine shoots unarmed wounded Iraqi - as told by the reporter that was there

[raedyn]

Kevin Sites is the embedded reporter (working for NBC at the time) that shot the nearly-infamous footage of the Marine shooting an unarmed, wounded Iraqi. There are many reactions to both the story he is telling and to the man that brought the story to the world.

Some people have commended the reporter's actions saying it's important to get the truth out and to expose some of the horrors that our own people are committing. Some people are vilifying him for making us look bad, and reporting on an action that is understandable in the context this soldier was in. Some only wonder why the soldier did what he did, and are saddened that this was done in the name of America.

No matter your own position on topic it is enlightening to get the perspective of the reporter who shot the video. (from his personal blog - it's long, but worth the time) It's a much more complete account than any news item includes.

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.

My apologies if you've read this before, it's been circulating on the net quite a bit in the last week, but I was curious to hear you all weigh-in on this.

 

[raedyn]

Sites also quotes Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl (commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines -- currently fighting in Fallujah)

We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground.

I don't know if all the Marines are getting his point, however.

"We're ready to go. I'm just ready to get this done. I want to go and kill people, so we can go home," said Lance Cpl. Joseph Bowman, 20, from North Zulch, Texas. "Kill them and go home, that's all we can do now."

But easy for me to criticize. I've never been in that horriffic situation, and I'll go far out of my way to prevent ever getting there.

 

[Oak Bo]

It's a war, if you don't want to get shot then don't be there.
It wasn't some big surprise that we all of a sudden showed up.

Our soldiers are faced with horrific situations everyday, if you're seen as a threat or the "bad guy" you get shot, that's what war is all about.

 

[Blooming Lotus]

regardless of his actions, none of us nor that reporter know his orders nor could possibley imagine his psychology in that position, in a uniform and an armed target with a pulse of 200+ face to face with a real and confirmed threat ( who may even still've been armed ) in the way of an armed enemy prepared to take your own life as quick as he took the Iraqis. It may 've been something as simple as not having time to muck about with unneccessary threats and not willing to comprimise the rest of the assigment. Unforunate factors of war. It causes death. Reports are good and well, but we weren't there and didn't hear his orders nor know his situation.



Blooming Lotus

 

[OULobo]

regardless of his actions, none of us nor that reporter know his orders nor could possibley imagine his psychology in that position, in a uniform and an armed target with a pulse of 200+ face to face with a real and confirmed threat ( who may even still've been armed ) in the way of an armed enemy prepared to take your own life as quick as he took the Iraqis. It may 've been something as simple as not having time to muck about with unneccessary threats and not willing to comprimise the rest of the assigment. Unforunate factors of war. It causes death. Reports are good and well, but we weren't there and didn't hear his orders nor know his situation.



Blooming Lotus

Actually you can watch the video and see the situation and hear his orders. Regardless of the actions of the enemy, the US has promised to uphold the Geneva Convention, and killing an injured and apparently unarmed person, enemy or not, contradicts this policy. I understand the psychological aspect of the situation, but he as a US soldier is required to conform to the conventions of war and if he breaks them, must pay the consequence. The soldier walked right up to the injured man and plugged him. The whole "might have a bomb thing" seems like BS considering he was standing right next to the insurgent when he fired. If you are going to preach safe elimination of a possible lethal threat (from a hidden suicide bomb), then plug him from a distance where you are reasonably more safe from the possible resulting explosion.

 

[punisher73]

I am neither saying what he did was right/wrong, just thought I would add some food for thought.

Before this incident there were soldiers injured/killed when Iraqi people were pretending to be dead/injured and then would shoot at the soldiers as they went by. Remember also, we only have that one moment in time to see what the US soldier did, what led up to this moment? Before we can judge him on his actions we need to know what he was thinking/feeling and what he thought he saw that led him to that decision.

If after this incident is investigated and there was no reason to shoot the man and no reasoning behind it that a reasonable person would make the same decision in that instant, then he should be punished.

 

[Rynocerous]

Unitl you are there, in the soldier's shoes, after being there for up to 500 plus days(I talked to one of my best friends that just got back from a 585 day tour) it is all speculation. This camera man can say he has been to several wars, but he cannot speak on behalf of a soldier. We may not know the situation leading up to that. If a person is considered a threat, you do whatever to detain or stop that threat. When I hear the military's report on that then I will listen until then it is just media, and a form of propaganda. I don't see a link to this video, if someone could please provide this I would appreciate it.


Sincerely,

Ryan

 

[Adept]

Imagine this, if you will:

Day one - Two marines move into a room. There are several dead iraqis and at least one wounded one. He lies on the ground screaming 'diktoor! diktoor!' (doctor, doctor). One of the marines moves over to him. The iraqi detonates an IED he has concealed on his person. The rest of the marine squad moves into the room, horrified to find small chunks of their comrades blown across the room. They solemnly gather the pieces and send their mates home in boxes to be buried.

Day two - Two marines move into a room. There are several dead iraqis and at least one wounded one. He lies on the ground screaming 'diktoor! diktoor!' (doctor, doctor). One of the marines moves over to him. The iraqi detonates an IED he has concealed on his person. The marine closest to him is killed, the other lightly wounded. As the surviving marine scrapes the red film and bloody mucous from his body, he surveys with horror the scene before him.

Day three - A squad of marines moves into a mosque containing many dead and some wounded iraqi combatants. They examine the bodies lying on the floor. One of them is not dead, and he starts screaming 'diktoor! diktoor!'. 'He's faking dead!' says one marine, who has recently seen his comrades in arms blown to small macabre chunks. A single shot follows. 'He's dead now.'

Please remember folks, the iraqi insurgents are not covered by the geneva convention. They are not following the rules, and are thus not protected by the rules. In this marines shoes, I would have done exactly the same thing. As is commonly touted on this site - better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Apologies. One had conceived the bizarre notion that our guys do not shoot helpless prisoners in the face.

And one had thought that, however understandable, there were moral responsibilities nonetheless. One may understand rather than condemn, and nonetheless think such actions wrong.

The already-cited colonel had it dead right.

And in the end, the moral buck stops at George Bush's desk, what with his having begun an ill-advised and undeclared war without benefit of reason or evidence.

One wishes that he might suffer a sleepless night or three, rather than a young soldier doing the best he could, what with his being a master of war and all...

 

[Fumanchu]

I tried to write a message or two on the Kevin Sites comments but can't seem to find the respond button - that infuriated me somewhat.

I think what the marine did was perfectly justified. Broad picture perspective - the insurgents had 8 months of surrender but chose to dig in. These insurgents also had least 2 months warning that the city would be reclaimed by the coalition- but they chose to dig in. Their leader had been given the opportunity by the Iraqi government to take part in the upcoming election - but no, he chose to carry on with terrorist activities.

Over the last 8 months we have seen that the insurgents don't value human life - Iraqi civilians or their own, and all they want to fight to the death using any form of tricks possible.

Within this theatre of operation, even the body of a dead insurgent is considered dangerous - possibility of being rigged with explosives. What the marine did was right, he removed a justifiable threat.

Kevin Site should be grateful that the marines are keeping him alive. I think he should be more responsibe in shooting his camera instead of critising fellow marines on their responsibilities. I hope he reads this post!

 

[Adept]

Apologies. One had conceived the bizarre notion that our guys do not shoot helpless prisoners in the face.

When faced with that situation, the only way to find out if he is actually a helpless prisoner is to see if he blows himself (and eveyone nearby) into pieces as you approach.

And one had thought that, however understandable, there were moral responsibilities nonetheless.

Such as? Succesfully completing the mission and coming home safe are priorities 1 and 2. Anything that would compromise those takes a back seat.

One may understand rather than condemn, and nonetheless think such actions wrong.

Not wrong. Unfortunately necessary. Like having to change a tire in the rain is not wrong, but necessary. Or having to take a loved one of life support. It isnt wrong, and it isn't nice, but it has to be done. This marine was faced with what could have been a combatant trying to detonate an explosive device with the intent of killing himself and the marines in the room. He acted, perhaps with prejudice, but in the best interests of the mission, his safety, and the safety of his comrades.

 

[Fightfan00]

The Marine was only defending himself and us,who is to say the person that he shot wasent trying to lure him into some kind of trap,or overcome him in some way.War is tough pal and you have to look out for yourself and your buddies.The media has to much liberty now,they shouldnt be over there at all.THATS HOW I FEEL!

 

[Flatlander]

When faced with that situation, the only way to find out if he is actually a helpless prisoner is to see if he blows himself (and eveyone nearby) into pieces as you approach.

Here's how I read it.


From the reporter blog in bold:


"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ. ...<snip>.....

....While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.

Then I hear him say this about one of the men:

"He's ****ing faking he's dead -- he's faking he's ****ing dead."

Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.

However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.

Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.

"Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background......<snip>
.....But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons....

The Lieutenant is out of the room, there are three soldiers in the room, and there are no immediate threats presented. They are faced with the possibility that a wounded body is booby trapped. Obviously, time is not really on everyone's side at this point. I will assume that all involved are feeling a sense of urgency. At this point, the reporter has documented no discussion between the soldiers as to how to respond to the problem of a possible booby trap. Soldier shoots based upon own judgement.

One thing that I'm curious of, which the blog does address, is who was in charge of the immediate operation with Lieutenant out of the room.

I'm also curious as to why there was no discussion. It seems to me that, at the very least, shooting at this point should at least require concensus or discussion - if the justification for the shooting is to circumvent a possible booby trap, which it seems to be.

Something else that bothers me about the scenario is that the Lieutenant leaves the room after having assessed the situation. Should the concern about whether or not the injured bodies may be a possible booby trap threat not have crossed his mind? In fact, it seems to me that he was busy speaking to his superiors about what to do next.

According to Lt. Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or Marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force.

It seems to me that were this a previously known credible threat that may entail the shooting of a wounded and unarmed civilian, some sort of policy would have been implemented in order to deal with it. I'll infer that the subsequent lack of proclamation of such policy means that there was not one.
So, the decision to shoot wasn't based on a "predetermined operational policy" of how to deal with this scenario.

Ergo, if the possible booby trap justification is the one being used, its safe to say that management was negligent for not having determined the need for such policy. This left the decision to shoot in order to eliminate the threat up to the three in the room - and this guy made it alone. The fact that he shot only one of the injured doesn't support that justification either. If you're good to shoot one, why not wax them all?

 

[Fumanchu]

Flatlander,

You can't have a policy for every decision without having your hands tied and not being able to act. No, that injured insurgent is not an "unarmed civilian". The insurgents have profiled themselves in a way that he remains a threat. That individual (insurgent) may have indeed be unarmed, but unfortuantely for him he is part of an organisation that use surrender as a lure, disregards human life and acts in a barbaric manner.

As for the Lt being out of the room after assessing the situation, i don't see anything wrong with that. The marines are well trained enough to act on the own accord and respond to threats in a way they see fit. You don't need an Lt to direct their every action.

 

[Flatlander]

Flatlander,

Nice to meet you, Fumanchu. :asian:

You can't have a policy for every decision without having your hands tied and not being able to act.

You should, when dealing with a situation that has the potential for such obvious "bad media". In the land of embedded journalists, someone should have thought of that.

No, that injured insurgent is not an "unarmed civilian".

The shooter had no idea who he was dealing with. There were no weapons. These guys don't wear uniforms. Given that "the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or Marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force", it seems to me that the injured should be assessed as the evidence suggests. Maybe not civilian. But maybe. Maybe not. Maybe civilian was the wrong word to use.

The insurgents have profiled themselves in a way that he remains a threat. That individual (insurgent) may have indeed be unarmed, but unfortuantely for him he is part of an organisation that use surrender as a lure, disregards human life and acts in a barbaric manner.

You don't know that about this man. You are assuming.

As for the Lt being out of the room after assessing the situation, i don't see anything wrong with that. The marines are well trained enough to act on the own accord and respond to threats in a way they see fit. You don't need an Lt to direct their every action.

I don't see anything wrong with it either. I point it out because it demonstrates that the leadership was not there to suggest a course of action, yet had already been given the opportunity to assess the situation. If the booby trap threat was previously known to be legitimate, why not give the order to eliminate it? Likely, he would have, had he thought there to be one - unless he was passing the buck....

 

[Adept]

You don't know that about this man. You are assuming.

The crux of the issue is that in such a situation, you have to assume something. You also have to weigh the pro's and con's of being wrong, for each assumption.

1 - He is an innocent civilian, so don't shoot him. If you are wrong, he kills himself and you and your friends.

2 - He is a combatant, but unarmed. Dont't shoot him. If you are wrong, he kills himself and you and your friends.

3 - He is a combatant, and has an IED on his body. Shoot him. If you are wrong, then only one more Iraqi is dead, and as callous as that sounds, it is much better than you and your friends being dead.

4 - (this is the only unacceptable assumption) He is an innocent civilian. Shoot him anyway becuase you hate Iraqis. ]

I seriously doubt option 4 was going through our marines head. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

Remember, succesful completion of the mission and coming home alive are objectives 1 and 2. Anything else, including the lives of civilians, takes a back seat to this. And remember, the Geneva convention does not apply. This is not a war between two opposing forces in clearly identifiable uniforms.

 

[Fumanchu]

Flatlander,

Quote: "You should, when dealing with a situation that has the potential for such obvious "bad media". In the land of embedded journalists, someone should have thought of that."

Media or no media, the soldiers are fighting a war. They do not fight a war with a media in mind. This will compromise making decisions and get yourself and your troops killed. It is difficult enough having jorunalist you have to watch out for. I think soldiers should be left to fight a war without the distraction of media. I think in this case Kevin behaved irresponsibly.

Quote: "The shooter had no idea who he was dealing with. There were no weapons. These guys don't wear uniforms. Given that "the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or Marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force", it seems to me that the injured should be assessed as the evidence suggests. Maybe not civilian. But maybe. Maybe not. Maybe civilian was the wrong word to use."

No visible sign of weapons does not mean no weapons present. This is something we should be aware of even in self defence on the streets let alone in war. It seems there was hotile intent because the insurgents have proven to use such tactics before to detonate IEDs to injure marines. The mindset of insurgents is not to score strategic victory but to cause attrition.

Quote: "You don't know that about this man. You are assuming."

I'm not assuming. eg. suicide car bombs, kindnapping / beheading of aid workers, assination of political staff, random bombings / motar attacks that injure civilians. list goes on...... The man represents the behaviour of such an organisation by holding himself out to be an insurgent.

Quote: "I don't see anything wrong with it either. I point it out because it demonstrates that the leadership was not there to suggest a course of action, yet had already been given the opportunity to assess the situation. If the booby trap threat was previously known to be legitimate, why not give the order to eliminate it?"

You don't need a commanding officer to tell the marine that it's time to neutralise a threat when their objective was to sweep the building and eliminate possible threat. Not a good situation if you leave your rear guard exposed and compromise your supply lines. Moreover, Kevin's report said that that place was still hot and the marines were still taking sniper fire from the front and rear. Armour was also deployed to neutralise those threats. To me, it seems like a rather tense situation and the reason why the marines went about their business in such a "relaxed" fashion I would atrtribute to their good training and professionalism under fire.

 

[RRouuselot]

Two of my students/good friends who are both in the military are in Iraq. Needless to say they hate it and would rather be home, however, for reasons beyond their control that is not possible at this time.
I can honestly say that I would not want to be there. From what I am told by friends that were there and friends that are still there war is a confusing mess were nothing is really black and white and sometimes you have to react or die.
I feel sorry for the Marine….he probably just reacted out of self preservation. I don’t feel sorry for the terrorist scum that were hiding in a Mosque, a place that they=Iraqis= say is off limits for war……they don’t want to follow their own rules of engagement then why should we. Those terrorists chose to hide like a bunch of chicken XXXXX and got waxed…they made a wrong decision and paid for it.

 

[Fumanchu]

RRouuselot,

I agree, do you think the media was irresponsible in covering this knowing that it would create more difficulties for the marine?

As much as I like to know what goes on in Iraq, I think the media should give the troops some space to do their job. Even in a game like say football, you don't have cameras running along side the players when they try to score a goal- when obviously the stakes from being distracted by the camera is much lower.

 

[RRouuselot]

RRouuselot,

I agree, do you think the media was irresponsible in covering this knowing that it would create more difficulties for the marine?

If it were me I probably would have shot the reporter too…(joke...sort of)
I think these “up close and personals with the soldiers/marines” are only for Network ratings….for the thrill factor if you will so folks will watch their station.
I really believe that news people going along side the military in a war is more of a liability for the soldier/marine because if the shooting starts someone has to save the news guy’s backside……just another thing to distract you during a war.
Having said that I wonder how many of our guys had to bite a bullet to save some of these news people from getting wasted…….