Disgracefully lenient sentence for Haditha murderer

I don't think anyone is saying that these Marines should get a free pass, and certainly their punishments should have been much harsher. Still, there needs to be context to what is happening. It's not so easy to switch from peace keeper to assaulting an objective to peace keeper. This is the reality of an insurgency...in one instance you are handing out candy to children, the very next you are charging into a building where insurgents have opened up on you with MGs and RPGs...then, once this is all done, you go back to the hearts and minds stuff. Sometimes, these things happen, it's terribly unfortunate but the context is important to consider when evaluating this instance. Do I think it was premeditated murder...No...Do I think they got caught up in the moment and went into combat mode as soon as they took fire...yes. They should still be held liable for the deaths of the non combatants in this instance because of the nature of the wounds on the fallen. These wounds are "assault" wounds. Or, gunshot wounds in the chest and head...text book room clearing procedures. They were not indicitive of execution or torture, they were indicitive of their failure to identify weapons on the persons and kill anyone that was in the houses or area where they took fire from. Definitely a bad judgement call. I speculate that once it was all said and done and they realized what they had done, they got into CYA mode and the rest is history. All in all, all we can do is speculate because none of us were there. I would imagine that this event is the consequence of leadership failures in the weeks or months prior to this incident. If these guys were exhibiting signs of battle fatigue, then it is our job as leaders to identify it and get these guys minds right before they are exposed to combat again. It's a gradual thing where symptoms can be observed. I believe these were ignored over time and this incident is the result of the straw breaking the camels back.

This profession is not an easy one to undertake and all it takes is one bad decision among countless correct decisions to end up like this. These guys made the wrong decision, and therefore, should be held accountable...just keep in mind that these things are NEVER as cut and dry as they seem on the surface.
 
Last edited:
42RM said:
I don´t defend the crime that was committed. But soldiers will commit such things under the influence of war.

Exactly, and this is where I as an officer has a huge responsibility for such things not to happen.
Click to expand...

Right but I am saying using "war" as the excuse for exonerating crime does not wash, I think we can all understand how how these things happen and why these things happen but it still does not allow us to ignore the fact that a crime took place.

Tell me if I in the course of doing my job I and my entire department decided we were too stressed out and killed 24 people and then concocted a story to cover it up would you be happy if our punishment was everyone acquitted and me as the senior guy there being demoted to mail boy with the loss of 3 months pay?

No you like everyone else here would be leaping up and down about revolving door justice and the perils of liberalism.
 
Only those who have never been called upon to take up position on the front line can lightly dismiss the fog of war.
 
Del Boy said:
Only those who have never been called upon to take up position on the front line can lightly dismiss the fog of war.
Click to expand...

Horse hockey... no one is above the law, it doesn't matter whether you wear a uniform or not it is that simple.
 
Last edited:
Del Boy said:
Only those who have never been called upon to take up position on the front line can lightly dismiss the fog of war.
Click to expand...


We understand, but the law should still be upholded. There is no excuse for 24 civillian deaths by foot troops in 45 minutes. Monty pretty much explained what I feel, so I just posted to show that I am siding with the feel that these guys are getting light punishment.
 
Del Boy said:
Only those who have never been called upon to take up position on the front line can lightly dismiss the fog of war.
Click to expand...

I only hope you have the decency to apologise to the victims of the reprisals when it comes.

There was no Fog here, they went inside and shot unarmed men including one in a wheelchair, women, and a child face to face, there was one unloaded weapon, unfired, not an unusual situation in Iraq. What could be more blatant, if you excuse this, then you can excuse anything. The message the court provides is that total war, Eastern front style is acceptable because of Fog. Except there is no Nuremberg in the offing for the perpetrators.

Actually the Brits here are being even more generous to their American colleagues than it seems, since they could have be prosecuted under international law and had to control their anger under similar circumstances, whilst Americans are exempt from such inconveniences.

If any good comes of this at least the US will be unlikely to get any support from other countries for any more wars of forcing disaster capitalism on any more countries, at least until they agree to conform to a civilised law.
 
Last edited:
The nearest (recent official) situation I can find in the British army was the less extreme case (it's all relative) of the killing of Baha Mousa who died with 93 injuries in British army custody in Basra in 2003.

The head of the Army, General Sir Peter Wall, said the "shameful circumstances" of the innocent civilian's death cast a "dark shadow" over the reputation of the service.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14825889

I would be interested to know, does Sir Peter have enough experience of combat to have a view on this?
 
I am sure the reprisals have been carried out and the whole thing is pretty much finished in Iraq now. You know the "evil" west as usual have installed a functioning democracy and respected the Iraqi Nations right to determine its own affairs.


In all seriousness the game changed in Iraq towards the end of 2006. The strategy changed US leadership got their head the around population centric nature of Hybrid warfare and they took a more holistic approach to the well being of Iraqis and the nations security. And as that took place the Iraqis saw the Al quida and external insurgents/ local extremists for what they were. People intentionally fanning the flames turning Iraqi against Iraqi and against the US and central government using them them as pawns for their own destruction. So Iraqis turned against them at first tribe by tribe in the rural regions and then this sentiment spread to urban areas. To the point where insurgents are now seen as the enemy destabilizing the nation. They are now the outsider.

So this incident needs to be seen in the light of the time it was hard to identify the enemy operations were set up to find. Imagine feeling the whole nation was against you and people though not shooting at you were aiding the enemy. Hiding them,supplying them, might even be them. Strategy was yet to change to see that is was the population you must protect from the influence of the insurgent; the enemy may be hard to find but you can easily identify the local population. It is pointless to seek out and close with an enemy who can cut and run leaving you to create as much collateral damage as possible (as it furthers the insurgents cause by justifying there cause).

I don't condone what happened I don't agree with how the case was handled. If they did infact kill 24 civilians intentionally. Then someone is responsible and should be held accountable.

But anyway the situation then is different to what it is now. So don't talk of this incident as though it is current. Or has a bearing of what the armed forces in general are like.

War effects people sh!t happens people make mistakes. Both mistakes in error and mistakes of judgement . I don't believe you cant comment on something if you weren't there but you cant claim to understand something if you weren't there.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Right but I am saying using "war" as the excuse for exonerating crime does not wash, I think we can all understand how how these things happen and why these things happen but it still does not allow us to ignore the fact that a crime took place.

Tell me if I in the course of doing my job I and my entire department decided we were too stressed out and killed 24 people and then concocted a story to cover it up would you be happy if our punishment was everyone acquitted and me as the senior guy there being demoted to mail boy with the loss of 3 months pay?

No you like everyone else here would be leaping up and down about revolving door justice and the perils of liberalism.
Click to expand...
Ah! The perilous life as a accountant!
You could be traumatized if your pencil break!

You know S***!
 
42RM said:
Ah! The perilous life as a accountant!
You could be traumatized if your pencil break!

You know S***!
Click to expand...

I know s**t?

I am not the one admitting a crime and then arguing that nothing should be done about it because they wear a uniform.

If we want to talk about insane arguments how do you reconcile this view?
 
I think what he is trying to point out is that the example you provided and the situation these Marines were in are not that same thing. It's not a matter of being "stressed out". It's a matter of exhaustion, misery, danger, frequent adrenaline dumps and fight or flight responses, anger, fear, and lack of supervision. All this added up over time and these guys are a prime example of what happens when things like this go unsupervised or an intervention is not made to give these men time to decompress.

Soldiers deal with stress all the time. One thing you DO learn in combat is that everyone has their limit. Once that limit is reached they can become a danger to themselves and others. A leader reaching this point can contaminate the rest of his men if left in that environment. I believe this is what happened. A leader in the military exerts much more influence over the lives and actions of his subordinates than does that of his peer in the civilian sector. So simply using your office example is seemingly undermining and minimizing the risks we take on a regular basis while we are deployed.

Don't contort this into a justification for the incident. I want to clarify that it is not. I understand it though. I know what it is to feel hate and anger toward people that I know are complicit in trying to kill me or my soldiers and then not be able to do a thing about it. It's very tempting to take matters into your own hands and administer "justice". The fact is, in 99% of cases this urge is resisted and we move out and continue our mission. These guys messed up and should be spending a long time in jail at the least. It IS a shame that this case was bungled to the point where these guys got what amounted to a slap on the wrist. Just please don't pretend to understand where we are coming from when we say that we can see how this happens.
 
brinktk said:
I think what he is trying to point out is that the example you provided and the situation these Marines were in are not that same thing. It's not a matter of being "stressed out". It's a matter of exhaustion, misery, danger, frequent adrenaline dumps and fight or flight responses, anger, fear, and lack of supervision. All this added up over time and these guys are a prime example of what happens when things like this go unsupervised or an intervention is not made to give these men time to decompress.

Soldiers deal with stress all the time. One thing you DO learn in combat is that everyone has their limit. Once that limit is reached they can become a danger to themselves and others. A leader reaching this point can contaminate the rest of his men if left in that environment. I believe this is what happened. A leader in the military exerts much more influence over the lives and actions of his subordinates than does that of his peer in the civilian sector. So simply using your office example is seemingly undermining and minimizing the risks we take on a regular basis while we are deployed.

Don't contort this into a justification for the incident. I want to clarify that it is not. I understand it though. I know what it is to feel hate and anger toward people that I know are complicit in trying to kill me or my soldiers and then not be able to do a thing about it. It's very tempting to take matters into your own hands and administer "justice". The fact is, in 99% of cases this urge is resisted and we move out and continue our mission. These guys messed up and should be spending a long time in jail at the least. It IS a shame that this case was bungled to the point where these guys got what amounted to a slap on the wrist. Just please don't pretend to understand where we are coming from when we say that we can see how this happens.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I don't entirely agree but I agree enough with your conclusion not to push it further.
 
To me it comes down to one fact.

If it were excusable, the International community wouldn't have made laws against it.
 
MontyB said:
Right but I am saying using "war" as the excuse for exonerating crime does not wash, I think we can all understand how how these things happen and why these things happen but it still does not allow us to ignore the fact that a crime took place.

Tell me if I in the course of doing my job I and my entire department decided we were too stressed out and killed 24 people and then concocted a story to cover it up would you be happy if our punishment was everyone acquitted and me as the senior guy there being demoted to mail boy with the loss of 3 months pay?

No you like everyone else here would be leaping up and down about revolving door justice and the perils of liberalism.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to open my mouth on this subject because I'm just a young'ing here, however I don't believe that any of us here can judge them for their actions, seeing as none of us were there, we weren't in their boots, nor do we know the situation at the time.

I don't advocate "war crimes" whatsoever, but I am a firm believer that we should take care of our own instead of kicking them out on their ass while they have PTSD and live homeless on our streets like the 100,000+ veterans we already have homeless on the street. After all they did sign up to fight for us, something the majority of American society would not do. :???:
 
Last edited:
You know the one thing that separates us from despotic dictatorships is that we can and if we are to believe we are indeed free we should question the actions of those who carry out these tasks in our name.

One thing I really hate is this "I an not condoning crime but" it is right up there with "I am not racist but" and "I am not anti-XXXXXX but", you can travel down the path of believing that throwing on a uniform somehow makes you above the law and you can trot out every excuse from medical to mental but the the question you have to ask yourself is whether 24 dead men, woman, children, elderly and crippled have received justice.

However like Perseus I will interested to see what sentence is given to Nidal Hasan.
 
Last edited:
War is a break down of all civilised behaviour.
True there are "Rules", Geneva Convention, etc, but we all know that these rules are applied as and when it suits.
Incidents like this have always happened as long as there has been conflict.
Oradour Sur Glane in WWII, and Mi Lai durring the Vietnam War are just recent examples.
In both, the defenders of the crime cite circumstances that the soldiers found themselves under, that could only be understood if "you were there".
Civillians expect their soldiers to behave impecably all the time regardless of their personal situations. When you put on a uniform, you are expect to be super human, with no feelings or emotions.
If an army is not a proffesional force, that is one made up mainly of conscripted individuals, it may be argued that they do not have the high standards of a purely volunteer force.
Where there is a blurring of who the enemy, who the non-combattants are, such as in a conflict fighting insurgents, innocents will get caught in the middle.
The sad fact is, as "civilised" people we attempt to fight our wars according to rules. The enemy know this, and exploit this.
The soldiers see this and become frustrated and angry, especially when they suffer casualties as a result and are not able to retaliate.
This then creates the situation where these incidents happen.
I am not excusing what happens, just trying to explain why it may happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top