Disgracefully lenient sentence for Haditha murderer

[42RM]

Can you quote a credible source for that?

Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed
conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International
humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against
military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime
occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article
8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian
injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of
proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life
or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated;

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the
1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive.

The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage; and
(c) whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).

http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf



Geneva Convention, Part IV, Article 47 - General protection of civilian objects.

“Article 47 -- General protection of civilian objects “

1. Attacks shall be strictly limited to military objectives, namely, to those objectives which are, by their nature, purpose or use, recognized to be of military interest and whose total or partial destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a distinct and substantial military advantage.

2. Consequently, objects designed for civilian use, such as houses, dwellings, installations and means of transport, and all objects which are not military objectives, shall not be made the object of attack, except if they are used mainly in support of the military effort."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/5f27276ce1bbb79dc12563cd00434969!OpenDocument

And I will emphasize again, this is not a defense of the act that was committed.
But war is not black or white. And it is permissible to kill civilians under certain circumstances.

 

[senojekips]

Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed
conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International
humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against
military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) Nowhere does any of the above excuse deliberate murder, done as an act of retribution, bearing in mind that no enemy combatants were found, anywhere in the area.

You seem to forget that they appeared in court. And in the 21st century (as in the 20th century) circumstances are taken into account. They can increase or decrease the punishment.

Hah!.... a court? That wasn't a court, it was a whitewash, and would have been judged so anywhere else in the world. They would have been judged innocent had they been caught in the act.

 

[captiva303]

Seno I don't think you are following what people are saying. 42rm was pointing out to Perseus that it is legal to clear a house. From what I am reading He was not commenting on the legality of the incident itself.

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................

If you don't recongnise the legal system how can you claim that it has failed?

With rules as stated above you can see how prosecution would be difficult.


Do tell me where does the blame lie?

If all this concrete evidence about the event exists ? howcome things ended up the way they did?

 

[senojekips]

Seno I don't think you are following what people are saying. 42rm was pointing out to Perseus that it is legal to clear a house. From what I am reading He was not commenting on the legality of the incident itself.

If you don't recongnise the legal system how can you claim that it has failed?

Are you thick? I don't recognise the system because of it's clearly corrupt findings. None of what 42RM stated was applicable as it applies when the houses are being used as cover by an enemy, and there was no proof that this was the case here. No combatants found, there was no armed resistance, or any evidence that they had ever been there.

With rules as stated above you can see how prosecution would be difficult.

Not at all as this was a clear act of retribution, not even taking into account the attempts to hide what had happened and the lies told. People had pre judged this before it ever saw the light of day.

Do tell me where does the blame lie?

The blame lies clearly with those who carried out the executions. No one was shooting back at the time and only a legal weapon was found, and there was no evidence that it had been fired. Then there was the coverup, followed by the lies that it was caused by grenades,... one lie after another all shown to be deliberate lies.

If all this concrete evidence about the event exists ? howcome things ended up the way they did?

As if you don't already know? It was a deliberate preplanned miscarriage of justice by people who are used to having their own way. That is exactly what everyone is complaining about.

 

[captiva303]

Are you thick?

Not at all, I just wanted to see what you were actually saying and why.

 

[VDKMS]

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) Nowhere does any of the above excuse deliberate murder, done as an act of retribution, bearing in mind that no enemy combatants were found, anywhere in the area.

This was not an intentional attack directed against civilians. If that IED attack didn't take place, nothing would have happend. The killing of the civilians was a direct result of the soldiers coming under attack.

If they killed those civilians without coming under attack I would fully agree with you, but now I don't.

 

[senojekips]

This was not an intentional attack directed against civilians. If that IED attack didn't take place, nothing would have happend. The killing of the civilians was a direct result of the soldiers coming under attack.

If they killed those civilians without coming under attack I would fully agree with you, but now I don't.

Oh Bullsh!t,.. At the time when the civilians were executed there was no return fire, and no combatants found or killed, nor any evidence of any combatants ever having been there.

Just because you have been attacked you still can't just take out your frustration by killing anyone who lives nearby.

 

[MontyB]

This was not an intentional attack directed against civilians. If that IED attack didn't take place, nothing would have happend. The killing of the civilians was a direct result of the soldiers coming under attack.

If they killed those civilians without coming under attack I would fully agree with you, but now I don't.

Not an intentional attack on civilians?
Ok lets assume that they could not have cleared the house any different to what they did how about the guys in the taxi that they stopped and shot?

My opinion (that is all it is) from what I have read so far is that an IED exploded killing one soldier and in response the remaining ones in the ensuing panic ran amok killing anyone and anything they could find.

 

[03USMC]

Let's try to keep it civil and not devolve into insults and attacks.


Carry on.

 

[brinktk]

Technically, according to the Rules of Engagement of the time, the men from the taxi were legitimately taken under fire.

Prior to the Marines going on that patrol they had recieved intel to be on the look out for a white sedan carrying insurgents within the city. The white sedan taxi filled with men came to a stop immediately after the IED explosion. They then fled the scene. The Rules of Engagement allowed men of military age fleeing the scene of an IED to be taken under fire because they were usually trigger men for the IED. They simply got caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[senojekips]

Technically, according to the Rules of Engagement of the time, the men from the taxi were legitimately taken under fire.

Prior to the Marines going on that patrol they had recieved intel to be on the look out for a white sedan carrying insurgents within the city. The white sedan taxi filled with men came to a stop immediately after the IED explosion. They then fled the scene. The Rules of Engagement allowed men of military age fleeing the scene of an IED to be taken under fire because they were usually trigger men for the IED. They simply got caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Usually?... and that is enough to kill unarmed persons offering no threat? Exactly how many trigger men does it take to fire an IED, and why exactly would they immediately take a cab to the site of their IED after the explosion while it was teeming with angry armed soldiers.

They obviously never fled far, most of them having not made more than a step or two from the Taxi, and with several of them being flat on their backs facing the cab I find it hard to believe they were fleeing.

Hardly a credible story in anyone's book.

 

[RayManKiller3]

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) Nowhere does any of the above excuse deliberate murder, done as an act of retribution, bearing in mind that no enemy combatants were found, anywhere in the area.

I am not sure if you know this or not (as I am late getting here), but 42RM said the Geneva Convention is not applicable in this case.

 

[senojekips]

I am not sure if you know this or not (as I am late getting here), but 42RM said the Geneva Convention is not applicable in this case.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

Art. 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;---snip---

........................

 

[brinktk]

Usually?... and that is enough to kill unarmed persons offering no threat? Exactly how many trigger men does it take to fire an IED, and why exactly would they immediately take a cab to the site of their IED after the explosion while it was teeming with angry armed soldiers.

They obviously never fled far, most of them having not made more than a step or two from the Taxi, and with several of them being flat on their backs facing the cab I find it hard to believe they were fleeing.

Hardly a credible story in anyone's book.

You and I have the advantage of hind sight, they did not. I have seen insurgents do some incredibly strange things...even some really dumb things. MANY insurgents will dope themselves up before getting into an engagement with us, when they get doped up, they get stupid and bold as one can imagine. It was not uncommon in Ramadi or Fallujah when I was there to see an entire carfull of insurgents trying to blow IEDs on us. One guy was look out, one guy was the trigger man, one guy was filming, one guy was stopping traffick, etc...you can see how it would be easy to fill a car with bad guys in these instances.The position of the bodies means nothing. When people are hit by bullets, they don't react like you see in the movies. They fall in all sorts of different and awkward ways. The fact of the matter is, and 99% of Iraqi's knew this by this point in the war, if you run after an IED, you're going to get lit up. So YES, it is enough for them to get lit up in this circumstance.

 

[senojekips]

You and I have the advantage of hind sight, they did not. I have seen insurgents do some incredibly strange things...even some really dumb things. MANY insurgents will dope themselves up before getting into an engagement with us, when they get doped up, they get stupid and bold as one can imagine. It was not uncommon in Ramadi or Fallujah when I was there to see an entire carfull of insurgents trying to blow IEDs on us. One guy was look out, one guy was the trigger man, one guy was filming, one guy was stopping traffick, etc...you can see how it would be easy to fill a car with bad guys in these instances.The position of the bodies means nothing. When people are hit by bullets, they don't react like you see in the movies. They fall in all sorts of different and awkward ways. The fact of the matter is, and 99% of Iraqi's knew this by this point in the war, if you run after an IED, you're going to get lit up. So YES, it is enough for them to get lit up in this circumstance.

You are sounding more like an apologist for a corrupt regime every time you respond.

For a start there was no evidence that any of those who were murdered were drugged up, not the children nor the adults. None of the concerns you have raised were mentioned in any of the reports I have read on the incident, not even as highly implausible excuses.

So all of these widely spaced people instead of making a getaway gathered together and got a cab to take them into the centre of the carnage they had just caused, which was now full of angry troops,.... Yeah, that sounds logical,... NOT.

It's funny how the bodies of those who were executed looked that way yet the bodies of these "allegedly" fleeing insurgents (none of whom were armed) somehow fell in a manner that one would expect of people caught pretty much unawares.

You are not helping yourself here either. The fact that people run after an IED detonation is only natural and even moreso when they believe that some irrational armed thugs are going to go on a senseless rampage shooting anything that moves. Anyone with an ounce of nous would expect that those firing the IED would be at a safe distance, and if not engaging their target from that location, making the distance even greater.

You seem to be of the opinion that the regrettable deaths of the Marines earlier, having been caused by an IED makes them somehow different to deaths caused from other causes in a warzone. As far as I know there are no special provisions made for killing unarmed civilians purely because you have taken casualties, from any source, also, troops still have an obligation to ensure that those whom they kill are armed combatants. That was not the case with the occupants of the taxi, and definitely not the case with the people in the buildings.

 

[captiva303]

Again you are not actually processing what people are saying. He is talking about his own experiences and trying to think (and sharing his thoughts) about why what happened, happened from a logical informed and experience based point of view. Not making empirical statements about what has occurred. Just sharing insight about how things are done....
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

You appear to be projecting a point of view that shows that you are not interested in why and how this happened. Nor are you interested in what people who have been in similar situations have to say, because your world view apparently provides you with insights others simply cannot possess. You also seem more interested in looking at what happened so as to use it as proof for your point of view that the US is an evil, tyrannical, corrupt group hell bent on the destruction of everyone and everything.

Are you incapable of recognizing that soldiers are human too?That they react like people and make mistakes like people. FYI Soldiers are just like ordinary people.

The scenario you suggest: The soldiers get hit by an IED take casualties. Receive fire from a near by building.They then proceed to line up who ever they can find and kill them. In an act of retribution of what just happened. [To me that is a completely illogical yet you say otherwise.]

The scenario : Soldiers hit by IED take casualties. Receive fire from nearby building. Soldiers engage suspected IED planters in taxi. Clear nearby house botch it up and inflict civilian casualties in error.


Now you tell me which is the more logical. A platoon of cold blooded killers go out on patrol waiting for an excuse to kill civilians? Or people making mistakes under extreme circumstances?

 

[brinktk]

I wasn't saying they were drugged, I was showing you how it COULD have happened. You are using the knowledge you already know of the situation and years of speculation and hind sight on your side to make a call. Those guys had seconds to react with NONE of the knowledge that we have. The only thing they had to go off of was previous experiences and training. You can try to apply logic to an illogical situation all you want, the fact is, all your moral superiority application to this process means nothing on the ground when the sh!t hits the fan. You keep saying key words like "no threat" and "innocent" and "cold blood"...when you have the benefit of years of study. Those guys on the ground had none of this...all they had was training, they took a KIA, and they went too far. You're acting like it was premeditated murder, as if they had sat around and talked about how they were going to grease as many civilians as they could. I'm trying to point out how this could have happened and be OBJECTIVE about it.

BTW, they were already in the cab when the incident happened and were approaching the scene. They were stopped at a distance and they attempted to flee. So, they got lit up. It happens. When a vehicle is hit by an IED it's very confusing and the entire convoy is at its most vulnerable state. Ever heard of a VBIED? They're these cars that are filled with...explosives...and then they drive them towards coalition forces...often after an attack...you know... because it's all confused and stuff... and the men have to get out of their vehicles to help the wounded...wait a minute...you mean to tell me that dismounts and bombs don't go together...holy crap batman! These are the types of things you have to look out for all the time and especially after an attack. We are constantly being tested for weaknesses by the bad guys and we are especially vulnerable after an attack...We know it and they know it... So these guys get hit, and then they are hyper vigilant about a vehicle approaching their convoy, the car stops but the men flee...

Don't presume to know the first thing about these matters. You simply don't. Maybe you have rose colored glasses of how war is supposed to be, but I can tell you that this mentality will just get you and your men killed. You can THINK whatever you want, but instead of trying to use this as your pedestal of moral superiority over the rest of us, why don't you come down from the heavens and look at the world the way it is for a second so we can talk about this objectively.

 

[42RM]

Google warrior and keyboard moralist
Never been there, never done it, but here is how you should react.

 

[Trooper1854]

How much of the information released about this incident, and many others like it, My lai, Bloody Sunday, etc is reliable, accurate and not modified for political reasons?
How much of it is released with political agendas?
The only people who know what happened are the people who were there.
The truth gets twisted and modified to suit political purposes.
Soldiers will always get the rough end of the stick. They can't do right for doing wrong and will always be sacrificed to the gods of politics and public opinion.
No one here, unless they were directly involved in the incident can pass comment, or judgement!
Do you know the truth? The WHOLE TRUTH?
Its all well and good saying "I read this or that" but you get a group of people together who witness the same thing they will all give you the differnt accounts.
The Marines there are the only ones who know what happened and for anyone to sit here and pass judgement, its a waste of time!
Its obvious people are set in their views and opinions and will not be swayed despite anyone elses views.

 

[VDKMS]

Oh Bullsh!t,.. At the time when the civilians were executed there was no return fire, and no combatants found or killed, nor any evidence of any combatants ever having been there.

Just because you have been attacked you still can't just take out your frustration by killing anyone who lives nearby.

'He told me to treat the house as hostile': Marine remembers day he and comrades stormed homes and killed 24 Iraqis in Haditha massacre

The squad was returning from a supply run at a combat outpost in the early morning when one of the four humvees in their convoy hit a roadside bomb, killing Lance Cpl Miguel Terrazas and wounding two others.
Tatum said he rushed to help someone trapped under the humvee when he heard small arms fire hit the vehicle in front of him. Wuterich and another Marine ran toward the nearest home.
Tatum testified that when he caught up to Wuterich, the sergeant told him to 'treat the house as hostile'.

Charged: Wuterich is the last defendant in one of the biggest criminal cases against U.S. troops from the Iraq war. He faces nine counts of manslaughter.
Tatum said he understood that to mean there were armed individuals inside and he did not need to identify his target to attack.
The Marines tossed grenades in rooms and fired off rounds.
One man was killed near the kitchen.
Others were killed in a back room, where Tatum fired alongside Wuterich but said he was unable to see what he was shooting at because of the darkness and flying debris after a grenade exploded.
The Marines left when someone yelled that they had seen a person running out of the home.
They ran to a neighboring house, tossing grenades in rooms and shooting off rounds.
Tatum saw the body of an Iraqi man near the kitchen when he went in after his fellow Marines.
While checking an empty room, Tatum said he heard people in a nearby room moving then Wuterich firing his M-16.
He rushed to help him, shooting at what he said were silhouettes in the dark, some big, some small.
'The only thing that gave me any indication there was a hostile act in there would be Staff Sgt. Wuterich firing sir,' Tatum told military prosecutor Maj Nicholas Gannon.
He returned later when the house had been determined to be safe and learned they had killed an unarmed woman and children in the room.
The defense says Wuterich believed insurgents were in the homes and that's why he ordered his Marines to shoot first and ask questions later.