It has been decided that a United States Marine will stand trial for "unpremeditated murder and dereliction of duty" for apparently killing an unarmed Iraqi militant in Fallujah in 2004. Are you kidding me? We not only are sending people to war to "defend" our country, we are now also trying to send them to prison for murders that occurred in a war zone while they were carrying out their missions. C'mon, people. They eventually stormed the mosque, killing 10 insurgents and wounding five others, and showing off a cache of rifles and grenades for journalists. The Marines told the pool reporter that the wounded men would be left behind for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents and attacked it again, only to find the same wounded men inside."
I am admittedly biased. I have two younger brothers who are active duty Marines. One spent six months in Iraq last year. I don't hear much about what goes on over there from him; it isn't something he likes to talk about. I know my brother, and his relative silence means that the stuff that really goes on over there is beyond not good.
Guess what? War ain't pretty and it ain't for everybody. But somebody has to do it. Somebody that stands up and says "Send me." Somebody that does that and then does his or her best to make the correct split second decisions while storming one of the most heavily guarded and fortified cities of the entire conflict should be applauded. Making a wrong decision under these circumstances is just one of those things that should be swept under the rug. We should not be criminalizing killing bad guys during war.
This happened in November 2004. This makes it during the Second Battle of Fallujah or "Operation Phantom Fury". The U.S. and Iraqi Security Forces stormed Fallujah where 4000-5000 buttheads were waiting to kill us. We had 5000-10000 combat troops. Those are pretty blasted even numbers when you think about the kind of resistance we normally encounter. We lost 95 soldiers in this battle and had 560 wounded. Admittedly, we did better than the bad guys (which is a good thing!), as they lost somewhere around 1350 people. And we took 1500 prisoners. Point is, this was a very, very hot combat zone during these few months. Marines were literally moving from house to house fighting the insurgency.
Here is a blib from CNN from this battle (Tues, Nov 16, 2004):
"Friday, the Marines were fired upon by snipers and insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades from a mosque and an adjacent building. The Marines returned fire with tank shells and machine guns.
These charges seem wrong to me, though there are admittedly very few details. I'm sorry, but this just stinks of war. Much worse has been done, and much worse is being done. If you ask me, Sgt. Weemer is partly to blame for his current legal trouble as he volunteered information when applying to a Secret Service position. I don't blame him for doing what was done, though. If you close your eyes and envision what the situation must have been like; the chaos, bullets flying, constant gunfire, very close quarters, invading enemy territory, RPG explosions, overturned cars, not seeing your enemy, trying to keep track of your friends, everything moving so fast... No, I can't say I wouldn't have reacted the same way.
I think that war is a very bad place to be. We cannot be holding our soldiers to standards that are near impossible. We can't have soldiers second-guessing themselves at critical times. The vast majority of the time, they make the right decisions. They took more prisoners during this battle then people that were killed. That is a testament to the skill and training and split-second decision making capabilities of our soldiers.
Now let's remember what the deal is here and go kill Osama!
Sending "others" to war
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I completely agree. Our military isn't over there playing war "games" - their lives are on the line every second. I can't imagine the kind of stress that would be. They definitely deserve leniency. It is clear that they violated operating procedure, and it is clear that he killed a man. But, like you pointed out, killing an enemy in the middle of the war zone isn't the same as killing someone in the U.S. I think trying him for murder is too much.
Plus, what is the impact of a decision like this? Well, for one, it doesn't make me want to sign up for the military. In a war zone, concerned about my own life and the life of my companions, I would "Shoot first and ask questions later". If there is a chance that I could be tried and convicted for my work as a soldier, then I don't think it would be worth the risk. Why would I want to go into a dangerous situation where the bad guy has an advantage on me because he can do anything he wants, and I am bound by rules and protocol that may put me at risk if I have to second-guess every decision? There are already enough reasons why people don't want to sign up for the military - we don't need to add more.
This situation reminds me of the Ramos and Compean situation. Why in the world are these men sitting in jail? Does that make you want to go be a border agent? Fine, they shot a drug dealer in the butt. Give them a 2 week probation - not 11-12 years in jail!
Here's a wise observation from Ramos, "How are we supposed to follow the Border Patrol strategy of apprehending terrorists or drug smugglers if we are not supposed to pursue fleeing people? Everybody who's breaking the law flees from us. What are we supposed to do? Do they want us to catch them or not?"
It kind of seems to me that the answer is "not". The whole situation reeks of something awful. Where is Bush's pardon? The last bit of hope I have for Bush as a president is that he will pardon these two good men before leaving office. We need to worry more about protecting the people we hire to protect our country and less about protecting the bad guys.
Joel,
I can appreciate your views, but I admit that yout statement, "Now let's remember what the deal is here and go kill Osama!" leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Don't get my wrong, I won't be shedding any tears for Osama if someone takes him out. I'm under no illusions about what he's guilty of. I certainly don't think he should just get away with the stuff he's done. I'd like to see him brought to justice as much as anyone. I just find it a bit strange to hear a fellow Mormon say "let's go kill someone." Such comments make us look just as hateful and blood-thirsty as those terrorists, which results in an endless cycle of hate and violence that we see every day in this world. The case of James Barker, the US soldier who raped and killed a 14 year-old Iraqi girl and then murdered her family is a good example of what hate can lead to. Still, I know that most of the US soldiers are people of bravery, character, and integrity.
I don't mean to demean your other comments, but it would sit better with me if you had said, "Now let's remember what the deal is here and capture Osama and bring him to justice."
Just my opinion.
Joel, You are obviously not pro-life, as you are so eager for us to kill a human being. Just kidding, man.
There is, as you pointed out, very little information - very little facts to go on - we can be pretty sure that those pulling the charges are a bit more sure of the facts - so sure, infact, that they have charged him with unpremeditated murder. I'm not saying he's guilty - but there's obviously more to the story - I agree with FD - hate can lead people to do disgusting things - and there is nary a place that breeds more hate than a war zone. Those soldiers, who are so noble and so strapping are also just some average American dudes - who are just as succeptible to fits of anger, rage and hatred as any of us - So it doesn't seem too out of place to me to charge this guy - it looks more like someone feels bad for him, and is thus reporting an incomplete story. I guess we shall see - it is terrifying what the media can convince us of. I mean if the media is capable of convincing most of america that there is this rediculous notion of Global Warming and Environmental change that is caused primarily by man's negative biological footprint, then they probably can convince us of anything.
I'm going to have to go ahead and be "Pro-Death" here: Some people deserve to die. I would have no qualms with Osama's "Justice" being getting shot by Marines. Justice enough for me (and LOTS of others). He's proven he deserves it.
EVERYONE should read the book JESUS FOR PRESIDENT by Shane Claiborne.
Those are my views.
Joel, you may have qualms about it if you were the one pulling the trigger.
Or maybe not. Just a thought.
Great post Joel. I wonder if your brothers don't talk about it because what really goes on is bad, or if they just aren't allowed. My brother in law's brother has been in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq for the past 7 years and I know he has flat out said he wouldn't talk about what he does or where he goes because he could get in major trouble for disclosure issues. But thats just me being curious.
I agree with what you said about holding them to an impossible standard: who knows if the injured men hadn't had a weapon hidden somewhere that they would try to use against the US troops? Who knows if they were wounded and did try to kill troups? And regardless, there are hundreds of villages that were full of insurgents coming over from other middle eastern countries that are now safe to drive through/ walk through without getting shot at. So let the military do what it is trying to do so everyone can come home that much faster with that much less paperwork.
Here is another article about one of the three Marines - Nazario - who is going to be tried in civilian court because he already completed his service. IMO, this is just not right. Here are a couple of quotes from the article:
"They train us, and they expect us to rely back on that training. Then when we use that training, they prosecute us for it?" Nazario said
"This boils down to one thing in my mind: Are we going to allow civilian juries to Monday-morning-quarterback military decisions?" said Nazario's attorney, Kevin McDermott.
Scott Silliman, a law professor and executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University, says it has little to do with questioning military decisions and everything to do with whether a service member committed a crime.
"From a legal point of view, there is no difference in law between war and peace," he said.
Yeah, well, there should be a difference. And if there isn't, then we need to re-write the law.
Nazario was arrested at a performance review at his job as a cop, fired and can't get a job anywhere else because of his indictment. His wife (a former SAHM) just got a job but doesn't make enough to support her family, so they are living with Nazario's parents.
This is so wrong.
Wow.
Wow.
Wow.
According to the article, the Iraqis were detainees. They had been captured. If this is true, then we're talking murder, folks. You don't capture the enemy, take their weapons (which is part of being, you know, detained), and then kill them just because some superior tells you to. None of the sad excuses Joel and Stephanie have provided here can possibly legitimize what is alleged in the article. I'll try to be charitable and attribute your comments to anger rather than pure savagery.
"Shoot first and ask questions later."
Wow.
--David
David, do you really think that in a combat situation, the exact same law should apply? Do you really apply the same criteria to decision-making in war as you would on an American street? I agree that Nazario should not get a free pass, and that these killings are not completely excusable. But, try him for murder in a civilian court for something that happened during war? During a battle where he received an order from his superior? Sure, it is easy to say that he should have defied his superior or at least questioned the call and discussed it - way easy from my cushy seat in my safe home. But that would be a "civilian Monday morning quarterbacking military decisions" - NOT MY PLACE to call.
I would think that with all of the soldiers who are returning with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, you would consider that there is some amount of STRESS involved in being in Iraq that influences decision-making and perhaps factor that into the situation.
Stephanie, of course I don't believe that "in a combat situation, the exact same law should apply." And I never said anything like that. (I recognize that, for one thing, it's only in a combat situation that one would be in such a fix--i.e., only in a combat situation would one have captured and disarmed someone and then be told by your boss to shoot the guy.)
According to the article, it was a member of the military, Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, who "ordered the court-martial of Sgt. Ryan Weemer after finding there was sufficient evidence to send him to trial." So it seems to me that I'm not the one second-guessing the military here--you are.
--David
I don't think it's anyone's place to pass judgement on a case that has obviously warranted a court martial, and therefore would mean there is evidence that is not open to the public and needs to be reviewed by the military before making a decision. It's one thing to be a couch juror, making decisions one way or another while reading an article or watching TV, but it's quote another to be in the court room, hearing all the evidence - for and against.
As a side note, I am not under any illusions about our soldiers fighting in Iraq. Out of my group of friends in High School, many have served in Iraq, although I don't know any that have served in Afghanistan. As to the ones that have served in Iraq, they tell me stories of sitting in tents in the green zone watching "old lady" porn and laughing with the rest of the guys, or of guys talking about how great the prostitutes in Thailand are since many will allow you to beat them during intercourse if you pay enough. One of the guys in his platoon used to go around bragging that his war souvenir was going to be an "Arabs skull".
One of my friends told me that it was common practice to have to hall his buddies into the barracks because they were too drunk to stand up, and that he was always having to clean out the shower because his fellow Marines would drink beer in the morning while they were showering and leave the bottles in the shower.
When one of my buddies returned from his first tour in Iraq, as a Marine during the invasion, we threw a party for him. He brought a friend of his from his platoon. Halfway through the party this friend, after getting drunk, proceeded to bring out some pictures from his car of the invasion. I got sick after the first couple photos, but the ones I did see featured Marines mutilating the bodies of dead Iraqis. The one that disgusted me the most was of a dead Iraq, his face smashed in "with a shovel" according the Marine showing them off, and with a pick axe stuck in his head, and a Marine standing on top of him with his arms raised and his foot in the dead mans face.
The Marine, as well as the majority of the people at the party were laughing or saying things like "that'll teach those rag heads to mess with the U.S. Marines!" (many of my old friends are conservative, and on top of that, this was just after the invasion when support for the war was almost universal in the U.S.) I was sick to my stomach though and kept saying "That is wrong. I can't believe you guys are laughing!" I got so disgusted I walked away. My friend, the Marine, then walked over to me with a similar disgusted look (mixed with shame) and said "Hey man, there were guys doing alot worse than our platoon was." As if to console me.
Anyway, this friend of mine has since finished his time in the Marine Corps, after serving two tours in Iraq. He won't talk about the war that much, and when he first came home and I tried to talk to him about it, he'd start tearing up and refused to talk about it. He joined veterans groups that oppose the war and toured the nation giving talks and speaking on the radio, etc. He has been featured in the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury newpapers, and his friend Sean O'Neill even appeared on Hannity and Colmes where he spoke out about just why veterans are returning and opposing the war. My friend also volunteers with Vets4Vets helping Iraqi vets get the benefits they need (such as counseling, group therapy, GI Bill paperwork, job training, etc).
My point here is this: there are many good men in the military, but they are not all saints. Our nations reputation is on the line when a soldier kills an unarmed man that poses no immediate threat to them. Along with their military training, our soldiers are also taught military ethics. If our troops are doing the same things we condemn the enemy for doing, than what is the point? This is also why I don't support torture. If we torture detainees, how can we possible expect to be taken seriously when we ask for humane treatment of our own boys?
If you go back to the conference address in Spring 2003, just after the outbreak of the war, you will find a talk by Elder Maxwell called "Care For the Life of the Soul" in which he speaks directly about war not being an excuse for breaking one's resolve to live the commandments, which include not murdering someone.
Do we not remember how the Book of Mormon ends? The Nephites, after getting into a war for just reasons, begin to delight in bloodshed and war crimes, which even results in Mormon, their military leader, refusing to lead them. (See Mormon chapters 1-3 specifically).
"What is the position of the Church with respect to war? War is an ugly thing, a vicious thing. It makes men do things they would not normally do. It breaks up families, causes immorality, cheating, and much hatred. It is not the glorious John Wayne-type thing you see in movies."
--President Harold B. Lee
"In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern…possessing a sophistication that no people in the past ever had, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people. We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel--ships, planes, missiles, fortifications--and depend upon them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you."
--President Spencer W. Kimball
Well, I was disgusted with the things in your comments, and I am a conservative (hard to believe, huh?).
I think the quote from Harold B. Lee is particularly appropriate:
War is an ugly thing, a vicious thing. It makes men do things they would not normally do.
That was kind of my point. You have a good point that not all soldiers are Saints, and that soldiers who commit crimes need to be held accountable. But, I also have a good point that perhaps these soliders should not be judged with the exact same standards as would be applied to a civilian in a non-war zone.
You know - I honestly don't know how I feel about the Iraq war. I know how I feel about the war on terror, but I haven't figured out the Iraq war yet. I do know that I don't feel that soldiers should be held accountable for the crime of war if the war is unjust (and, like I said, I don't know if it is or isn't).
Post a Comment