I had read several accounts of the fatal shooting of an unarmed, wounded Iraqi in the Fallujah mosque before I had seen the video. I understood that the US Marine in question had been wounded in his face the day before and that another man in his unit had been killed by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent.
Based on this information I identified with the US Marine and told myself, in his shoes I would have very likely done the same thing; not taken any chances that this Iraqi was also booby-trapped.
His words reveal his mind at the time:
"He's (expletive) faking he's dead!"
"Yeah, he's breathing," another marine is heard saying.
"He's faking he's (expletive) dead!" the first marine says.
Our soldier was sure that this wounded man was intentionally faking being dead (which, if I were in the Iraqi's shoes, I think I would also have done, so I'm not suggesting that he did anything wrong), and given the Marine's previous experience, this represented a real threat. My feelings on the subject were summed up nicely by a senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch:
"Obviously, the shooting of an incapacitated detainee is a fundamental violation of the Law of Armed Conflict," said James D. Ross, senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch. "But if someone feigns being incapacitated or killed, and then uses that to trick someone and shoot them, that's a war crime, and might justify the shooting."
So I was comfortable with the idea that this Marine would be found to have acted professionally and lawfully.
Then, however, I watched the video (or at least as much of it as they showed on NightLine last night, which was even less than they had originally been airing on Al Jezeera). I thought I was prepared, but my hands went up, I gasped, and I sat dumbfounded for a few minutes. I was shocked. But what exactly I was shocked at was the biggest surprise to me.
Granted, the video is just awful. But the instantaneous way I changed my opinion was alarming. In one quick flash, my heart went from identifying with the Marine to feeling horrified for the Iraqi. Much of it was how quickly he shot. I can rationalize that he had damned well better be trained to shoot quickly, but in that exact instant all my empathy flies to the wounded Iraqi who I know now to have been killed. Whereas before the Marine shot, the Iraqi represented treachery, anti-Americanism, and perhaps even barbarism, in a flash he represented a helpless, defenseless people in the face of overwhelming military might. The video was that powerful.
Now, I fully disagree with the conventional wisdom that argues you don't show images like that to the folks on the homefront. I understand the effect it can have, but I believe a mature intelligent nation should be shown exactly what it means when they send their troops into battle. This santized version of war we're fed in the safety of our homes, complete with pithy patriotic battle names, country music theme songs, news program icons, and stars and stripes galore, is immoral in my opinion. To draw a really graphic analogy, it's how I feel about eating meat...if you are not willing to skin and disembowel your own dinner, you should be a vegetarian. The video of the Marine killing the unarmed Iraqi brought that home for me.
I'm still fully prepared to accept that our Marine acted professionally and lawfully, but I also intend to keep that image in mind as the debate heats up over what to do about Iran. I know there are counter images to consider, like those of US cities under mushroom clouds, but I feel the vast majority of Americans' idea of war is a montage of blurry nightgoggle images of soldiers filing through doorways, buildings exploding from a mile away, statues tumbling over, and leaders pontificating before giant flags. If their idea of war was men and women, gasping for life in a pool of their own blood, hoping for anyone to hear their cries and help them, we, as a nation, might work that much harder at fine-tuning our diplomatic skills.
Abiola, so is it also your view that when US soldiers commit atrocities, they cease to be "entitled to dignified treatment"?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 18, 2004 at 03:41 PM
Er, no, there are people in this world who neither have nor deserve to be treated as if they had "intrinsic dignity." Osama bin Laden has none, nor did Joseph Stalin, or Mao Zedong, or many others in the halls of infamy.
Then we disagree. To me, OBL, Stalin, Mao, Marcos, even Hitler, still have that spark of humanity, which means they deserve(d) to be tried fairly for their crimes. They still retain basic human rights. I do not condone, frex, torturing anyone, no matter how villainous (and yes, GWB, that goes for you too). Likewise even demented non-political serial killers. Everyone deserves a fair trial. And a clean death, if they receive the death penalty.
Posted by: votermom | November 18, 2004 at 03:47 PM
none of these activities are in keeping with "intrinsic dignity" of any sort, and those who adopt them are not entitled to dignified treatment.
What does it say about the person who treats them as less than entitled?
I think this sort of reasoning is bound to seem rational in the heat of battle, which is why it's good we determine the rules of engagement in calmer times.
Consider what was the appropriate behavior when pulling the mass murderer Saddam Hussein out of a spider hole. He was actually armed at the time. Was he entitled to the dignified treatment he received? You can say "no"; he was just lucky, but I return to my first question: What does it say about the person who treats them as less than entitled?
Posted by: Edward | November 18, 2004 at 03:48 PM
I do want an answer to my question at 03:41 PM from Abiola, but whatever the answer:
Are Iraqis in Iraq entitled to make war on the US occupation forces?
Yes, they are. Indeed, their position is legally far better than the position of the US occupation forces: there is a clear right, both enshrined in international law and customary since long before international law was thought of, that when your country is invaded and occupied by a foreign army, you are entitled to take up arms and fight against that army. And regardless of wild claims that most of the insurgents are foreigners, the fact is that most of them have been shown to be Iraqis.
Are the US military, considered as a whole, guilty of atrocities against Iraqis?
Yes. There is no way to deny it: US soldiers have unjustly imprisoned, tortured, and killed, Iraqi civilians. Large numbers of Iraqi civilians were killed in the avoidable attacks on Najaf and Falluja: hospitals have been attacked, ambulances and medical personnel have been shot at.
Are the Iraqi insurgents, considered as a whole, guilty of atrocities against Iraqi and non-Iraqi civilians.
Yes. Again, no way to deny it, and no wish to - from Margaret Hallan backwards, the record is as horribly clear as it is for the US military.
Abiola's argument against believing that the Geneva Conventions apply to the war in Iraq appears to rest on the idea that once one side has clearly committed atrocities, no individuals on that side, regardless of whether or not there is evidence that that individual has committed an atrocity, deserves the basic respect that the Geneva Conventions grant. But if so, then neither side deserves to be treated according to the Geneva Conventions: the insurgents are no more in the wrong than are the US soldiers.
The Geneva Conventions specify, and wisely, that it does not matter if one side is in breach of the Conventions: it is incumbent on all parties to the conflict, each and every one of them, to see that the Conventions are adhered to. Failure for one party to the conflict to keep to the Conventions does not release the other parties to the conflict from their responsibility to see that the Conventions are kept.
Arguing that there is no need for the Conventions to be adhered to if one side is in breach of them, merely ensures that both sides are in the wrong.
I feel a sense of despair arguing this, since in point of fact the US occupation has put itself so fundamentally and so thoroughly in the wrong - from the very beginning of the occupation - that I believe it is now unfixable. It's just possible that a change of administration could have persuaded the Iraqis that a genuine change of policy was at hand: but that chance has been lost, along with all the other chances the Bush administration had to succeed in Iraq.
It's almost an abstract point by now. Except to those who die because of the Bush administration's grievous errors: for them, for those who love them, it will never be an abstract point at all.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 18, 2004 at 04:04 PM
Margaret Hassan. Apologies.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 18, 2004 at 04:06 PM
"It behooves us to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do the insurgents because that's how we convince everyone watching that we're the good guys."
Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos emboldening and empowering every single one of our enemies across the globe?
So many people here say that if we violate any of the myriad standards of conduct that we lose as much as if we defeat the insurgents in Iraq. That isn't even close to being true. There are all sorts of standards that are not worth losing over. That isn't the same as saying that there are no standards worth losing over, but pretending that all standards are worth losing over is ridiculous.
And once again, what are the standards for? They are to protect civilians and standardize such things as sanctuary for medical treatment, surrender standards and the like. We are perfectly within our moral right to reject surrenders if they are used as a ploy to kill our soldiers. There is nothing moral about sacrificing my friends in the Marines to Iraqis who abuse the rules. Nothing at all.
That is not an atrocity. That is war AS THE INSURGENTS HAVE CHOSEN TO FIGHT IT. No one is forcing those people to fight with groups who regularly abandon all decency to kidnap civilians and behead them. No one is forcing these people to fight with groups who use surrender to ambush. No one is forcing these people to fight with groups who illegally shoot from inside mosques. No one is forcing these people to fight with groups who refuse to wear uniforms and who choose to hide behind civilians.
All of these tactics endanger civilians.
And by choosing to treat these tactics as precisely the same as any other tactic you encourage the continuation of these tactics all over the world. That is not good for civilians.
Condemnation denotes action against. You do not condemn the tactics of our enemies, you merely express discomfort about them. You want to take no action to stop it. And that is short-sighted because it ensures that every group which fights will use them against us. That undermines the very international law that you claim to respect.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 18, 2004 at 05:20 PM
Abiola: Er, no, there are people in this world who neither have nor deserve to be treated as if they had "intrinsic dignity."
Duly noted. I personally think that Jesus was right on the question of ad hoc jurisprudence, but I respect your dissent.
Translated into secular terms in case anybody's scratching their head here, Abiola is offering an answer to the question at the core of every single system of jurisprudence since time began: Who Decides, and How? Abiola's answer (whoever is on hand, and however they want) has steadily lost popular support in recent millenia, culminating in the (admittedly still somewhat vague) notion of "due process" which has been increasingly adopted over the past 500 or so years.
In particular there's a rather famous bit in the Christian Bible (Book of John) where a woman is caught in flagrante delicto engaging in adultery (no mention made of the man here, but, well, you know). The Pharisees bring her to Jesus, asserting that Mosaic law requires her to be stoned to death, and asking him what he thinks (which is a bit of a trick question in context). He ignores them for a bit, but finally suggests that "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
Interpret as you see fit of course...
Posted by: radish | November 18, 2004 at 05:22 PM
Sebastian writes: "Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos emboldening and empowering every single one of our enemies across the globe?"
umm, false choice? More specifically, Sebastian, do you believe that the video (a) helps the US achieve its goals in Iraq and in the war on terror (for example, by terrorizing the terrorists); (b) hurts the US in achieving its goals (for example, by pushing moderates into anti-US extremism); (c) has no impact?
Basic survival instincts say, to me, that the Marine did what anyone else would have done. But remember, please, the TWO rules of counter-insurgency: a. kill the committed insurgents; and b. don't push the fence-sitters into opposition.
How many terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters did we create with that video?
Sebastian also has written at length about the mutual obligations underlying the Geneva conventions. One sample sentence: "There is nothing moral about sacrificing my friends in the Marines to Iraqis who abuse the rules."
The morality is, i think, open to a legitimate difference of opinion. But the CONSEQUENCES of NOT sacrificing Marines is a completely different question. Yes, insurgents cheat. Isn't that part of the very definition of assymetrical warfare?
But once we sink to their level, we lose! Because the neutrals will come more and more to see us as violent occupiers, and more of them move into active opposition.
yes, i recognize that i am requesting that americans die at the hand of insurgents who might have been innocent. so? every operation in iraq is a balancing act between the safety of americans and the risks to non-combatants. we could have massively increased the safety to americans by using the Bosnia strategy (airpower only) in Falluja. We could have massively decreased the risk to civilians by not using any air power at all.
back at the beginning of the occupation, a lot of pro-war bloggers and posters were advocating for foot patrols. that would have resulted in more dead americans, but it might have prevented portions of the insurgency. we'll never know.
Remember Rumsfeld's snowflake about metrics? To re-open an unresolved dispute: what are the metrics of victory? Or, as Ed Koch (former mayor of New York) might say: How're we doing?
badly, i'd say. but i entertain opposing viewpoints.
Francis
Posted by: fdl | November 18, 2004 at 06:36 PM
Remember Rumsfeld's snowflake about metrics?
So, you know about 'snowflakes?'
Interesting.
Posted by: Jadegold | November 18, 2004 at 07:00 PM
Jadegold, please note that you're commenting on those who read and comment on those sites (including myself...I comment on Tacitus) when you generalize like that...and such generalizations violate the posting rules. Please refrain.
You mean comparing Tacitus to LGF? Is there a listing of protected ObWi sites?
I take it that we''ll refrain from disparaging comments about Michael Moore--right?
Posted by: Jadegold | November 18, 2004 at 07:08 PM
Sebastian: Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos emboldening and empowering every single one of our enemies across the globe?
False choice. It is the decisions made by the Bush administration that have made Iraq descend into Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos, which - in your admirable turn of phrase - "has emboldened and empowered every single one of our enemies across the globe".
The decision not to bother securing stockpiled weapons. The decision not to bother trying to enforce law and order in occupied cities. The decision not to hold early elections. The decision to loot Iraq - foiled by the insurgency. The decision to have reconstruction carried out by US corporations, not local Iraqi businesses. The decision to use torture on suspects in Abu Ghraib. The decision not to bother investigating and penalizing those responsible for Abu Ghraib's abuses further up the chain of command, but solely and only those who appeared in the photographs released to the public.
The US occupation of Iraq could only succeed if the US were perceived as holding to a higher standard. It has failed because the Bush administration never saw that as important - or rather, realized that it was important, but saw it as a marketing issue, not a matter for concrete actions to make the US occupation visibly and clearly held to a higher standard.
That the Bush administration chose not to do this is why Iraq has descended into chaos. It is bitter justice that, at least, it is the Bush administration who will be left with the clear responsibility of its own failure in Iraq.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 18, 2004 at 07:15 PM
"But once we sink to their level, we lose! Because the neutrals will come more and more to see us as violent occupiers, and more of them move into active opposition."
Yes, if we sink to the level of regularly kidnapping aid workers and killing them, we lose.
But that isn't what we are talking about is it? We are talking about the utility of rules of war and what they mean. Your easy parallel obscures far more than it illuminates.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 18, 2004 at 07:22 PM
Th Sebastian and Blue points seem based on the assumption that it is already perfectly clear that the marine acted properly, and therefore even talking about is some sort of depraved act.
Sebastian -- are you really saying that any level of ruthlessness is appropriate here if it saves American lives? That is the LGF point -- just carpet bomb the place, and be done with it.
Why not kidnap family members and children of insurgents, and then torture them, to fight back (like the insurgents do to Iraqis helping Americans)? I assume you agree that there are ruthless tactics that are inappropriate in fighting ruthless insurgents. But your posts sure seem to argue the opposite point.
Posted by: dmbeaster | November 18, 2004 at 07:23 PM
Yes, if we sink to the level of regularly kidnapping aid workers and killing them, we lose.
But the US occupation has already sunk to the level of kidnapping ordinary Iraqis, torturing them, and sometimes killing them. The fact that the kidnapping is performed by US army units in "sweeps", and under a form of law, does not change the fact that ordinary Iraqis, as innocent as any aid worker, have been forcibly taken, held incommunicado, tortured, and killed.
Which, I agree, is one strong reason why the US occupation of Iraq has failed.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 18, 2004 at 07:34 PM
A simple (but overly long) list of points:
1. Soldiers cannot just shoot anybody because they feel threatened by them. There has to be some minimal rules of engagement, and some reasonableness in deciding who to shoot. Otherwise we should just nuke the place; or we shoot five year olds in combat zones because they might have a grenade.
2. For obvious reasons, in an active combat environment, there is a huge amount of leeway. But its not unlimited. We don't sanction shooting civilians for fun caught in the cross-fire of an active engagement.
3. When soldiers are not in active combat, they do not have the same leeway. That's why free-fire zones can be an atrocity.
4. Insurgent fighting is inherently nastier because of their asymetrical tactics, thereby giving greater leeway to the troops fighting it since all dorts of ordinary things are potential threats. But something is also to be said for stressing the need to avoid wanton killing based on this point since it tends to undermine (badly) your counter-insurgency.
5. In judging the decision-making of troops in combat, they get huge deferrence. This is not the same as analyzing whether a cop has correctly used deadly force.
6. Insurgents playing dead in order to ambush troops are fair game. But this does not mean that any downed person can be shot simply because they might be playing dead and therefore might be planning an ambush.
What are some of the salient facts here?
a. The video is disturbing, but its tough to judge the thing based solely on the video (but try telling that to Iraqis). War is a very disturbing thing on a daily basis -- until you are doing it on a daily basis, and then all kinds of behavior becomes normal.
b. The insurgents in question had apparently already been wounded and taken by other troops (which makes the shooting terrible) but left unguarded, although it also seems that the marine in question did not know this and had no reason to know this (which is an enormous factor in his favor, if true). My understanding is that they thought they were entering an unsecured location (or one previously secured, but then not kept secured, which means insurgents could have re-infiltrated).
c. The marine in question seems to have fired because of a fear that the guy was a threat to ambush them by falsely playing dead. However, the video also suggests that the insurgent was pathetically wounded, and the marine's fear was not that well-founded. But who are we to judge that -- leave that to the military people who will review the situation. But saying you KNOW it was proper is also a stretch. That sanctions shooting any wounded insurgent in the head, basically.
d. Other understandable subjective factors (in addition to the strain of active combat -- a huge factor itself) may have explain why the marine made his decision. Such as his recent injury and his friend's death.
e. This kind of thing happens all the time, and is reviewed further only if the non-coms (or even less likely, an officer) witness it and decide action must be taken. This marine was unlucky enough to have it videotaped.
Conclusion -- it is important to review this type of thing because of our own values -- not because of some concern for the rights of insurgents. Our Western military tradition has, for hundreds of years, imposed restraints on wanton violence in warfare for, I hope, obvious reasons. Civil wars and insurgencies have always tested those limits because of their different nature, but God help us if we are going to allow the Iraqi insurgency to pervert our own morality.
Otherwise just advocate torture and carpet bombing to beat the insurgency --- take a page from Saddam's playbook (which did work for many years), and bring back the rape rooms. And also drop this nonsense about intending to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, since we decided to abandon those values in fighting the insurgency.
Posted by: dmbeaster | November 18, 2004 at 08:15 PM
"The fight against the insurgency is not merely military; there's also a strong PR component to it..."
I suggest that it is this rationale that Blue is using to reach the conclusion that others are supporting the insurgents. I never saw were he referred to anyone as a traitor. Through others the insurgents obtain the type of PR that they could only wish for, but never get without the indirect assistance of others in America and abroad.
I'm not certain, but I believe I read somewhere that Ho Chi Mihn after being demoralized and defeated during the Tet offensive that he recognized they could turn it into a PR victory. It would be only reasonable to recognize that the insurgents know they can't win militarily, but a PR victory is possible with the support of sympathetic Americans and Europeans.
Posted by: johnny_comelately | November 18, 2004 at 08:28 PM
I suggest that it is this rationale that Blue is using to reach the conclusion that others are supporting the insurgents.
Blue wrote:
Look, I'm as guilty as the next person for getting carried away with things. But if you can extract that rationale out of what Blue wrote, (and note that Blue goes on to post at 10:49 out of context snippets that 'prove' the ill will of those named) well, then anything goes. I see, from my liberal perch in Japan, people trying to honestly come to grips with what they saw. Just because I know that thousands of people die because of car wrecks each year doesn't mean a hell of a lot when I see someone die from one right before my very eyes. If you want to dismiss their perceptions (and note that it's not one person, it's 4 people who are implied to be marching in lock step, followed by anyone who has ever criticized this war) by saying that they are one with the implacable Arab street, that's your decision, but don't expect to get a free pass when you do.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | November 18, 2004 at 09:09 PM
johnny_comelately: ...a PR victory is possible with the support of sympathetic Americans and Europeans.
Are you suggesting that discussions like this one constitute the "support of sympathetic Americans and Europeans" and/or that such "support" is necessarily required in order for the insurgency to win the battle for hearts and minds? I'm asking seriously because I can't tell.
Look, either we guarantee free speech and we pay the price thereof, or we don't guarantee it and we pay that price instead. Advocate the latter if you like, but let's not pretend that either choice has ever been free of undesirable consequences. And even if we choose to deny that Abu Ghraib happened; even if every American swears up and down that that soldier was innocent; the rest of the world -- especially the Iraqis -- will form their own conclusions.
This is a choice America needs to make, and I assure you that the rest of the world intends to hold us just as accountable for our collective choices as Blue wants us to hold the residents of Fallujah for theirs...
Posted by: radish | November 18, 2004 at 09:24 PM
"Look, either we guarantee free speech and we pay the price thereof, or we don't guarantee it and we pay that price instead."
Excellent time to bring in Van Gogh's murder, no?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 19, 2004 at 11:07 AM
Excellent time to bring in Van Gogh's murder, no?
If you can explain why a murder in the Netherlands is relevant to US actions in Iraq, sure.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 19, 2004 at 11:14 AM
Excellent time to bring in Van Gogh's murder, no?
What Jes said. Other than that the Dutch (bless their pretty little blonde heads) have to make the same choices, and that our choices and theirs will interact in inherently unpredictable ways, what's your point exactly?
Are you saying we should be looking to the Dutch for cues? How 'bout the French, or the Brits? Should we be taking cues from them too?
Posted by: radish | November 19, 2004 at 11:49 AM
Excellent time to bring in Van Gogh's murder, no?
Willful blinders...that's what the call for "censorship" we won't call "censorship" and simplification of the threat into bumper sticker slogans actually demands of Americans.
Sign up for the war against Islam. Oops, no, we didn't mean to say "Islam"; we meant to say "Islamists." Sign up for the war against Islamists...who just happen to practice Islam. If you're not hating them yet, you're not paying attention.
Could we, this time, please try and have a more intelligent dialog about the threat? Not magnifying one crime as if it, in and of itself, represented the demise Western Civilization?
Van Gogh's murder was awful. It represents a societal clash that needs careful, measured steps to control/correct. Drawing up sides, racheting up the rhetoric, and reducing it all to "Us v. Them," isn't worthy of us, however. If that's all the further mankind has progressed, what's the point?
Posted by: Edward | November 19, 2004 at 11:58 AM
The point is that no one here is threatening free speech. We are advocating responsible speech, correct?
Setting up an atmosphere where the 'right' of insurgents to fake surrenders, hide behind civilians, and use 'neutral' religious sites as bases of operations has no impact on their 'right' to be protected by the laws that are supposed to protect surrender conventions, civilians, and religious sites is not a responsible look at the real world in my opinion.
I'm not attacking your right to free speech.
I'm attacking the ideas that are being expressed in the speech.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 19, 2004 at 12:22 PM
Setting up an atmosphere where the 'right' of insurgents to fake surrenders, hide behind civilians, and use 'neutral' religious sites as bases of operations has no impact on their 'right' to be protected by the laws that are supposed to protect surrender conventions, civilians, and religious sites is not a responsible look at the real world in my opinion.
No one is defending anyone's right to fake surrenders or any of those other violations of the Convention. We're just arguing that two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: Edward | November 19, 2004 at 12:27 PM
"Blue: I should have called you on a rules violation when you wrote that other posters were helping the enemy, but unfortunately I didn't catch that when I first read your comment."
It seems free speech only applies at ObWi if you assist others in ignoring the fact that their actions here might be providing political and moral support to the enemy.
Posted by: Blue | November 19, 2004 at 12:37 PM
ARghhh!!!!
That's called TREASON Blue...you're accusing fellow commentors of treason because they're voicing an opinion on a site there's precious little reason to imagine the "enemy" is even aware of (no offence to my fellow bloggers).
Posted by: Edward | November 19, 2004 at 12:42 PM
there's precious little reason to imagine the "enemy" is even aware of
(sotto voce) Good misdirection ploy there, Edward -- the infidel must not find out that ObWi has reached the Jumping Jihadist level on the Mohammed's Truth Laid Bear ecosystem.
Posted by: kenB | November 19, 2004 at 01:00 PM
there's precious little reason to imagine the "enemy" is even aware of
(sotto voce) Good misdirection ploy there, Edward -- the infidel must not find out that ObWi has already reached Jumping Jihadist on the Angry Islamist ecosystem.
Posted by: kenB | November 19, 2004 at 01:05 PM
Ack, sorry for the double post -- I swear it didn't go through the first time, even when I re-clicked the Permalink to refresh.
Posted by: kenB | November 19, 2004 at 01:09 PM
why the change KenB?
I thought the first one was funny, but now that you've updated it I'm looking for the "mistake" in the first one.
Was it "Mohammed"?
Posted by: Edward | November 19, 2004 at 01:09 PM
"No one is defending anyone's right to fake surrenders or any of those other violations of the Convention. We're just arguing that two wrongs don't make a right."
And my argument is that if you respect the Conventions, you can't offer unlimited license to those who fight us to ignore them at every single turn with absolutely no ramifications for them.
If we set a precedent that everyone who fights us can wantonly endager civilians by pretending to be them, can occupy holy sites with no ramifications, can use false surrenders for ambushes, what 'right' are you protecting? You are arguing to protect the right of those who fight us to break every rule, endanger civilians wantonly, and ambush our troops so that more of them can be killed.
Why are you arguing for that? If it becomes a common tactic in every fight, far more civilians will be endangered than are endangered by American action in Iraq. They will be far more endangered all over the world.
Perhaps I did not approach the problem correctly by raising it in this forum. But we need to come up with incentives to follow the rules. Because if we do not, the rules are going to completely fall apart.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 19, 2004 at 01:17 PM
Interesting -- I submitted the 01:05 PM comment first, then when it didn't show up, I recreated it (making some minor changes) and reposted, and that one became the 01:00 PM post. I guess it's such a nice day that the first one decided to walk.
Posted by: kenB | November 19, 2004 at 01:17 PM
And my argument is that if you respect the Conventions, you can't offer unlimited license to those who fight us to ignore them at every single turn with absolutely no ramifications for them.
I think a fundamental roadblock to understanding here is that I'm viewing the dead Iraqi as an individual who may or may not have even been conscious, and you're seemingly viewing him as responsible for all the violations of the Conventions committed by all the insurgents up to that point.
It's as if we've decided that anyone who didn't leave Fallujah deserved to be killed, no questions asked.
Posted by: Edward | November 19, 2004 at 01:33 PM
Excellent time to bring in Van Gogh's murder, no?
Is it? Why? What is the significance of that murder for you and how is it related to following the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law against the Falluja insurgents?
And somewhere in this thread the boobytrapped dead body of an insurgant became a fake surrender. I thought the latter was about the Japanese soldiers in WW2? Has it happened in Iraq too?
How do you feel about the bombing of the hospitals in Fallujah? That was justifiable?
Posted by: dutchmarbel | November 19, 2004 at 02:06 PM
Sebastian: We are advocating responsible speech, correct?
Advocacy is for people who lack authority. Enforcement is for people who have authority. And somewhere down the line there has to be a way to determine what's responsible and what isn't.
Blue: It seems free speech only applies at ObWi if you assist others in ignoring the fact that their actions here might be providing political and moral support to the enemy.
Either we guarantee free speech and we pay the price thereof, or we don't guarantee it and we pay that price instead. There will be a line somewhere, and a price somehow, one way or another.
Blue feels that his speech has been unjustly impaired here, but he also feels that we should not discuss this issue because that discussion provides political and moral support to the enemy. Please consider that for a moment. Blue has drawn his line, and determined that our speech is exceptional and unprotected, while his is unexceptional and protected.
And that, dear Blue, is where the bullet hits the bone. You want to decide, instead of making some rules and then letting the rules decide... You think the answer is so obvious that you couldn't possibly be wrong. I think you're wrong. I think Rummy is doing what you think I'm doing and that that kid is better off in court-martial than he is on patrol. I think you're a sunshine patriot, trapped by your fear. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were my countryman.
Yours is the logic of a person who's never lived with totalitarianism up close and personal. It's really not so bad as you might think. Shops open in the morning and close in the evening. Things are maybe a little dustier, a little poorer, a little sadder and grayer than what you're used to. The same guy's picture is up on the wall in every single shop and home because everybody loves him so much. But kids play in the streets. People go about their business. Babies giggle and dogs bark and crops grow and somebody makes decisions...
Posted by: radish | November 19, 2004 at 02:07 PM
How much is Blue contributing to ObWi's bandwidth charges every month?
Nothing?
Oh. That's what I thought.
Posted by: Phil | November 19, 2004 at 02:26 PM
radish,
I think people here can do whatever they want... say whatever they want... it's their choice. I don't think I have ever done anything to shut down their expression.
I just also think that many of the views often expressed at ObWi provides indirect political and moral support the the enemy. I find the act of doing it and the lack of acknowledgement of that support revolting and naive.
There is dissent, which is acceptable... I think many here often crossover from political dissent to supporting the other side. I gave examples previously in this thread of that behavior.
I never said I was going to do anything to silence those here at ObWi... I just hope their voices fade into oblivian... much like Kerry's presidential bid.
Hilzoy,
"I challenge you, for instance, to say where I "full throttle launch into what needs to happen to the Marine" -- I won't be holding my breath."
Your right... you full throttle launch into what could the Marine be thinking. Was that not obvious? He stated it outloud. He thought the guy might be faking dead with a grenade or something hidden. Full throttle in to what "needs" to happen to the Marine really applied more to Katherine but your statements are gross enough to me. You immediately start analyzing the Marine.
Analyze this for me: What if the guy would have had a hand grenade like some others have? What would the news have been about then? "Jane Doe's son died in Iraq today." Then we could have posted at ObWi about how it is the wrong war at the wrong time.
Where are all the posts at ObWi condemning that insurgents? I know the response. The insurgents behavior is bad, BUT... our Marines commit atrocities... Bush is stupid... Rumsfield is horrible... Wrong war... blah blah blah. Lip service.
I personally am not going to ask the Marine to take the chance. But, if one identifies with the Iraqi first before the Marine then one asks the Marine to take the chance. One who does sympathizes more with the guy dead on the floor than the Marine who has been subject to those kind of attacks.
Your first post... second sentence:
"this is a case that seems to me to depend so heavily on what the soldier thought, whether he thought as he did for any good reason, and so forth, that I really don't know what to think about it, except that one way or another it's awful."
Before even talking about the enemy and the heinous acts they commit you immediately focus on the Marine. What could he have been thinking? What reasons did he have? This is just par for the course at ObWi.
Immediately you start talking about what the Marine was thinking. No mention first of their tactics being awful. That the enemy is bringing this on themselves. You seemed to successfully have avoided that initially. You went straight to the Marine.
"And this is not just because war crimes are awful for the victims and for our reputation as a nation,"
And in the end... what do you close your post with? Already talking about war crimes.
Barf.
Posted by: Blue | November 19, 2004 at 03:18 PM
I guess the concept that the Marines work for us and the insurgents don't, and the responsibilities that flow from that, and the idea of policing one's own, are lost on some people.
By the way, I wholeheartedly and without reservation condemn terrorism, false surrenders, corpse-booby-trapping, and breaking of the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by: Phil | November 19, 2004 at 03:23 PM
Radish - As someone who lives in a Third World country and grew up during the Afghan-Soviet war, I agree with you. Our lives under totalitarian regimes (which frequently masquerade under the cunning disguise of "democracy") aren't that bad at all. And we certainly never "needed" anyone else coming in to "save" us. Admittedly, US history isn't my strong suit, but why does the Castro regime come to mind (in terms of general apathy about it)?
To people who feel as though the Iraq war was "justified" (sorry, a bit nuts with the "s today), do keep this in mind; I doubt very much, even living in a theocratic, Islamic country, that any countries or particular governments have designs on US security, in terms of invading/attacking/destroying. They don't. What happened on 9/11 was awful, but it wasn't a nation-state acting, it was a group of motivated sociopaths. And in the long run, all this war has done is reduce the international image of the US into a steaming pile of fecal matter.
Our lives go on. We have our breakfast, we walk a little faster occasionally, or try not to be in massively public spaces with any regularity, we eat, we sleep. We don't stay up nights caring how many people were killed by the US today, and quite frankly, we don't really care how many US troops were killed by insurgents. All we want is to manage to live our lives, and somehow ease that entire process.
Sorry. A bit off-topic, I know.
Posted by: Sin | November 19, 2004 at 04:57 PM
Shorter Blue and Sebastian:
"We get a free ticket to commit atrocities against those who commit atrocities against us." Sort of a perverse golden rule -- do unto others as they do unto you.
I guess, then, the Iraqi was lucky that all that the marine did was shoot him in the head. That marine was way too hasty.
Or to quote Blue, with one suggested editing change: Analyze this for me: What if the guy [five year old Iraqi] would have had a hand grenade like some others have? I guess if you think this, you get to shoot whomever you please, and be a war hero.
Posted by: dmbeaster | November 19, 2004 at 06:50 PM
What Sin said about nation-states and sociopaths. Thanks for that.
And sorry if I was harsh. It irks me when people take free speech for granted. It's not the government's responsibility to protect the Constitution. It's ours. If we don't scrupulously defend the principles set down in that document, every single day and in every single instance, then we're just a bunch of bozos with a suspiciously high standard of living and no moral authority whatsoever.
Posted by: radish | November 19, 2004 at 06:56 PM
Analyze this for me: What if the guy would have had a hand grenade like some others have? What would the news have been about then?
Ok. Why would someone get within point-blank range of someone with a hand grenade?
Posted by: Jadegold | November 19, 2004 at 07:10 PM
Not-shorter dutchmarbel: "I don't understand that labeling a difficult decision in a war zone and cutting off aid worker's heads both atrocities in the same discussion portrays a shocking lack of moral sense."
This is the same problem I have with Amnesty International. Calling the US bombing of Saddam's main propaganda outlet and the intentional shelling of civilians by Iraqi forces both 'war crimes' in a press release while focusing on the former and deemphasizing the latter completely debases any understanding of the phrase. Note that in a press release you know you rarely get all of it published, so you always put the most important stuff first and it declines in importance as the release goes on. Paragraph one: both sides do war crimes. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 the US bombs TV station. No mention of its status as completely controlled by Saddam's government. Paragraph 7: by the way the Iraqis are intentionally targetting civilians (one of the worst possible war crimes) intentionally setting up sites next to civilians (one of the top war crimes) and pretending to be civilians for the purpose of ambush (another one of the top war crimes). Paragraph 8: General statement, probably intended to apply to both sides.
Dutchmarbel, you do the same thing. And it isn't pretty in either case.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 19, 2004 at 09:02 PM
"Ok. Why would someone get within point-blank range of someone with a hand grenade?"
ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
Jadegold, maybe because they !@#!%@#ing couldn't tell because the hand grenade wielder was pretending to be injured or pretending to surrender. How could you read any portion of this thread and not have that possibility come to mind?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 19, 2004 at 09:04 PM
"Which behooves us more, to be seen at a higher standard, or to let Iraq permanently descend into chaos emboldening and empowering every single one of our enemies across the globe?"
False Dichotomy fallacy! Five-yard penalty.
"So many people here say that if we violate any of the myriad standards of conduct that we lose as much as if we defeat the insurgents in Iraq."
Strawman fallacy! Ten-yard penalty.
"You do not condemn the tactics of our enemies, you merely express discomfort about them. You want to take no action to stop it."
Outright lying! Fifteen-yard penalty.
Posted by: Prodigal | November 19, 2004 at 11:56 PM
Sebastian: Calling the US bombing of Saddam's main propaganda outlet and the intentional shelling of civilians by Iraqi forces both 'war crimes' in a press release while focusing on the former and deemphasizing the latter completely debases any understanding of the phrase.
Actually, it doesn't. Because bombing a "propaganda outlet" and deliberately attacking civilians are both war crimes.
Do you feel it debases the understanding of the word "crime" when we call both rape and murder crimes? They're different crimes, but they're both criminal offenses.
From the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and specifically the section dealing with the RTS bombing (the NATO attack on the RTS (Serbian Radio and TV Station) in Belgrade on 23rd April 1999) it was legally established that it is a war crime to bomb a TV station only because the TV station is broadcasting propaganda.
We needn't debate whether deliberately shelling civilians is a war crime, because I agree that it is, and find it abhorrent when any side in a conflict does it: cluster bombs in urban areas are a deliberate civilian-killing weapon, and a crime that the US is guilty of.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 20, 2004 at 05:28 AM
Jadegold, maybe because they !@#!%@#ing couldn't tell because the hand grenade wielder was pretending to be injured or pretending to surrender.
Reread the question and get back to me, Sebastian. I always find it amusing to have people without a nanosecond of military experience lecture others on such matters.
Posted by: Jadegold | November 20, 2004 at 07:31 AM
Prodigal, handing out penalties left and right...you go dude!
Jadegold, I appreciate your sentiment with regards to non military folks commenting on such matters, but this is an opinion forum. I offer military opinions all the time. I haven't served, but I've studied. None of which to say is my opinion is more valid than that of one who has served (not at all), but perhaps it's still worth considering.
Posted by: Edward | November 20, 2004 at 10:07 AM
Edward: I fear you miss my point. Everyone is certainly free to offer their opinion on military policy and even those of us have served are offering opinions way above our pay grades WRT military policy, tactics and strategy.
However, when one starts to demand we unconditionally accept his or her version of a heretofore unknown rule of engagement, in violation of US military conduct and international laws--one should be speaking from a position of experience.
Posted by: Jadegold | November 20, 2004 at 10:36 AM
Not-shorter dutchmarbel: "I don't understand that labeling a difficult decision in a war zone and cutting off aid worker's heads both atrocities in the same discussion portrays a shocking lack of moral sense."
Late reply (kid with earinfection and kid with operation tomorrow). But you summarize my opinion into something I did tot say aat all. I had not said anything about the beheadings AFAIK and I said after giving other examples where soldiers killed unarmed insurgents/civilians that I felt that the soldiers that commit atrocities should be convicted for them.
I do notice that you have not answered any of my questions yet.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | November 21, 2004 at 08:14 PM
Well it seems the last word on this comes from the embedded camera man himself. I think blue and sabastian should really have a look at what he has to say about this incident. Perhaps it is worthy of another thread?
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/11/images_reality_.html#comments
It seems these insurgents first surrendered the mosque on Friday and were treated for their wounds and left to be picked up later. Then on Saterday a group of marines entered the mosque, shot the unarmed men again and then left just as the cameraman was arriving with his platoon. Then his men entered the mosque and one marine shot a wounded Iraqi prisoner again, for the third time, finally killing him but this time on camera for the whole world to see.
Posted by: ken | November 22, 2004 at 01:34 PM
Woops sorry for the wrong URL'
This is the one for the embedded reporters full story:
http://www.kevinsites.net/
Posted by: ken | November 22, 2004 at 01:40 PM
Ken,
When the reporter is always the first person through the door... then maybe he gets the last word. When the reporter is the object of suicide attacks... then maybe he gets the last word. When people are more outraged at the people who commit fake surrenders than Marines... then maybe I could give the reporter the last word. But, for me the Marine gets the last word...
From Kevin's site:
"He's fucking faking he's dead -- he's faking he's fucking dead."
Oh yeah.. and now this from ABC (Australian)
Seems these guys didn't get the memo, I mean video, that the fake surrender trick doesn't work.
Where's all the outrage over these types of war crimes? Where's the posts? Where's the disection of what the insurgent was thinking?
Posted by: Blue | November 22, 2004 at 04:14 PM
When the reporter is always the first person through the door... then maybe he gets the last word. When the reporter is the object of suicide attacks... then maybe he gets the last word.
Baloney. This 'reasoning' didn't work at Nuremburg either.
Posted by: Jadegold | November 22, 2004 at 04:21 PM
I think the question at Nuremburg wasn't exactly about close judgment calls.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | November 22, 2004 at 05:33 PM
I think the question at Nuremburg wasn't exactly about close judgment calls.
In your opinion. Given the fact Nuremberg weighs heavily, today, in matters of international criminal law, your opinion seems to militate against the notion it is settled as you portray.
Posted by: Jadegold | November 22, 2004 at 05:50 PM
Hmmm...
"Given the fact Nuremberg weighs heavily"
Maybe, that's really the problem... maybe it shouldn't really be weighing that heavily.
I mean when you have an enemy that preys on the good intentions of others and manipulates that to achieve whatever victory they can... maybe it's time to write new rules.
I'm going with the one that the Marine set.
Fight with people who fake surrender... you may get a bullet through the head even if you are really surrendering. Fight with people who don't fake surrender... then the Marines will accept your surrender without putting a bullet through your head.
Posted by: Blue | November 22, 2004 at 06:11 PM
Fight with people who fake surrender...
Facts are not your friends, Blue.
The fact is the slain Iraqi was wounded, he was feigning nothing.
The fact is he was unarmed and posed no threat beyond a trip hazard.
The fact is the slain Iraqi made no threatening gesture nor gave any indication of a hostile act.
Look, Blue, you've gotta understand patriotism isn't the same as excusing crimes.
Posted by: Jadegold | November 22, 2004 at 06:49 PM
Blue, with all due respect, grunts don't make rules. Grunts follow orders.
If you are unhappy with the current ROEs then, take it up with your congresscritter right now, and don't quit till the laws that constrain those ROEs have been repealed. Anything less is bullsh*t of purest ray serene. In the meantime, I suspect the devil dogs can uphold their honor more effectively without your help. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if some of them found your help mildly insulting, since you seem to think that they're unable to do their jobs if they have to follow the rules.
Posted by: radish | November 22, 2004 at 07:13 PM
Blue, how many times does a pow have to surrender?
How many times do our soldiers get to shoot unarmed, injured pow's before you start to act like an patriot and condemn their actions?
Posted by: ken | November 22, 2004 at 07:50 PM
Kevin Sites, the reporter, gives a more complete account of the shooting.
Posted by: Katherine | November 23, 2004 at 09:03 AM
Nice, many were upset here when I said their actions aided the enemy. Which I still stand by because they do provide political and moral support... but now I am accused of being unpatriotic... will the double standards here ever stop?
Jade,
"Facts are not your friends, Blue."
It seems they are not your friend either. The Marine "thought" he was faking dead and shot him. I have never said that we know one way or the other. I have no qualms admitting the Marine may have been mistaken! My critique has been that many posters here sympathize more with the Iraqis/foreigners who have been consistently breaking the laws of war. (If that isn't an oxymoron.)
The Marine never would have "thought" the guy was faking dead... stay with me here I'll go slow... If they had not already BEEN FAKING DEAD AND FAKING SURRENDER.
I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand.
Let's put the blame where it is properly due. Fight with people who fake surrender and you might get shot when it appears you are faking dead.
Sympathize more with the enemy than the Marines fighting the scum who commit the most horrible war crimes and people might see you as providing indirect support to the enemy.
Posted by: Blue | November 23, 2004 at 10:29 AM
I'm gonna shut down the comments on this thread if we can't move beyond calling each other unpatriotic or suggesting anyone here is helping the enemy.
Please unpersonalize additional comments.
Posted by: Edward | November 23, 2004 at 10:35 AM
"Look, Blue, you've gotta understand patriotism isn't the same as excusing crimes."
I've had a LOT of problems with other things Jadegold has written on this thread, but that simply isn't the same thing as saying that Blue is unpatriotic, let alone that he's providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
This discussion has gone off the rails primarily because of one poster's clear and repeated violation of the site's posting rules. Not to say that there may not be other examples of violations on this thread, but pretending that there's some sort of equivalence and shutting down comments punishes everyone rather than the person (or people, I'm sure like everyone I'm more apt to see this from one side than another) most responsible. The rules don't work if they're not enforced, and enforced against the people who violate them rather than everyone.
Balance matters, but other things matter more. Making balance the be-all-end-all has killed independent journalism, and I would hate to see it as the defining value of this site.
Posted by: katherine | November 23, 2004 at 10:55 AM
I think the offending comment was actually ken's:
"How many times do our soldiers get to shoot unarmed, injured pow's before you start to act like an patriot and condemn their actions?"
Posted by: Gromit | November 23, 2004 at 11:01 AM
For what it's worth, I decided to ban Blue after he repeated his claim that people here are aiding the enemy, despite my saying that if he did so he'd be banned again. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to do it on a thread put up by someone else, and eventually got distracted, and sort of hoped he'd stick by his initial decision to stop posting here. So Blue: the reason I didn't call other people on insulting you was because, in my view, you had already crossed the line more than once too often, and it was only because of my technical ignorance that you were still posting at all, and thus, while you were still violating the posting rules with impunity, I didn't think it was fair to call other people on it.
However, I hereby ask: does anyone know how to ban a commenter on someone else's thread?
Posted by: hilzoy | November 23, 2004 at 11:06 AM
but pretending that there's some sort of equivalence and shutting down comments punishes everyone rather than the person
I was actually hoping to make a clean start of it without having to rehash who was more to blame than whom, in hopes this thread might get back on topic. It's been derailed. I see that. I'd rather not have to ban anyone for it if that can be avoided. Perhaps it can't.
Having said that, though, Blue (please read this all before reacting), you're beginning to lose credibility here in that you keep insisting you're so disgusted that you can't post here any more, but you come back. I have appreciated your comments in the past and tried to reach some common ground, believing we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic, but hoping you'd stick around for the unique viewpoint you add, but you do seem to be unable to do the same in return (reach common ground), so I'm not sure it's worth it.
Gromit's pointing out of ken's comment does suggest this is not all one-sided though. Which, again, is why I had hoped a clean start could be achieved.
hilzoy...check your email.
Posted by: Edward | November 23, 2004 at 11:18 AM
I've had a LOT of problems with other things Jadegold has written on this thread,
Do tell.
Look, if you're going to ban or otherwise sanction Blue--why stop there? After all, Sebastian has strongly suggested those who view this incident as an atrocity are guilty of sacrificing US lives. Kind of makes being labeled as 'unpatriotic' look like pretty weak stuff.
Banning Blue serves no good purpose.
Posted by: Jadegold | November 23, 2004 at 11:37 AM
Banning Blue serves no good purpose.
In this case, I agree. Besides, I believe Blue's latest comment shows he's heard what some here were trying to say:
Sympathize more with the enemy than the Marines fighting the scum who commit the most horrible war crimes and people might see you as providing indirect support to the enemy.
This is a good deal more balanced than Blue's original comments. Personally, I appreciate that effort. However, Katherine's right in that balance is not everything. It's only useful in as much as it leads to wider understanding. In this case, I believe it's accomplished that goal somewhat.
Posted by: Edward | November 23, 2004 at 11:44 AM
Edward,
I have chosen to only post on this thread and will end posting when it ends. The importance of pointing out how many in the U.S. and Europe are indirectly supporting the cause of the insurgency in Iraq... if one can distinquish between the foreign terrorists and the Sunni insurgency... seems extremely important to me.
Posted by: Blue | November 23, 2004 at 05:24 PM
The importance of pointing out how many in the U.S. and Europe are indirectly supporting the cause of the insurgency in Iraq
You have not yet shown how anyone on this thread is doing so, directly or indirectly. But you have insulted several people directly, in clear breach of the posting rules and even of common courtesy in debate, and have never apologised for it.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | November 23, 2004 at 05:52 PM
The importance of pointing out how many in the U.S. and Europe are indirectly supporting the cause of the insurgency in Iraq... if one can distinquish between the foreign terrorists and the Sunni insurgency... seems extremely important to me.
Duly noted. And since you seem amazingly well informed on this topic, what exactly is the "cause" of the insurgency in Iraq? I mean to the extent that it can be distinquished from foreign terrorists of course -- I'm not asking what the foreigners think.
What are those Iraqis fighting for exactly?
BTW have you talked to your congresscritter yet? Lotta boys getting hurt over there y'know. You do want the ROE changed, don't you?
Posted by: radish | November 23, 2004 at 06:33 PM