Darth_Dude said:
So the last man in in Haditha Massacre has just pleaded guilty. If you're not familiar with it, it's a massacre that took place in 2005 when US Marines, after the death on one of their own, went on a revenge killing, and murdered 25 Iraqi's, including 10 women and a child.
Considering that 8 other marines have been cleared of these charges, and this latest one is only getting 3 months, essentially nothing, this is just sickening. The evidence is pretty clear, the people killed weren't terrorists but innocent civilians and no weapons were found on them, and "Six people were killed in one house, most shot in the head, including women and children huddled in a bedroom."
Right, before even reading your sources, I have a couple questions:
1) Were there elements of PTSD being discussed? Because that's like a significantly-more-valid version of pleading temporary insanity.
2) Where/when was the Marine killed? Was it nearby? Was it well before the massacre, or not long before?
3) Was precedent being cited? The Mr-Lai Massacre [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My-Lai] comes to mind, and sounds very much familiar to this incident.
Darth_Dude said:
This is screwed up. An American can kill another American citizen and he can get life in prison.
Yes, he can. Emphasis is on 'can.' The US judicial system is a bit more complicated than that, and most killings don't result in a life sentence for that exact reason. And even then, a standard 'life' sentence is just 25 years without parole. That's why you can get people with consecutive life sentences.
Darth_Dude said:
But when an American kills 24 Iraqi's all he get's is "three months of confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds of his pay for three months and a reduction in rank when he is sentenced, a base spokesman said."?!!! Not even counting the 8 other soldiers that were Acquitted.
I know I'm coming off as a rabid anti-American, but seriously, Fuck You America Great Job guys.
Honestly? You weren't until now. You sounded justifiably upset, though I say that without looking at the evidence for myself. Unfortunately, "Fuck You America" will do a lot to damage your credibility as a neutral source of information.
Darth_Dude said:
Discussion: What do my fellow Escapists think of the sentencing and the whole case in general?
Looking at the articles, I'll go through my impressions on the case:
-The acquittal of the other Marines was because their officer took full responsibility for issuing unclear/irresponsible orders. They weren't being acquitted because the court decided none of them did anything. They were acquitted because they were following orders that weren't clearly out of line. With the benefit of hindsight, you can criticize it all day long, but that's irrelevant.
-The reason for the massacre was the death of a member of their squad, who was killed by an IED earlier that morning. Not by a visible enemy combatant, but by a hidden bomb. This plays into the next point.
-The motivations of the My-Lai massacre were similar for two reasons: it was in response to recent deaths of comrades, and it was during a guerrilla war. That's one of the worst aspects of a guerrilla war: one side isn't wearing uniforms. I hate appealing to emotion, but it's rather pertinent to this case, so bear with me:
Imagine fighting a war against an enemy who is physically indistinguishable from the civilian population they hide among. The only way you'll be able to tell with certainty if they're an enemy is if they have a gun in hand, and even then, you rarely see the one who plants an IED or some other roadside bomb. In essence, the uniform of a guerrilla force is civilian garb.
Now imagine that a comrade, a close friend and trusted ally, is dead. One moment alive, the next mutilated and lifeless. That's how IEDs work: you don't see them coming, and their damage happens in a heartbeat. In the span of a few seconds, you've been robbed of a friend and denied any enemy to lash out against.
But there are people nearby, living close to the hidden charge that killed your friend. The first instinct is to search the houses, see if (somewhat understandably) there is any evidence of the murder that took place such a short time ago. Unfortunately, this is rationality mixed with adrenaline and anger. The former is a product of the recent event, the latter in equal measure that and frustration with the war as a whole.
Thus, a tragic conclusion is made: if the enemy is simply composed of civilians, 'houses' are synonymous with 'bases.' Everyone inside? They're wearing the enemy's uniform. And your CO gives you the exact order you want: "Breach and clear. Shoot first, ask questions later." You get a clear enemy to kill, and you get what you believe is retribution for the murder of your friend.
People don't seem to acknowledge this fact when they glorify guerrilla fighters: they make targets of the people they claim to protect. They can shield themselves like this as much as they want, but there's a breaking point for the foes they're up against. How long will they maintain "We can't pick the shooters from the civilians, hold your fire"? How long will they let their enemy fire on them without answer because returning fire might hurt nearby civilians? How long until they start blaming the civilians for being in their way?
And finally, how long until they decide the obstructing civilians are no better than the guerrillas that hide among them?
