If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Court Martial for marines who perpetrated worst American massacre since Vietnam
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Iraq to probe US massacre claims
The official US version differs widely from that of locals and the media
Iraq will investigate allegations that US marines carried out a massacre of civilians in Haditha in November, the country's prime minister has said.
Nouri Maliki told Reuters news agency there was "a limit to the acceptable excuses" for civilian casualties.
The Pentagon is close to ending its own inquiries into the deaths, initially attributed to a clash with militants.
Observers say the incident could deal a more serious blow to US standing than the Abu Ghraib scandal.
It is not justifiable that a family is killed because someone is fighting terrorists
Nouri Maliki
Iraqi prime minister
According to initial US military reports, 15 civilians and eight insurgents died after a bomb killed a marine in Haditha, a militant stronghold in Anbar Province.
The civilians were "victims of a wrong operation", Mr Maliki said in a separate interview with the BBC.
"It is not justifiable that a family is killed because someone is fighting terrorists."
Speaking to Reuters, he said his government was worried by "the increase in 'mistakes'" and would ask "for answers not only about Haditha but about any operation... in which killing happened by mistake".
"We will hold those who did it responsible," he added.
The BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington that enough material has now been leaked to the US media about events in Haditha to suggest to many Americans that allegations of a massacre are very serious and may well be true.
'Cold blood'
US investigators are looking at both the actual events in Haditha on 19 November and an alleged cover-up by troops.
Haditha has seen regular deadly attacks on US troops
The military said at the time that the civilians were killed as a result of either the bomb or a gun battle which erupted afterwards, in which the militants were reportedly killed.
But reports from Iraqi witnesses and in the US media allege that marines went on a rampage.
According to the Wall St Journal, there is evidence that marines killed civilians, including women and children, without provocation.
Several marines are likely to be charged with murder and others with attempting to cover up the incident, the newspaper said, quoting civilian and military officials close to the investigations.
One of the marines in Haditha that day, Lance Cpl Roel Ryan Briones of Hanford, California, told the Los Angeles Times he had taken photos and carried bodies out of homes as part of a clean-up crew:
"They ranged from little babies to adult males and females. I'll never be able to get that out of my head. I can still smell the blood."
Caution plea
Jim Murtha, a Democratic Congressman and former marine, has said he believes civilians in Haditha were murdered and the incident was covered up.
"They killed innocent civilians in cold blood and that's what the report is going to tell," he said.
"It is as bad as Abu Ghraib, if not worse," he told CNN television.
Gen Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and chief military adviser to the US president, said on Monday it would be premature for him to judge the outcome of the investigations.
"If the allegations as they are being portrayed in the newspapers turn out to be valid, then of course there'll be charges," he said.
"We'll get to the bottom of the investigation and take the appropriate action."
These men should be sent to Guantanamo Bay - what they apparently did was shockingly brutal.
STOP THE WAR
0
Comments
I wouldn't be supprised to see worse massacres than Vietnam taking/have taken place, tbh.
Hope they get screwed.
Since nobody has been found guilty of anything (yet) it's a tad premature advocating punishments.
Yeah cos it's as simple as that isn't it? :rolleyes:
It would be reckless, selfish and short-sighted to withdraw US/UK troops from Iraq at this point. It would be frankly criminal for the US/UK to invade Iraq and overthrow a totalitarian regime only to leave it in a chaotic and anarchical state on the brink of civil war. We have to finish the job. I have to admit I have my doubts about the wisdom of invading Iraq but since we decided to invade Iraq we have a duty to sort it out for Iraqis.
Mistakes, excesses and abuses unfortunately occur in wartime. Among thousands of troops there will be isolated cases of wrongdoing. The troops deserve our support and they should not be all tarred with the same brush. This is a small minority, it would be wrong to allow this to detract from the overall aim of stabilising Iraq, defeating terrorism in Iraq and helping make a better Iraq for Iraqis.
I wonder whether any of them would.
A few will, but they'll be in the minority.
In fact, a sizeable chunk of the public will probably argue that the soldiers shouldn't even be punished at all, let alone be sentenced to death, because at the end of the day they're fighting dirty towelheads and terrorists who are always shooting at them anyway.
The neocon propaganda machine is already hard at work to ensure that:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/27/124438.shtml
Four things first it will take years before the US/UK troops can leave but the longer they stay the more will be recruited to extremism so a policy needs to be drawn up by the iraqis and the west have to agree with it.
"mistakes occur in wartime" thats no fuckin excuse for shooting innocent people in a house because your pissed off that you as the soldier can do very little in your situation yet react to people trying to kill you. they signed up to the army (whole new thread needed on american recruitment anyhow) but the soldiers have also been failed by the army who hasn't prepared them mentally for the trials of war.
thirdly yesterday the death count of Iraqi's killed was 40, which shows that 24 deaths months ago aren't a great problem for many iraqi's but will have a huge impact on the US administration. with popularity falling all the time.
last, (I'm with stupid) will the americans pursue the death penalty for this like the 9/11 perpetrators? probably not but it seems highly two faced purely based on nationality.
R
Well the 9/11 perpetrator who was tried was given life imprisonment instead of execution. However, most people would distinguish between a military and a civilian context so the two are not directly comparable and there's more to it than is being suggested. In this case distinctions need to be drawn between privates and officers for instance.
You are speculating. The US government and military is taking the issue extremely seriously. The Wall Street Journal (which on foreign policy generally takes a neoconservative line) took a very critical view highlighting evidence suggesting that marines killed civilians inc women and children without provocation. Anyway where do you get your ideas about what Americans think? I know a lot of Americans, I've spent a lot of time there and I follow the US media and I can't really relate to your view of what Americans think.. You're making generalisations that seem as crass and untrue as stereotypes claiming that all Muslims support terrorism.
Seems simple to me.
Out of curiousity, when was the last time a serving soldier was sentenced to death and executed by a military court in the US? I don't recall such incident ever happening during my lifetime.
See here.
Looks like the article has changed since you posted it - as it makes no mention of a Government cover-up. In fact it seems as though senior officers are taking it pretty seriously. Some officers did try and cover it up (a battalion CO and two company commanders), but not the Government. They've been relieved from duty (and whilst the Guardian article doesn't mention it other sources I've seen say that they may face prosecution themselves).
The best a Government/military hierachy can do is make sure that troops are disciplined and then punish those who fail in their duty. Bush and other senior people in the political/military leadership have made clear that they condemn those who commit war crimes and have taken action to make sure they're punished. They've also made clear that they feel they're fighting a terrorist minority, not the Iraqi people.
I'm not sure what else they can do
So the fact they have said that human rights laws dont apply means nothing? That doesnt set a tone at all?
bull, sartre would say that that is bad faith because your trying to say there were no decisions to be made, it was out of their hands but the soldiers who ran in that building had the hugely obvious choice not to, but they chose to do it, in wartime many chose to rape, loot and kill civillians, but they still have that choice, and because they chose to do such things they must all be condemned for it!
Not send in the marines in the first place?
Hello mate. :wave:
Not really - Gitmo has nothing to do with the shooting of civilians.
Of more importance is the fact that soldiers are seeing their colleagues killed, their own countrymen calling them baby killers etc. That breeds resentment and bitterness and that leads to war crimes.
Who's not condeming them? I've suggested the firing squad which I think suggests that I'm not a great fan of shooting civilians.
But the notion of personal responsibilty means that it was the soldiers who are responsible for the murder and possibly some of their senior officers for covering it up an failing to put safeguards in place. War crimes have always happened and always will happen - for that war is to blame, not Bush.
Two different arguments. if the war is unjust its unjust whether or not the USMC religously stick the conventions of war.
If it is just it remains so, though you can condem the actions of individuals.