Haditha

[erik_kosberg]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/

A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.

From the beginning, Iraqis in the town of Haditha said U.S. Marines deliberately killed 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children.

One young Iraqi girl said the Marines killed six members of her family, including her parents. “The Americans came into the room where my father was praying,” she said, “and shot him.”

More from Billmon "In Cold Blood"

[wivabef]

My heart aches for this country. My heart aches for those Iraqis.

Hell. My heart aches for this world.

[conradd]

Well, since Jack Murtha has already convicted them, why bother with a trial?

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Military officials say Marine Corp photos taken immediately after the incident show many of the victims were shot at close range, in the head and chest, execution-style. One photo shows a mother and young child bent over on the floor as if in prayer, shot dead, said the officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity because the investigation hasn't been completed.

One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.

“This one is ugly," one official told NBC News.

Three Marine officers — commanders in Haditha — have been relieved of duty, and at least 12 Marines in all are under investigation for what would be the worst single incident involving the deliberate killing of civilians by U.S. military in Iraq.

If this happened, the troops who were involved should be prosecuted and punished. No question about that. But:

The Marine Corps issued a statement in response to Murtha's remarks:

"There is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process. As soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable."

Murtha made his statements knowing full well that the Marine Corps could not comment on an ongoing investigation. Once the process is complete and the findings are public is the time to comment.

There are a number of ways that innocent civilians can be killed in a gun battle that have nothing to do with a massacre. I am waiting for the investigation to take place before condemning these Marines. I wish Murtha would have done the same.

Deb

[erik_kosberg]

It's all about Murtha after all.

[conradd]

No, it's about the investigation, but Murtha has just compromised it. Hell, he didn't even read the Pentagon report before he shot off his mouth.

"There was no firefight. There was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed those innocent people," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said during a news conference on Iraq. "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell."

Murtha's comments were the first on-the-record remarks by a U.S. official characterizing the findings of military investigators looking into the Nov. 19 incident. Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee and an opponent of Bush administration policy in Iraq, said he hadn't read the report but had learned about its findings from military commanders and other sources.

Yes, I'm angry. If this is true, the guilty need to be punished and it's a huge black eye for the Marine Corps. But rushing to judgement isn't helping anything and it's going to make things more difficult for the troops on the ground and I have a personal interest there.

[pippadaisy[$]]

Deb,

I know you don't like this story. It's Marines. But Murtha didn't break the story. Time bought the video. The story is out there, and whether you hear it from Murtha or splashed on next week's cover of Time, it's out there.

I know you don't like Murtha. He isn't using this to lambaste the Marines, though. He's trying to use this story to point out that our soldiers are overstressed, that they are on multiple tours in a war that seems to have no end in sight,and that, unfortunately, this can be the result. He's using it to try to get more support for our soldiers and some sort of exit plan, not to attack.

My dad was a Navy corpsman stationed at Lejeune. I know the Marine Corps Hymn, but not the Navy's.

[realtraveller]

Aren't 'overreaction' (which implies some heat of the moment type action) and 'in cold blood' (premeditated and without emotion) contradictory? See Murtha's statement.

[erik_kosberg]

It's all about semantics after all.

[poseidon]

conradd said

Murtha made his statements knowing full well that the Marine Corps could not comment on an ongoing investigation. Once the process is complete and the findings are public is the time to comment.

Well, yeah, but how can you score political points that way?

[wivabef]

I don't think Murtha is trying to score political points.

He may be speaking out of line (I don't know all the facts) but he is actually a man with a lot of integrity, IMHO.

[poseidon]

Dunno, Elyzabeth. I'm getting rather cynical when it comes to politics these days. I find it hard to believe that there's a politician out there, particularly in this current climate, that isn't out to score politcal points at every turn.

[conradd]

pippadaisy said

Deb,

I know you don't like this story. It's Marines. But Murtha didn't break the story. Time bought the video. The story is out there, and whether you hear it from Murtha or splashed on next week's cover of Time, it's out there.

They bought a video, yes. And I've read the Time report which leaves more questions unanswered than answered for me. A story is out there, but perhaps not the full story. That is the purpose of the investigation.

Do atrocities happen in war? Yes. My Lai is a prime example and my heart breaks at the possibility of another incident like that. But the story seems to hinge on the testimony of a 9 year old who initially thought her family was killed by Iraqi soldiers, and a whole lot of guessing from people who weren't there. If Marines knowingly killed civilians as retribution for losing one of their own, they will be tried and punished. All I'm saying is that there may be more to this story and that will come out during the investigation. I don't know what to think right now. I do know that Marines go through exhaustive training before they are deployed on rules of engagement. I know so many stories about how Marines have risked - and sometimes given - their own lives in order to protect civilians. For an entire platoon of 15-20 Marines to willfully disregard their training and deliberately target women and children just doesn't make sense.

Do you remember when Bob Woodruff was injured? In that case, they were wounded by an IED attack and then came under fire from buildings nearby. That is the after-action report by Marines here too. If the IED went off and Marines came under fire, it is very possible that they construed that as an ambush. I don't know, I wasn't there. But it's not an uncommon scenario. It's also not uncommon for insurgents to move into civilian homes and use them as a staging ground for attacks. If the Marines were fired on, and they fired back, civilian deaths could certainly result.

I know you don't like Murtha. He isn't using this to lambaste the Marines, though. He's trying to use this story to point out that our soldiers are overstressed, that they are on multiple tours in a war that seems to have no end in sight,and that, unfortunately, this can be the result. He's using it to try to get more support for our soldiers and some sort of exit plan, not to attack.

I'm sorry, but I don't know how characterizing troops who are firing back when they are fired upon as killers who mow down innocent civilians in cold blood can be construed as gaining support. Especially when he's evidently basing that judgement on a video made by a journalism student, conjecture by human rights activists, and unnamed military officers. His statements on Hardball are incredible:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Mr. Murtha to give us some details about that. Draw us a picture of what happened in Haditha.

MURTHA: Well, I‘ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed, and the Marines just said we‘re going to take care. They don‘t know who the enemy is. The pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses, and they actually killed civilians. And, you know—

MATTHEWS: Was this melee? I mean, was this a case of—when you say cold blood, Congressman, a lot of people think you‘re basically saying you have got some civilians sitting in a room or out in a field and they‘re executed just on purpose...

MURTHA: That‘s exactly what happened.

As I said, I can conjecture on what might have happened, but I wasn't there. For Murtha, who hasn't even read the official report and who is relying on evidence that hasn't been examined in court yet to assert that he knows "exactly what happened", is not what I would expect from an elected representative from either party. No matter what he does or doesn't know, his public statements are irresponsible and harmful to the investigation.

My dad was a Navy corpsman stationed at Lejeune. I know the Marine Corps Hymn, but not the Navy's.

Corpsmen are the only non-Marines authorized to wear the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor. Please tell your father thanks for me.

[rmthunter]

Reading the quotes from Murtha and the reporting in the news items, it seems to me that there are a couples of problems here:

Murtha is not blaming the troops; he's connecting the dots, or trying to, and it's not coming out in the news reports: He's condemning the way this war was conceived and implemented. The so-called "liberal press" is still giving the administration a get-out-of-jail-free card on it and slanting the stories the way that will sell.

I don't think anyone who has not been in combat can begin to understand the pressure our troops are under, particularly in this kind of situation, where you never know who the enemy is. I can't -- I just find myself wondering how they stand it at all without cracking up. Incidents such as this are not surprising -- horrible, but not surprising. The problem with this aspect of it is that we have documented instances of our troops blowing away civilians without apparent provocation, so there's a slight bias toward belief -- which I'm sure the press is trading on: it's scandalous, and that sells papers.

[poseidon]

rmthunter said

The so-called "liberal press" is still giving the administration a get-out-of-jail-free card on it and slanting the stories the way that will sell.

Mind if I ask you what press you're reading? If anything, I find it rare that there's a story in the mainstream news talking about the good that our troops are doing in Iraq. It comes about as often as an eclipse of the sun.

Almost all of the news stories that I see or hear revolve around how many troops have died (and FWIW, I think that's a good subject to report on and yes, I still support this war -- I think that is important in any war) or how many casualties the other side has taken (again that's relevant) or how this MoC is questioning the reason that we went to war or how that Senator is questioning the reason that we went to war.

Where's this get-out-of-jail-free card that you are touting? I don't see it in AP news stories, I don't see it on NBC news, I don't hear it on ABC radio news.

[rmthunter]

NYT and WaPo jumped on the bandwagon way back, and still can't quite give it up. There's also been a lamentable tendency across the board to report White House press releases as news without any backstory or analysis. I'm not going to get into "they're not reporting any good news" back-and-forth -- it's pointless, and this is not the place for it. If you want a "Good News from Iraq" thread, start one. (I seem to remember that the last one didn't get very far.)

Of more interest is an idea I just ran across at Whiskey Bar: Billmon thinks that maybe Murtha's remarks were an attempted end-run against the Pentagon classifying the whole thing (not that that would stop the Pentagon -- if you've been following the news at all, you know that the government is reclassifying documents that have been public for years).

The way to avoid controversy is to keep everything secret.

[poseidon]

Hey Bob, I'd hate to inform you of this, but many reporters gave up the idea of journalism and investigative reporting years ago.

This isn't a matter of reporting this White House's press releases and not doing any further investigation. That was done in Clinton's White House as well. Many reporters are lazy and prefer to be spoonfed their news.

This isn't a case of the press giving Bush a pass. It is a case of the press being lazy. Huge difference.

[pippadaisy[$]]

conradd said

Corpsmen are the only non-Marines authorized to wear the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor. Please tell your father thanks for me.

Will do. It reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend's stepbrother when I was in college. He was going on and on about my father being a sailor (he was a Marine) and I said "But my dad was STATIONED with Marines. He was a corpsman."

His response? "Your father wasn't a sailor. He was a MARINE!"

[erik_kosberg]

Marine respect for corpsmen is deep. FWIW, the best Marine-related book I've ever read is E.B. Sledge's With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa (great, gut-wrenching book, highly recommended).

[rmthunter]

poseidon said

Hey Bob, I'd hate to inform you of this, but many reporters gave up the idea of journalism and investigative reporting years ago.

This isn't a matter of reporting this White House's press releases and not doing any further investigation. That was done in Clinton's White House as well. Many reporters are lazy and prefer to be spoonfed their news.

This isn't a case of the press giving Bush a pass. It is a case of the press being lazy. Huge difference.

And the result is that the press is giving Bush a pass.

I ran across a bit this morning that Helen Thomas has ripped the press for the same reasons -- laziness and lack of inquiry.


.

[poseidon]

rmthunter said

And the result is that the press is giving Bush a pass.

I ran across a bit this morning that Helen Thomas has ripped the press for the same reasons -- laziness and lack of inquiry.

LMAO, that's not giving a pass Bob. Giving a pass is knowing the truth and burying it or just passing it off as unimportant.

Laziness does not equal endorsement.