Speaking Of War Crimes
By Steven Hass
Kevin Sites is a freelance journalist on assignment with NBC News in Iraq, and he is currently acting as the imbedded
journalist covering the fighting in Fallujah. His video report, which was released this week and shows a U.S. Marine
killing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque, has started a global wildfire.
Not surprisingly, those who are sympathetic to George W. Bush's war in Iraq have chosen to sidestep the issue at hand,
and instead are screaming for Sites' head on a sacrificial platter. Unfortunately, deflecting the attention onto Sites
does not erase what his camera recorded: a war crime, by any interpretation of the established laws of war. Sites did
what the mainstream American media won't do, and simply recorded the uncensored story at hand (as competent journalists
do). Judging by their reaction, Bush sympathizers don't appreciate "no spin" that has no spin.
Earlier that day in Fallujah, a Marine unit had captured the mosque and the group of wounded Iraqi militia inside the
mosque. These Marines had finished treating the wounds of the Iraqis, and then left them to be collected by another
Marine group, presumably for transfer to a prisoner collection area. When the second group of Marines arrived, the video
shows them walking around the wounded Iraqis, who were lying on the floor of the mosque. A Marine is heard saying that
one of the wounded Iraqis was pretending to be dead. In response, a fellow Marine is seen aiming his rifle point-blank
at the Iraqi, shooting him in the head, and casually remarking, "Well, he's dead now".
No yelling, no screaming, no fighting, no chaos inside the mosque. The wounded Iraqis were lying on the floor, obviously
unarmed. Bush sympathizers, in trying to justify what is shown on the video, speak of previous (and verifiable)
incidents when Iraqi militia had boobytrapped their dead comrades, or incidents when wounded Iraqis had laid in wait for
any American soldier to get close enough to be shot. These incidents have, in fact, happened. But the Bush sympathizers
typically lose sight of what their argument's alternative says. By their argument, fearing such an incident in this
specific case would be saying that the U.S. Marines, when leaving prisoners for another group to collect, are not
intelligent enough to absolutely ensure that all weapons of any type have been taken from the wounded Iraqis. This
argument has the first group of Marines treating the wounded Iraqis, and then just walking away, saying, "Gee, I sure
hope they don't have any weapons".
With a generous portion of latitude, let's assume that this second group of Marines just happened upon the mosque and
its group of wounded Iraqis, rather than having been sent there to collect the prisoners. If that were the case, these
Marines have no business being in combat (or they have a death wish). As shown on the video, they are not storming the
mosque in a battle, there are no shots fired, they are not attacking the mosque in any semblance of guerilla warfare
tactics. They simply walk into the mosque. Obviously, they were sent there, and equally obvious by their lack of tactics
is that they knew what to expect inside the mosque (and it wasn't a firefight).
Another argument being used in an attempt to justify the killing of this Iraqi prisoner is that a war is stressful, and
this Marine may have been under extreme stress at the time. I would like to take this opportunity to personally
congratulate this Marine on his exemplary command of combat stress, as the video shows what appears to be an extremely
calm and composed person shooting this Iraqi. There is not even a hint of stress in the entire incident, nor in the
situation as a whole. But combat stress is different from the stress of everyday civilian life, right? It would be easy
right now to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, and to say that I have no idea what combat stress is like.
Unfortunately, I do know. I wish I didn't.
The predictable backlash from Bush sympathizers is aimed at Kevin Sites, rather than the Marine who did the killing.
They say that Sites is "aiding the enemy". They say he is no better than "the terrorists". Pray tell, how in the world
does a journalist aid the enemy by reporting the uncensored news? Are we supposed to believe that "the enemy" had no
idea that American troops were capable of this type of incident? I guess we're supposed to believe that Iraqis in
Fallujah haven't heard yet about the torture at Abu Ghraib. Does uncensored news really aid the enemy? Only if the enemy
is a large group of Americans who have become accustomed to whitewashed spin-cycle "news"; a healthy dose of uncensored
news is the very aid that they need.
Don't bother calling me unpatriotic or un-American. When I checked last, the American military was to be exemplified by
their adherence to the laws of war, regardless of the enemy's lack thereof. I've been in combat - have you? I know the
Rules of Engagement - do you? I know what the Geneva Convention says - do you? I don't want the next video to be of
Iraqi militia killing unarmed and wounded American prisoners, excusing it away by citing "combat stress".....do you? The
more this incident is justified, the more permission is given for the same treatment of wounded American prisoners. I
hope you can justify that.
*************
Steven A. Hass Newzmaniac.com desert_vet@msn.com