May 26, 2006
Big Lizards Has No Opinion. Yet. UPDATED - Hey, It's a Fast-Breaking Story!
But plenty still to say...
UPDATED: See bottom of post.
Everyone by now must be aware of an investigation by the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service of a number of possible civilian deaths in Haditha last November. Alas, nearly everyone is leaping to a series of conclusions before the investigation is complete.
Some conclude that the Marines committed a war crime, a massacre of up to two dozens civilians, including women and children, just because the Marines got angry. Others conclude that the whole charge is a slanderous lie invented by anti-war activists like Rep. John Murtha (D-PA, 50%). Both sides are drawing conclusions far beyond the available data.
The fact is that we don't yet know the facts. The dribs and drabs we've gotten from Murtha, from the Los Angeles Times, and from other antique media are anything but illuminating; they critically depend upon anonymous sources, and they conceal weasel-words like "may be," "could be" behind a veil of unfounded certainty:
U.S. Marines could face criminal charges, including murder, over the deaths of up to two dozen Iraqi civilians last year, a defense official said on Friday.
The case could prove a further setback for President Bush who described the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal as America's "biggest mistake" and admitted saying "bring 'em on" to insurgents in 2003 may have "sent the wrong message."
Note two arrows in the quiver of journalism's jihad against Bush and the war:
First, that the Marines "could" face murder charges. Here is what Reuters' "defense official" actually said -- though you only get this by reading a different article; the explanatory context is dropped from the first article linked:
The defense official noted that criminal investigations into deaths could lead to murder charges, but was not more specific about possible charges.Second, the usual Tourette's-like eruption of irrelevant but negative commentary about Bush, designed to taint the sample... and therefore make people more likely to believe the worst.
(I've come up with a neologism to describe that last tendency: I shall call it Spurette's Syndrome, a portmanteau word formed by combining "spurious" and "Tourette's.")
What the Defense Department official clearly said was that one of the possible charges resulting from such an investigation would be murder... which should be obvious, as the claim (by an Iraqi "human rights" organization) is that the Marines wantonly killed unarmed women and children. Clearly, if -- a very big "if" -- if the investigation reveals that this is even partially true, all those involved should be charged with murder... and if they're convicted, I want to see them swing.
Yes, even if they are Marines; and even if they were upset by the IED-death of one of their own, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. There is no excuse, no mitigating factor, no conceivable rational explanation for executing children in front of their parents -- which is what the Hammurabi Organization for Monitoring Human Rights and Democracy alleges they did.
Any Marine who did such a thing -- if any of them really did -- has so dishonored the uniform and the Corps that he should first be dishonorably discharged and then hanged by the neck until dead... and everybody in the unit, indeed every Marine we have (via closed-circuit TV), should be forced to watch the hanging.
I don't know when is the last time we executed a member of the military; but if this allegation turns out to be true (I'm still very dubious), we should resurrect the practice.
But how likely is it? What do we actually know? Darned little:
- So far, we have Iraqi civiilans who died, though the number is disputed;
- We have a politician (John Murtha) claiming it was a massacre, but who is also known as a serial liar whose primary purpose has become to accuse American military personnel of committing atrocities and war crimes on a Kerryesque campaign;
- And we have a videotape.
Reuters says it received a videotape of the alleged victims from the abovementioned Hammurabi human-rights group:
A video of people killed in the incident, given to Reuters in March by Iraq's Hammurabi Organization for Monitoring Human Rights and Democracy, showed corpses lined up at the local morgue with bullet wounds in the head and chest.
The video showed houses with bullet holes in the walls, pieces of human flesh, pools of blood, and clothes and pots scattered on floors. Residents described a rampage by Marines.
That's what we know (I don't believe Reuters is lying). But what don't we know?
- We do not know whether the corpses in that video are actually from the incident at Haditha.
- We do not know whether the gunshots are actually executions -- or shots fired from a distance that hit innocent bystanders.
- We do not know whether the "bullet holes in the walls, pieces of human flesh, pools of blood, and clothes and pots scattered on floors" betoken deliberate executions or a massive firefight.
- We do not even know whether those bullet holes were made by M-16s or some other American weapon -- or whether they were made by AK-47s.
None of this information has been released, and no MSM report that I have seen even attempts to show evidence filling these vital lacunae. Here is how the Los Angeles Times luridly describes the supposed incident... and note especially how they characterize the provenance of their information:
Marines from Camp Pendleton wantonly killed unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, and then tried to cover up the slayings in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha, military investigations have found.
Officials who have seen the findings of the investigations said the filing of criminal charges, including some murder counts, was expected, which would make the Nov. 19 incident the most serious case of alleged U.S. war crimes in Iraq.
Which officials are those? Would they include Rep. Murtha and others of his ilk? Note that the LA Times does not even go so far as to say "military officials," which implies to me that the officials are not military; the Times is perfectly capable of using the longer term when they choose, to make their point stronger -- as here:
Marine officials also confirmed Thursday that an investigation had been opened into an April 26 incident in which troops allegedly killed a civilian in the town of Hamandiya, west of Baghdad.
Though the Times admits -- once -- that their entire source for the content of the report is the Ubiquitous Anonymous Informant, who did not even show editors or writers a copy of the report (the article is based upon what "officials said"), the entire rest of their piece is written in simple, declarative, absolute statements, expressing utter certainty about their story:
An administrative inquiry overseen by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell found that several infantry Marines fatally shot as many as 24 Iraqis and that other Marines either failed to stop them or filed misleading or blatantly false reports.
The report concludes that a dozen Marines acted improperly after a roadside bomb explosion killed a fellow Marine, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas.
Looking for insurgents, the Marines entered several homes and began firing their weapons, according to the report.
What they actually mean is, "according to what some civilian somewhere in the government said about the report, which he claims to have read, but won't show us." But besides being cumbersome, that wouldn't fit the "story" as the LA Times conceives it.
Again, we want to caution: Big Lizards is certainly no more prepared to say that the Marines are innocent than we are to say that they are guilty. We're agnostics on this... but we're militant agnostics: we don't know, and neither do you, dang it!
And neither will anyone know, save a handful of people, until the reports are actually released. Until then, as you read increasingly tabloidesque stories in the elite media, bear in mind not only what you have been told but what you haven't been told... particuarly about the source or sources of this story.
UPDATE, a few minutes later: a story in the New York Times gives more specificity to the allegations, though it adds nothing to the provenance: all is still attributed to anonymous "officials":
Congressional and military officials say the Naval Criminal Investigative Service inquiry is focusing on the actions of a Marine Corps staff sergeant serving as squad leader at the time, but that Marine officials have told members of Congress that up to a dozen other marines in the unit are also under investigation. Officials briefed on the inquiry said that most of the bullets that killed the civilians were now thought to have been "fired by a couple of rifles," as one of them put it....
All of those who discussed the case had to be granted anonymity before they would talk about the findings emerging from the investigation.
So it emerges that the investigation is centered around one or two rogue Marines who may have gone on a several-hour long rampage, and also upon several other Marines, probably to determine whether they tried to cover up the incident -- which would of course depend on whether they knew (or reasonably should have known) that what they were reporting was false. Assuming, that is, that it was false.
If true, this is still an atrocity; but rather than indicting the entire Marine Corps, the investigation appears to have narrowed the focus.
I still believe that if this is true (we're no further on that question), those convicted should be hanged and the rest of the Corps forced to stand at attention and watch. But we're still going to wait for the results to be released, and they certainly will be released publicly, before leaping to either conclusion.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 26, 2006, at the time of 5:50 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/788
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Big Lizards Has No Opinion. Yet. UPDATED - Hey, It's a Fast-Breaking Story!:
» INCIDENT AT HADITHA from Michelle Malkin
***update: Mary Katherine Ham follows up with retired Brig. Gen. David H. Brahms, a long-time lawyer with the Marine Corps, who says his remarks about Haditha were taken out of context by the Washington Post...*** Last week, Rep. John Murtha... [Read More]
Tracked on May 27, 2006 7:59 AM
» Haditha Horror from Rhymes With Right
If this is accurate, I believe that firing squads are in order. A four-man team of United States Marines led the killing rampage in the Iraqi town of Haditha which resulted in the deaths of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, military... [Read More]
Tracked on May 27, 2006 7:26 PM
Comments
The following hissed in response by: hunter
You are being played even if the allegations are true.
This is not the first time the Marines ahve gone after soldiers on murder charges taht turned out to be false charges.
That we are eharing nothing of their side of what happened is very telling to me. It tells me that someone is selling a story. And since murtha was the rat schmuck who broached the story, we can bet what the goal of the story being sold is.
There has never been, nor will there ever be, a war where even the goo dguys don't make terrible mistakes.
The worst thing we can for this war and the troops who volunteer to fight is to give this the same coverage as the Abu Ghraib or Gtmo. bs.
Even if it is true, does its saturation coverage help or hurt the war?
What would America have done in WWII?
That should be the guiding view on this.
And it is the last thing any of us do. Because we are totally framed in how we think on this by the side that demands we lose.
After the way we tolerated the massacre of innocent Americans in Fallujah early in this war, I don't think I want to hear any bunk for defeatocrat spammers that we are too harsh on Iraqis.
If a crime was committed we ahve deomstrated time and time again that we will investigate, try convict and punish those responsible.
Other than that, the style of reporting we obsess with only serves to help the enemy.
Is there any legitimate reason to helpthe enemy?
If so, please advise.
The above hissed in response by: hunter ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://biglizards.net/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 26, 2006 7:26 PM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Monkeyboy:
Don't we turn over troops accused of crimes in other countries to the local judiciary for trials?
During a war? Are you daft?
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 26, 2006 9:34 PM
The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael
I'd like to remind everybody what it means to be "under investigation".
One cannot be proven innocent by an investigation until you have been.... under investigation. For that matter, one cannot be proven guilty, nor can it even be proven that there has even been a CRIME until there has been an investigation and certain facts determined.
The NY Times is under investigation. Does that make them guilty of Murder? Oh, right, they are under investigation of passing along vital national secrets, not murder. How do we know that? Because we know about the investigation.
In the case of the Marines and Haditha... we have been told nothing by the investigators. The only information we have comes to us through people who have actually proven themselves to be unreliable sources of information. (Karl Rove has been indicted! It's TRUE, we have proof from somebody close to the prosecutor that it happened last week!! It just hasn't happened yet but it will!)
If any US Service Member has murdered anybody, then yes, that Service Member should be punished loudly, publicly, and severely; this is a basic fact of Law under which the Military operates. There should be no suprise if we support the Law. But we don't even know if there actually was a death caused by a Marine, much less one that qualifies as a Murder.
As far as Time Magazine being the instigator of the Investigation... they may have been the ones who caused the Military Brass to bring in the NCIS, but the Marines investigated the action right away. We are now told that their investigation is being questioned by... those same proven unreliable sources.
Turning our Military over to Civilian Courts in a time of War is silly. Consultation with the Local Government in a fitting punishment if there is a finding of 'Guilty' would not be necessary, but it may be a Politically advantageous move to consider down the line.
The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at May 26, 2006 10:58 PM
The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith
I linked from Guilty Until Proven Innocent ("Indelicate" language warning)
The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith at May 27, 2006 12:15 AM
The following hissed in response by: Terrye
If these young men did this thing then of course they should be punished. Even if they lost it in response to the death of a fellow Marine. I doubt seriously if the young man from ElPaso who lost his life would have wanted something like this.
But the way in which the antiwar factions pounces on something like this, much like a vulture on road kill and use it for their own purposes makes them seem every bit as heartless as the shooters.
One thing about it, the only dead Iraqis these folks seem to care about are the ones they think the Marines might have killed, the rest are of no importance.
The above hissed in response by: Terrye at May 27, 2006 3:58 AM
The following hissed in response by: Patrick Chester
Terrye:
Oh, they "care" about the other dead Iraqis, but only so they can blame us for making the poor, beleagured insurgents slaughter them in a desperate attempt to "liberate" Iraq from us icky imperialist invaders.
The above hissed in response by: Patrick Chester at May 27, 2006 4:47 AM
The following hissed in response by: XB234C
Murtha has morphed into a grotesque monster. If they are guilty yes, they should hang, but to sit and watch Murtha play politics with this is disgusting. Next Kos or someone else of their vomitous ilk will insinuate that Bush ordered the killings.
The above hissed in response by: XB234C at May 27, 2006 7:20 AM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
For Karma's Sake, it's *WAR*!!!
"On the morning of Nov. 19, 2005, a roadside bomb struck a humvee carrying Marines from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, on a road near Haditha, a restive town in western Iraq. The bomb killed Lance Corporal Miguel (T.J.) Terrazas, 20, from El Paso, Texas."
For Karma's Sake, it's *WAR*, and Haditha has been “a center for insurgent activity” since April of 2003!!! Haditha should’ve been wiped off the map by a MOAB back in 2003!!!
Our Troops are in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting another insane War that America did not start, and they are doing so with their hands tied behind their backs...so to speak of the insanity that they are going thru.
I still believe that if this is true (we're no further on that question), those convicted should be hanged and the rest of the Corps forced to stand at attention and watch.
!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!! Unbelievable. Here in America, we have the “Temporary Insanity” defense, but not for our Marines in Haditha. !?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!! Unbelievable.
If the World is Sane...then i am Insane.
The Sane World *BAFFLES* the Insane...so to speak.
KårmiÇømmünîs†
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at May 28, 2006 3:41 PM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
KårmiÇømmünîs†:
Here in America, we have the "Temporary Insanity" defense, but not for our Marines in Haditha.
Absolutely right: I hold Marines to a higher standard than a guy who works at 7-11.
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 28, 2006 6:39 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
Dafydd ab Hugh:
Why and how?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At best, this "7-11" dude has money, health, and family problems, but offers little else. Why should he have more *RIGHTS* than some Marines fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and etcetera for him to have any rights at all?!?
This 2005 Haditha crap would've never happened, if we had dropped a MOAB onto Haditha like we should've done back in 2003...simple as that.
If we lose this War, like we lost the Vietnam War, then yore so-called "higher standard" crap will place American Women into Burkas and such, in my humble déjà vu opinion...so to speak of:
1. feeling of reliving something: a feeling of having experienced something before, although in fact it is the first time that it has been experienced
Ummmmmmmmmmm...MSN's Encarta clearly needs some updating, huh.
Karmi
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at May 28, 2006 7:33 PM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Karmicommunist:
Why should he have more *RIGHTS* than some Marines fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and etcetera for him to have any rights at all?
Because we give them power and authority far beyond those of mortal men: we give them body armor and weaponry and the ability to call in airstrikes and artillery; we train them to be professional killers and entrust the very existence of the nation to them.
If it should turn out to be true (God forbid) that two or three or five Marines actually executed women and children at point-blank range, merely because they were angry about a Marine lance being killed by an IED... then they are no longer Marines -- they have become ronin.
If they really did that, they have dishonored themselves (which is of no importance), they have dishonored the Corps, and they have dishonored America... and for that, they must die.
If these Marines did that -- which is by no means proven, whatever Rep. Murtha may say -- the Corps must cleanse itself of the dishonor in order to become warriors again.
One necessary step is to face it: hence, they must stand at attention and literally face it, watch once their own hanged by the neck until dead, after the Corps (all of them) listens to a formal recitation of the crimes. Then they must prove again to the world that they are better than those who dishonored them.
If those Marined did what is charged, of course.
If they did not, and if Murtha was not actually told in a briefing that they did so... if he just made it up, then I hope he does the honorable thing. But I doubt he has the courage.
Marines are not ordinary men and women. They do not have the rights of ordinary men and women; for example, they do not have the freedom of speech to be insubordinate to their superior officers; nor do they have the freedom of assembly to simply walk off the line in the middle of a battle.
They are under the UCMJ, as you must remember, since you were in the military yourself. So we hold them to a higher standard than we hold me, or you, or even those same Marines after they get their DD-214s.
If they are samurai, then they must be held to the same standards as samurai; if they have become ronin, they will be dealt with.
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 28, 2006 7:57 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
Let the "7-11" dudes live and breed. Er, OK. And, wise choice...so to speak whilst smiling.
Karmi
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at May 28, 2006 8:37 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
PS...
1 : a military retainer of a Japanese daimyo practicing the code of conduct of Bushido 2 : the warrior aristocracy of Japan
Sneak Attacks and Bayoneting babies is what the so-called samurai were about.
i'll pass on that...
Karmi
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at May 28, 2006 8:51 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
PS...
1 : a military retainer of a Japanese daimyo practicing the code of conduct of Bushido 2 : the warrior aristocracy of Japan
Sneak Attacks and Bayoneting babies is what the so-called samurai were about.
i'll pass on that...
Karmi
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at May 28, 2006 8:51 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
PS...
1 : a military retainer of a Japanese daimyo practicing the code of conduct of Bushido 2 : the warrior aristocracy of Japan
Sneak Attacks and Bayoneting babies is what the so-called samurai were about.
i'll pass on that...
Karmi
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at May 28, 2006 8:52 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
PS...
1 : a military retainer of a Japanese daimyo practicing the code of conduct of Bushido 2 : the warrior aristocracy of Japan
Sneak Attacks and Bayoneting babies is what the so-called samurai were about.
i'll pass on that...
Karmi
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at May 28, 2006 8:54 PM
The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist
PS...
1 : a military retainer of a Japanese daimyo practicing the code of conduct of Bushido 2 : the warrior aristocracy of Japan
Sneak Attacks and Bayoneting babies is what the so-called samurai were about.
i'll pass on that...
Karmi
The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at May 28, 2006 9:00 PM
The following hissed in response by: Beth
I still believe that if this is true (we're no further on that question), those convicted should be hanged and the rest of the Corps forced to stand at attention and watch.
Why, because "we don't do those things?" And HANGING THEM is better?
That's got to be the most outrageous, hysterical, and irresponsible thing I've seen on a blog from my side yet.
The above hissed in response by: Beth at May 29, 2006 6:40 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)
(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved
)
