Re: A killing in Iraq.......

None. But where did that issue come from?

The film, I understand it was blacked out on US tv screens, was prima facia evidence. Any rule of engagement must comply with the rules of war, to be otherwise would be an unlawful order.

You understand wrongly - only the actual instant of the bullet entering the "insurgent's" head wasn't shown in the US media.

Wrong again. How about waiting for the military investigation to be completed?

And your point would be what, exactly? That the US ROE in Iraq are unlawful? On what would you base such a conclusion? Anti-Americanism isn't a sufficient reason.

From: "David Amos" snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

Yes; it's true that hindsight, when viewed from the comfort of a padded leather chair in a safe office somewhere, absent the stress of close combat and the fog of war, is usually 20/20. I can only hope that, should it come to it, those that judge him have walked the mile in his shoes at some time in the past and are not swayable by preconceived notions of politics or political correctness.

What can be said is that

I'm not sure it was naive or not. I would bet that, at that particular moment, the fact there was or was not a camera crew in proximity was about the furthest thing from his mind.

I was ordered to take a news/camera team on a recon patrol that was supposed to be low threat. However, they forgot to clear that with the NVA and they hit us just after setting into our night lager. To be honest; from the first shot until the NVA ran past me into the perimeter, forcing me to turn around to shoot him with my pistol and I saw the news crew huddling in the middle, did I even remember they were there. By the way, one of the newsmen fouled his trousers when the dead "Nate" fell next to him.

-- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell

My Home Page:

From: Alexander Arnakis snipped-for-privacy@address.none

I read the after-action report.

-- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell

My Home Page:

There's also this report from MSNBC available online:

I thought adrenaline was brown? Ah well my mistake. Isnt it wonderful how adrenaline leaving the system makes your knees wobble.

It's a tough call, and I for one, have to withhold my own judgment. I wonder why the building had been "cleared" twice previously, yet the status of who was left inside was uncertain. Was there a CCP set up? An evacuation plan? There are SOPs for the handling of dead and wounded enemy soldiers, the most basic of which is to take their weapons. Leagally, ther's a fine line drawn about when you can engage and when you cannot. If assaulting an objective (and again, I question how you can assault something twice cleared) you may, as you pass by wounded, cap them as many times as you like, as you are still engaged in the assault, and they are still potential threats. Once you clear the objective/reach a particulr phase line, and begin to reconsolidate, and you go back to search, enemy personnel may be shot only if they pose an immediate threat. Again, there are SOPs for how the search is to be conducted, with a minimum of two personnel on each search team, to prevent exactly the sort of incidents which had occurred during the previously two days. My guess, regardless of what happens to this particular Marine, is that the problem was set into motion days before, and that others will end up taking responsibility for this as well.