On May 26, 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported:
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.
The report made me sick in my stomach. By now we have become used to occasional deeply troubling stories from Iraq, but this one is different.
The report continued:
In its initial statement to the media, the Marine Corps said the Iraqi civilians were killed either by an insurgent bomb or by crossfire between Marines and insurgents.
But after Time magazine obtained pictures showing dead women and children and quoted Iraqis who said the attack was unprovoked, the Marine Corps backtracked on its explanation and called for an investigation.
That isn't new. Similar stories of innocent civilians being killed have been reported before. Collateral damage, the war hawks call it; a small price to pay for Liberty and Freedom.
The following day, I turned pale. On May 27, the Los Angeles Times followed up the story:
Photographs taken by a Marine intelligence team have convinced investigators that a Marine unit killed as many as 24 unarmed Iraqis, some of them "execution-style," in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha after a roadside bomb killed an American in November, officials close to the investigation said Friday.
The pictures are said to show wounds to the upper bodies of the victims, who included several women and six children. Some were shot in the head and some in the back, congressional and defense officials said.
One government official said the pictures showed that infantry Marines from Camp Pendleton "suffered a total breakdown in morality and leadership, with tragic results."
You can read the chilling details and the further follows-ups in the Los Angeles Times.
The algorithm seems simple: liberty and freedom at the cost of innocent lives. It's this side and that side, but it doesn't really matter which side you are on: you suffer either way.
President Bush seems to have taken notice. AP reports via Yahoo news:
"I am troubled by the initial news stories," Bush said in his first public comments about the deaths of about two dozen civilians at Haditha last November. "I'm mindful that there's a thorough investigation going on. If, in fact, laws were broken, there will be punishment."
It appears that the President has expressed his genuine concern. But given the record of his administration, particularly the reluctance to function within the laws and constitutional premises, and living in a heap of lies which grows every day, I am skeptical.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
On the positive side, the military began an investigation of this incident within weeks of its occurance and half-a-year before it became public, and by the time it broke in the news they were already at the point where they're preparing to bring charges against the marines involved.
Regrettable excesses like this happen in combat situations despite the best discipline, but we can at least take some comfort in the fact that such incidents are few and far between and that the military has made no effort to condone, excuse or cover up what happened and has taken appropriate measures to investigate and prosecute instead.
Dave
2 - gonzo marx
ummm...which part about "november" is unclear?
the fact that we only have learned of this now, that only this week have the marines in question been put on base confinement, or pre-trial confinement...added in is that the Commander in Chief professes to have been unaware until this week...should make every american VERY fucking concerned and worried...
for our soldiers in the field, for the Iraqi civilians, as wellas our nation's plummeting reputation and respect around the world where once we stood as a beacon for how these things should be done...
no matter how you slice it, there are two civlians directly responsible for EVERYTHING in the military that happens on their watch...
so, when are the Defense Secretary and the President going to be held accountable, even if to clear themselves personally? When are they going to stand up and take Responsibility for shit doen or not done on their watch?
and when is all this going to be examined and investigated, the answers given to the american people and the world?
yer gonzo sez....don't hold yer breath
Excelsior?
3 - zingzing
yes, there is a postivie side to american troops executing innocent women and children. go military! woo-hoo! "regrettable excesses..." fuck off. "combat situation?" what combat situation? "we can take some comfort..." yeah. hope those women and children are comfortable in their shallow mass grave.
stop defending this shit, dave. it's fucking disgusting and there is no way that any "positives" can come out of it. this is just what happens when you take the average idiotic pimply gung-ho american boy and slap a fucking gun and a mandate to kill foreign people in his hands. some people who join the army do it because they WANT TO KILL. some of them want to be cowboys, to play "guns."
4 - zingzing
scratch "army," replace with marines. replace with military. replace with stupid killy thing.
5 - Q Bit
I wish what you said is the truth.
As I mentioned in my post,
In its initial statement to the media, the Marine Corps said the Iraqi civilians were killed either by an insurgent bomb or by crossfire between Marines and insurgents.
But after Time magazine obtained pictures showing dead women and children and quoted Iraqis who said the attack was unprovoked, the Marine Corps backtracked on its explanation and called for an investigation.
The Marine Corps wanted to feed another cock n bull story till the TIME obtained the pictures. That's extremely disturbing.
Let's take two instances: Abu Ghraib and Haditha. Actions are taken ONLY when the pictures surfaced. For Abu Ghraib, the folks who carried their perverted acts were plain stupid. In the Haditha case, it was different. The pictures were available to Marine Commanders right after the incident but they didn't take any action based on them, although the pictures clearly contradicted the stories by the soldiers.
Now how many Abu Ghraib and Haditha could have gone unreported? Or never became a story? May be there were no picture proofs available.
6 - Q But
#5 addressed to Dave.
7 - Dave Nalle
Zing, I didn't say there was a positive side to the actions of the Marines in quesiton, just that it was nice to see the military responding appropriately. I'm not defending the massacre, that's indefensible. I was pointing out that in the aftermath the right action has been taken.
Dave
8 - gonzo marx
i think #7 is completely incorrect
NO real action has been taken yet, and there does not appear to have been any correct action taken since the occurance of the incident in fucking november of last year!
that is "un-Sat" as they say in the service, and shows that something is VERY fucking wrong in the system.
my worries are for what this could do to the tens of thousands of EXCELLENT personnel in the marines right now... this will be hell on their morale, and the vast majority do NOT deserve the stain of doubt and dishonor this incident, AND it's not having been dealt with swiftly and certainly, will have on the Corps
woe is U.S.
Excelsior?
9 - Dave Nalle
Sorry, Q Bit, I must have rushed through your piece. I didn't realize you were misrepresenting the facts.
after Time magazine obtained pictures showing dead women and children and quoted Iraqis who said the attack was unprovoked, the Marine Corps backtracked on its explanation and called for an investigation.
This is incorrect. The preliminary investigation of the incident began within weeks of the actual events, back in the fall of last year, initiated because of inconsistencies in the accounts of those involved and photos of physical evidence which suggested a different story from the one they were telling. A formal investigation began in March.
The initial claim that it was an IED accident was issued prior to the commencement of the investigation which has now been going on for 7 months in one form or another. In addition, the military released a public statement about the investigation almost a month before Time Magazine discovered the story. In fact, Time's story was motivated by information they got from the military investigation.
The only effort to cover this up came from the marines who committed the attrocity in the first place. Aside from initially repeating their claim, the military has since that time behaved in an entirely appropriate and responsible way.
Dave
10 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, even Al Jazeera is reporting that an investigation has been going on for months.
NO real action has been taken yet, and there does not appear to have been any correct action taken since the occurance of the incident in fucking november of last year!
Wrong, gonzo. It's become an issue this week because the investigation has concluded and they're preparing to charge the marines involved.
Dave
11 - zingzing
i dunno. 7 months is a long time. i'm sure this went reported right away in iraq. so, how did the american press not know about it? did they? or were they kept in the dark? or were they silenced? something is going on here, and i think we all know what it is.
like i said, this is just what happens in the military. it happens all over the world in every military. people with guns kill things. so there.
12 - Dave Nalle
On looking at the chonology in more detail, it looks like initial reports from on-site investigators weren't actually acted on until February, and that the investigation didn't move up the chain of command until that point.
Time magazine's reporting crew in Iraq seems to have been instrumental in bringing the issue to the attention of the military command in Iraq, which had not been informed of the questions which had been raised about the incident by the local marine commander - who was almost immediately removed from command.
Rather than being silenced, it appears that Time chose to sit on the story until the military could fully investigate and verify the facts.
Dave
13 - zingzing
hmmm. maybe. why would time sit around though? and why let the military, that bastion of truth, the military, why would they let the military "verify the facts?" why didn't they go get the story? why wait for the military's watered-down version? i know it's potentially dangerous, but, what with the military's history (not only in this war, but vietnam, etc) of secrecy and lies... yeah.
14 - gonzo marx
now somebody said to me...*It's become an issue this week because the investigation has concluded and they're preparing to charge the marines involved.*
interesting point, and well taken
however, the actual fact that anyone will tell you who has served is that the time between and "investigation" and a courts martial can usual be measured in days...weeks at the outside
we will see, so far i read conflicting reports and timelines...
fuck the politics of it, the damn shame is that civilians were killed and that the good name of the Corps has been screwed over...
but that no one, even supposedly the Copmmander in Chief has heard/talked about it until th emedia broke it this week is horribly fucking wrong
i really don't care what anyone says to the contrary
15 - Q Bit
Nothing personal here Dave, but it seems your comments #9 and #12 are contradictory.
16 - Dave Nalle
Yes, they are somewhat contradictory, Q. I did more research and got some details on the sequence of events that I didn't have when I wrote #9, so #12 is better informed. The fact remains that the military was investigating the incident and didn't actively cover it up, but Time played a bigger role in advancing the investigation than I had originally realized - prior to publishing anything about it.
but that no one, even supposedly the Copmmander in Chief has heard/talked about it until th emedia broke it this week is horribly fucking wrong
Bush's ignorance on the subject is inexplicable and troubling, whether real or feigned. However, the military has been issuing press releases on the investigation for months, so it wasn't being hidden, it's just that the news media didn't really catch on as a whole until the last week or so.
why would time sit around though? and why let the military, that bastion of truth, the military, why would they let the military "verify the facts?" why didn't they go get the story?
They're reporting in a war zone. They want the cooperation of the military so they work with them. That gets them the access they need to cover stories like this. It also doesn't hurt their story to have the military confirm it. The military had evidence relating to the incident that matched what Time got from Iraqi sources, so that makes their story stronger. It's good, competent investigative journalism.
Dave
17 - zingzing
yeah, he's reading up on the timeline q bit. he's correcting his ignorance. (which is more than i'm doing.)
18 - zingzing
true. it is good, competent, and late. let's say there was a mafia killing in some city. would the press wait til the mafia had concluded their investigation of said killing? it doesn't make all that much sense. and so what if time had pounced on the story--would the military have any right to give them any less information in the future? should they have that right?
19 - Dave Nalle
Zing, our military is NOT the mafia. Give me a break. And in a war zone the military has the right to shut reporters out alltogether.
Dave
20 - zingzing
jesus christ, don't take me so literally. okay--a mafia hitman kills someone. a marine kills someone. do we wait for the mafia (the organization behind the killer) to investigate? do we wait for the marines (the organization behind the killer) to investigate?
no break for you, sorry.
and true, the military CAN shut reporters out of a warzone if they think they are in danger, or they endanger the mission. but, that's not the case here. and the military shouldn't hide this kind of stuff. and should the military have the right to shut a magazine or newspaper or any media out if they get mad at them? nope. that's not the way the real world (should) work(s), dave...
21 - MCH
"Nothing personal here Dave, but it seems your comments #9 and #12 are contradictory."
Ssusshhhhhh...(whispering quietly)...Q, he's trying to keep his disorder a secret...
22 - William Gardner
You people make me sick! Until you have put your self in the soldiers shoes then none of you have a right to judge them. I have been to iraq and have done numerous raids and missions with soldiers and i have been in numerous gun battles and ambushes. I have been hit with a IED in a hummer twice in the same day. So from personal experience let me be the first to say them so called Iraqi Innocent civilians KNOW who is planting the IEDS, KNOWS who the insurgents are but they refuse to turn them over. How many of them Innicent Civilians ran out to warn the Soldiers that a bomb was in the road? None of them! One of the so called Survivors even stated on TV and i quote " I knew a bomb was going to go off and hit the soldiers so i decided to stay in bed that morning" She knew there was a ambush planned and yet she did nothing.. Bush even said on TV anybody that harbors Terrorist will be treated as a Terrorist. Them people in Iraq are blowing up women and children to kill each other and Americans. They have no value on humanlife or any decency. I have seen them have sex with animals in the street over there and the rest of the public not even pay any attention. Bottom line is if you havent been over to iraq and fight along side the soldiers and seen what is going on then you need to set down and shut up.Marines are trained to find the enemy and kill them be it women, children or men. And anybody who harbors, protects, goes along with Iraqi Insurgents is an insurgent and needs to be treated as such. If them Innocent civilians knew there was a IED planted and waiting to kill an American soldier thent hey got what they deserved and we need to be doing more of it to set an example.And to the Iraqi People i say this " STOP HARBORING TERRORIST AND HELP THE TROOPS FIND THEM AND INCIDENTS LIKE THIS WILL STOP!
23 - Dave Nalle
jesus christ, don't take me so literally. okay--a mafia hitman kills someone. a marine kills someone. do we wait for the mafia (the organization behind the killer) to investigate? do we wait for the marines (the organization behind the killer) to investigate?
The Mafia doesn't do investigations. The military has an entire department devoted to that job. They take investigations seriously and do them professionally and thoroughly. Nothing wrong with letting them do their job.
and true, the military CAN shut reporters out of a warzone if they think they are in danger, or they endanger the mission.
Check it out. They can shut them out for no reason at all or just because they find them annoying - and they can do it selectively. In a war zone they have complete, arbitrary authority.
but, that's not the case here. and the military shouldn't hide this kind of stuff. and should the military have the right to shut a magazine or newspaper or any media out if they get mad at them? nope. that's not the way the real world (should) work(s), dave...
It's not at all clear that the military as a whole made any effort to hide it. What coverup and negligence there was seems to have been within the unit involved.
Dave
24 - zingzing
um, they killed an 86-year-old in a wheel chair.
i'm going to set down and shut up now. didn't mean to offend your sensibilities. going to fuck a goat now. goat butt is the best butt.
25 - zingzing
that was to mr. gardner.