Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is no My Lai. There's no question that Calley's platoon took ZERO hostile fire from My Lai, or that they subsequently contravened the ROE, by shooting obvious non-combatants clearly visible, in the open. That's very different from clearing the inside of a darkened house, at night. In this instance, the Marines involved took hostile fire from those houses. The question here, is what the precise ROE were. I do know this; under the ROE we had in Vietnam, I could, upon receiving hostile fire from a group of hooches, order my men to "Light 'em up!", and I did, more than once. If there was automatic weapons fire coming from a hooch, I had ZERO obligation to look inside before tossing in a grenade. If there was anyone in there who was not a VC, I guess it was not his/her lucky day-tough! It was legal, it was in compliance with standing orders and the ROE, and I make no apologies for it. I dson't really care what anyone's uninformed opinion is in the matter-you weren't there!
Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich will not serve a jail sentence following his guilty plea in the killing of 24 Iraqis in 2005, a military judge said Tuesday.
The announcement by Lt. Col. David Jones came after Wuterich took responsibility during his sentencing hearing at Camp Pendleton for the killings in the Euphrates River town of Haditha and expressed remorse to the victims' families.
Jones said he had planned to recommend 90 days in the brig the maximum as requested by the prosecution but that the plea bargain approved by Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser had called for no jail time.
"It's difficult for the court to fathom negligent dereliction of duty worse than the facts in this case," Jones told Wuterich.
Wuterich, 31, was the last of eight Marines charged in the Haditha killings to have his case resolved. Six had the charges against them dropped, and one Marine was acquitted.
The lack of trial convictions in the Haditha case is likely to further inflame anti-U.S. sentiment in Iraq, as well as fuel criticism by some legal analysts of the 6-year-long investigation and prosecution.
A Marine Corps spokesman said Waldhauser would offer no public explanation of his decision to accept the plea bargain and stipulate that Wuterich receive no jail time.
A doctrine of military law says that "the conviction can be seen as the punishment," Jones noted to jurors at the beginning of the court-martial proceedings.
On Monday, Wuterich pleaded guilty to negligent dereliction of duty; in exchange, manslaughter, assault and other dereliction charges were dropped.
In a strong, clear voice Tuesday, he addressed the court and the family members of the 24 Iraqis, including three women and seven children, killed by Marines in his squad.
"Words cannot express my sorrow for the loss of your loved ones," Wuterich said. "I know there is nothing I can say to ease your pain."
As the squad leader, Wuterich ordered his Marines "to shoot first, ask questions later" as they stormed two houses on Nov. 19, 2005, after a roadside bomb had killed one Marine and injured two others.
"When my Marines and I cleared those houses that day, I responded to what I perceived as a threat. And my intention was to eliminate that threat in order to keep the rest of my Marines alive," Wuterich said. "So when I told my team to 'shoot first and ask questions later,' the intent wasn't that they would shoot civilians, it was that they would not hesitate in the face of the enemy."
Reporting from Baghdad and Beirut The teacher still keeps family photos of the dead, visual mementos of lives cut short in an unremitting hail of gunfire.
"The Americans killed children who were hiding inside the cupboards or under the beds," said Rafid Abdul Majeed Hadithi, 43, a teacher in the city of Haditha who says he witnessed the 2005 assault by U.S. Marines that took the lives of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians. "Was this Marine charged with dereliction of duty because he didn't kill more? Is Iraqi blood so cheap?"
In the United States, the brutal saga of Haditha among the dead were seven children, including a toddler, three women, and a 76-year-old man in a wheelchair may have concluded Monday with Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich's guilty plea to negligent dereliction of duty. A military judge said Tuesday that Wuterich will serve no time in the brig under the terms of his plea bargain.
Charges were previously dropped against six others involved in the Euphrates Valley incident; a seventh Marine was acquitted. The plea closed the books on a politically charged case that sparked debate about the manner in which U.S. troops react amid the "fog of war" and the tension of combat.
For many Iraqis, however, Haditha remains a visceral reminder of the most troubling aspects of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent occupation of their homeland.
Along with the Abu Ghraib prison where Iraqi prisoners were abused by U.S. military police, and Baghdad's Nisour Square, where 17 Iraqis were allegedly shot dead in 2007 by employees of American private contractor Blackwater, Haditha stands out as an inglorious icon.
The legacy, exposing an enduring sense of justice denied, likely hastened the withdrawal of U.S. troops after more than eight years here. Iraq's new leaders, who owe their status in large part to the American-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, ultimately opted to reject an immunity deal for any remaining American forces. The White House then ordered the pullout.
Overall reaction in Iraq to Wuterich's plea appeared somewhat muted Tuesday, reflecting, Iraqis say, an already deeply rooted skepticism about the U.S. justice system. Iraqis are also distracted by a political crisis that some fear could result in renewed sectarian warfare: At least 10 people were killed Tuesday in bombings in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, a Shiite Muslim stronghold.
Still, this week's legal denouement has stirred bitter memories for some and arouses anew a sense of outrage over what many Iraqis view as U.S. impunity.
"This is the wrong message," said Yaseen Mehdi, an engineer and human rights activist. "We are not looking for financial compensation. We are looking for ethical compensation."
Others have lamented what they saw as a lack of contrition.
"With such crimes, the man who is responsible at least has to apologize to the families of the martyrs," said Ashwaq Jaff, a member of the Iraqi parliament's human rights committee. She has no doubt that cases such as Haditha, reinforcing the perception that U.S. forces went unpunished in the death or abuse of Iraqis, helped sully America's image.
"There was a very negative reaction as a result of these incidents," said Jaff, a Kurd, one Iraqi ethnic group that did largely welcome the U.S. invasion. "This made the Iraqi street refuse their [continued] presence in Iraq."
On Tuesday, Wuterich said he accepts responsibility for the deaths. "Words cannot express my sorrow for the loss of your loved ones," he said in an apology to the families of the 24 Iraqis killed. "I know there is nothing I can say to ease your pain."
Many see a stark contradiction between the legal outcome of the Haditha affair and Washington's publicly professed concern for human rights, especially as the Arab world experiences continued political upheaval and justice is a rallying cry from Damascus to Tunis.
"America needs to reform the ethical side of its judicial establishments and enlighten the world with that," said Mehdi, the Baghdad-based activist.
Word of the Haditha plea and other cases of perceived American callousness in war zones may heighten mistrust of the U.S. presence in other war-torn countries such as Afghanistan, human rights advocates say.
Some U.S. observers have assailed what they called a flawed prosecution, but others see the killings mainly as a case study of what can go wrong when fighting a shadowy enemy in a "morally bruising environment," as one Marine officer put it.
Even after the killings, Marines say they earned the respect of Haditha officials and sheiks. That is so, Marines say, because they risked their lives daily to clear the area of insurgents who regularly targeted and executed civilians.
"Marines know that they are the best-trained and led military men and women in the world, but the cauldron of war is the most intense thing humans can experience and this case falls on the extreme end of that spectrum," said Marine Col. Willy Buhl, an Iraq veteran. "I am relieved that the case is over with resolution through the military justice system."
It is not over, however, for Iraqis such as Thair Thabit Hadithi, 41, a photographer who says he came upon the scene shortly after the killings.
Yes. The morally superior action is to let yourself be shot by an enemy.What you've said here, and please do not infer hostile criticism, reflects an irrational state of mind. The responsive disposition of a normal (rational) adult male to a 10 year-old boy should range from neutral to affectionate regard. But prolonged exposure to the insanity of combat conditions has altered your perceptions and emotional responses. They are no longer normal. For you, 10 year-old boys are a potentially lethal threat.Civilians see a 10 year old they are like aww look at the little kid. I see a 10 year old I'm like is that the little mofo that was shooting at me yesterday?
I'm sure you will re-adjust with sufficient exposure to a sane atmosphere and environment. But right now you are categorically desensitized, which is a psychological injury comparable to losing the sense of taste, smell or touch.
The difference is, that at My Lai, 1st Platoon, Charlie Company, encountered NO direct or indirect hostile action on the morning of the "Pinkville" operation (they had encountered some in the previous weeks, in their AO, but there was none at My Lai that day). The standard ROE at the time for a "free fire zone" allowed the presumption that anyone in a position from which hostile action was being taken was a hostile. Those same ROE, however, emphatically did NOT allow for indiscriminately rounding up and executing obvious non-combatants when no such hostile action had occurred at the time. THAT, we were NOT allowed to do, and everyone present knew (or reasonably should have known) that. The officer in command (Calley) had a clear duty under the ROE to immediately order his men to cease fire, as soon as it was realized there had been no hostile action originating from the village. He unambiguously failed to do so. That is pretty clearly across a very bright line.This is no My Lai. There's no question that Calley's platoon took ZERO hostile fire from My Lai, or that they subsequently contravened the ROE, by shooting obvious non-combatants clearly visible, in the open. That's very different from clearing the inside of a darkened house, at night. In this instance, the Marines involved took hostile fire from those houses. The question here, is what the precise ROE were. I do know this; under the ROE we had in Vietnam, I could, upon receiving hostile fire from a group of hooches, order my men to "Light 'em up!", and I did, more than once. If there was automatic weapons fire coming from a hooch, I had ZERO obligation to look inside before tossing in a grenade. If there was anyone in there who was not a VC, I guess it was not his/her lucky day-tough! It was legal, it was in compliance with standing orders and the ROE, and I make no apologies for it. I dson't really care what anyone's uninformed opinion is in the matter-you weren't there!
In my opinion the incident is very similar to my lai. In haditha, like my lai, US service members took action against non-combatants that were supporting or atleast
sympathetic to guerillas operating in the area after taking casualties from indirect enemy action ie ieds or booby traps.
What you've said here, and please do not infer hostile criticism, reflects an irrational state of mind. The responsive disposition of a normal (rational) adult male to a 10 year-old boy should range from neutral to affectionate regard. But prolonged exposure to the insanity of combat conditions has altered your perceptions and emotional responses. They are no longer normal. For you, 10 year-old boys are a potentially lethal threat.Civilians see a 10 year old they are like aww look at the little kid. I see a 10 year old I'm like is that the little mofo that was shooting at me yesterday?
I'm sure you will re-adjust with sufficient exposure to a sane atmosphere and environment. But right now you are categorically desensitized, which is a psychological injury comparable to losing the sense of taste, smell or touch.
What you've said here, and please do not infer hostile criticism, reflects an irrational state of mind. The responsive disposition of a normal (rational) adult male to a 10 year-old boy should range from neutral to affectionate regard. But prolonged exposure to the insanity of combat conditions has altered your perceptions and emotional responses. They are no longer normal. For you, 10 year-old boys are a potentially lethal threat.Civilians see a 10 year old they are like aww look at the little kid. I see a 10 year old I'm like is that the little mofo that was shooting at me yesterday?
I'm sure you will re-adjust with sufficient exposure to a sane atmosphere and environment. But right now you are categorically desensitized, which is a psychological injury comparable to losing the sense of taste, smell or touch.
Mike, when the enemy uses child soldiers, the plain fact is that a ten-year-old with an AK can ruin your whole day. The VC used them, and some of our enemies today do. It is distasteful, awful really, to have to deal with that, but reality is that a kid (or a female) with a weapon and/or explosives, is a combatant, and must be dealt with as such. The problem is NOT entirely new; I have talked with a number of WW II vets, who stated they had to shoot obviously underage Hitler Jugend, who were acting as active combatants. None of them liked doing that; but they had no other choice. I am not about to argue that doing that is not a brutally dehumanizing experience; of course it is. That's what war is, and why those of us who have been there carry those emotional wounds it leaves for the rest of our lives. YOu DO know that, right?
Frank Wuterich, who pleaded guilty to negligent dereliction of duty in the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqis in 2005, has been discharged from the Marine Corps.
Wuterich, 31, received a general discharge under honorable conditions, his attorney, Neal Puckett, told the North County Times.
Such a discharge is one notch below an honorable discharge and does not block Wuterich from any veterans benefits he earned during his years in the Marine Corps. Before he was discharged, Wuterich was demoted from staff sergeant to private.
Wuterich, the last of eight defendants in the 2005 killings in Haditha, Iraq, pleaded guilty to negligent dereliction of duty in exchange for charges of assault and manslaughter being dropped.
Wuterich, acting as a squad leader, gave Marines the order to "shoot first, ask questions later" as they swept through homes in search of insurgents who had detonated a roadside bomb, killing one Marine and injuring two. Among the Iraqis killed were three women and eight children.
The plea bargain in the case was approved by Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit and Marine Forces Central Command.
Squad leader in Haditha killings discharged from Marine Corps
Frank Wuterich, who pleaded guilty to negligent dereliction of duty in the killing of 24 unarmed Iraqis in 2005, has been discharged from the Marine Corps.
Wuterich, 31, received a general discharge under honorable conditions, his attorney, Neal Puckett, told the North County Times.
Such a discharge is one notch below an honorable discharge and does not block Wuterich from any veterans benefits he earned during his years in the Marine Corps. Before he was discharged, Wuterich was demoted from staff sergeant to private.
Wuterich, the last of eight defendants in the 2005 killings in Haditha, Iraq, pleaded guilty to negligent dereliction of duty in exchange for charges of assault and manslaughter being dropped.
Wuterich, acting as a squad leader, gave Marines the order to "shoot first, ask questions later" as they swept through homes in search of insurgents who had detonated a roadside bomb, killing one Marine and injuring two. Among the Iraqis killed were three women and eight children.
The plea bargain in the case was approved by Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit and Marine Forces Central Command.
Squad leader in Haditha killings discharged from Marine Corps - latimes.com
Everything you've said above is true and I have no argument with any of it. But it appears you've missed the point of my comment.What you've said here, and please do not infer hostile criticism, reflects an irrational state of mind. The responsive disposition of a normal (rational) adult male to a 10 year-old boy should range from neutral to affectionate regard. But prolonged exposure to the insanity of combat conditions has altered your perceptions and emotional responses. They are no longer normal. For you, 10 year-old boys are a potentially lethal threat.Civilians see a 10 year old they are like aww look at the little kid. I see a 10 year old I'm like is that the little mofo that was shooting at me yesterday?
I'm sure you will re-adjust with sufficient exposure to a sane atmosphere and environment. But right now you are categorically desensitized, which is a psychological injury comparable to losing the sense of taste, smell or touch.
Mike, when the enemy uses child soldiers, the plain fact is that a ten-year-old with an AK can ruin your whole day. The VC used them, and some of our enemies today do. It is distasteful, awful really, to have to deal with that, but reality is that a kid (or a female) with a weapon and/or explosives, is a combatant, and must be dealt with as such. The problem is NOT entirely new; I have talked with a number of WW II vets, who stated they had to shoot obviously underage Hitler Jugend, who were acting as active combatants. None of them liked doing that; but they had no other choice. I am not about to argue that doing that is not a brutally dehumanizing experience; of course it is. That's what war is, and why those of us who have been there carry those emotional wounds it leaves for the rest of our lives. YOu DO know that, right?
