Another cover up?

[RetiredGySgt]

Now we have a third member of the "Haditha" murder squad being recommended for no court martial. What? A vast Marine Cover up?

Where is Murtha to thunder about what wanton mass murderers they are?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_re_us/marines_haditha

 

[ReillyT]

Now we have a third member of the "Haditha" murder squad being recommended for no court martial. What? A vast Marine Cover up?

Where is Murtha to thunder about what wanton mass murderers they are?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_re_us/marines_haditha

I am actually a little concerned about a cover-up here. It wouldn't be the first time (Mai Ly massacre). It is a shame that it happened, but he clearly did shoot children, and I would rather have a trial determine that he did it unintentionaly (without specific intent, at least).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am actually a little concerned about a cover-up here. It wouldn't be the first time (Mai Ly massacre). It is a shame that it happened, but he clearly did shoot children, and I would rather have a trial determine that he did it unintentionaly (without specific intent, at least).

The original claim was all the "victims" were innocent civilians. The reality is at least 8 of those shot and killed were armed men firing on the Marines. There is a mountain of evidence that these Marines were simply following the rules of Engagement and that civilians died in the process. Not because, as was claimed, the Marines were out for revenge, BUT because armed "insurgents" or " terrorists" were firing at them from those buildings.

Where is Murtha to apologize for his accusations against these men before an investigation had even been done? There is no need for a trial when the facts clearly show the claims are simply wishful thinking and propaganda by anti war crowd and by biased Iraq "civilians" out to get more money.

 

[ReillyT]

The original claim was all the "victims" were innocent civilians. The reality is at least 8 of those shot and killed were armed men firing on the Marines. There is a mountain of evidence that these Marines were simply following the rules of Engagement and that civilians died in the process. Not because, as was claimed, the Marines were out for revenge, BUT because armed "insurgents" or " terrorists" were firing at them from those buildings.

Where is Murtha to apologize for his accusations against these men before an investigation had even been done? There is no need for a trial when the facts clearly show the claims are simply wishful thinking and propaganda by anti war crowd and by biased Iraq "civilians" out to get more money.

Look, I feel bad for the soldier, but the claims are more than just wishful thinking and propaganda, even if he is completely innocent.

To quote from the article:

Tatum shot and killed civilians, but "he did so because of his training and the circumstances he was placed in, not to exact revenge and commit murder," Ware wrote.

"I believe (Lance Cpl.) Tatum's real life experience and training on how to clear a room took over and his body instinctively began firing while his head tried to grasp at what and why he was firing," Ware wrote. "By the time he could recognize that he was shooting at children, his body had already acted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_re_us/marines_haditha

So this boils down to a case of intent.

This is what one of Tatum's fellow Marines said.

At the second house, Mendoza said he shot a man who peeked around the side of a kitchen door in the house as the team went in. He said he stayed in the kitchen while squad members threw a grenade and moments later found a woman in her 20s cowering in a back bedroom with four or five children, one a girl in her teens.

``I told (Tatum) there's just womens and kids in the room,'' Mendoza said. ``He replied, 'Well, shoot them.'''

Tatum then went into the room himself, followed by noise that sounded like M-16 gunfire, Mendoza said.

Mendoza said he returned to the house later as part of a body retrieval team and saw that the woman and children were killed. All had multiple wounds that could have been caused by M-16 fire, he said.

According to a report by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service dated May 17, 2006, Tatum told investigators that he shot women and children because ``women and kids can hurt you, too.'' He said he felt bad about the incident but added, ``I stand fast in my decisions that day, as I reacted to the threats that I perceived at that time.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6786700,00.html

If he knew their were children in the room before he went in, and it turns out they are unarmed, then his intent is certainly open to some question.

I am not saying that he did anything wrong. I have no idea. I just would feel more comfortable if a panel acting as a jury decided the question than I would having one person decide on his level of intent.