Flea: Falluja war crime

November 17, 2004

Falluja war crime

The MSM thinks it has the next Abu Ghraib. Take the Washington Post as only one of many, many examples. Links are provided to other stories of less interest to aspiring Pulitzer prize winners.

Human rights groups said on Tuesday the killing by a U.S. Marine of a wounded Iraqi could amount to a war crime and showed the need for U.S. forces to be better trained about the laws of war.

"If it is what it appears to be, then obviously it would be a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. It would probably be a war crime," said Joe Stork, Washington director of the Middle East division of Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International echoed calls by the top U.N. human rights official, Louise Arbour, for an investigation of suspected abuses in Falluja, Iraq, including the disproportionate use of force and targeting of civilians.

Update: Froggy Ruminations addresses the issue (via lgf).

Update: And INDC Journal sums it up.

Most MSM outlets can't muster up the outrage to energetically condemn the extremist forces that decapitate innocents on camera and wave the severed heads in the air, or shoot blinfolded women in the head, but are all too ready to swarm over primarily non-fatal psychological abuse conducted by a cadre of undisciplined soldiers and their incompetent management, or the possibly criminal execution of a wounded Iraqi in the heat of urban combat, because the negative incidents selectively lend credence to their predetermined narrative: the war is a misguided, ignoble effort that dehumanizes all participants. And it's always more comfortable for liberal elitists to practice self-critical moral equivalence within their own societal sphere than to label extremist elements of a foreign culture as psycopathic murderers that demand extermination.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at November 17, 2004 07:34 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ghostofaflea.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2103

Comments

How many of those who are clamoring for a war crimes indictment have been making as much noise about the murder of Ms. Hassan?

I don't know that the soldier should have done what he appears to have done, but if I'm to compare the murder of an innocent civilian against the death of a recently armed militant (who was indirectly, if not directly supporting the murderers), I'm going to stand with the American soldier every single time.

Posted by: Paul at November 17, 2004 08:19 AM

This is being blown way out of proportion. One marine who had been wounded earlier that day (or the day before) killed a man who he assessed to be a threat.

From what I've read, one of this guy's buddies was blown up only a short time before when he was investigating a body that turned out to be booby-trapped.

The Marine has been removed from combat, and there will be an investigation. This is being handled very professionally by the United States, as it should be. They should be commended for being so open.

Posted by: Andrew at November 17, 2004 08:20 AM

I'm not a military lawyer, but I think that running around without a uniform, targeting civilians with roadside bombs, boobytrapping oneself (or one's wounded or dead comrades), shooting (and storing weapons and ammunition) in a place of worship, kidnapping civilians and NGO's, torturing and killing said civilians and NGO's, waving the flag of truce and then shooting the people coming out to accept said flag, etc., etc., etc., etc....well, all that is probably a violation of the Geneva Convention or the standards of common human decency, etc.

I hope these barking moonbats (AI, etc.) persecute those who fight "in the name of Allah" (and I'm sure Allah doesn't want them to be fighting on His/Her part) in this style as vigorously as they are targeting one single U.S. Marine.

Posted by: Fred Kiesche at November 17, 2004 12:07 PM