Marine MasSacre

[billvon 2,998]

> When are the Lefties going to understand we are in a war against
>an enemy that thinks nothing of cutting innocent peoples heads off, blows
>up innocent women and children and would set up a massacre of innocent
>people to try and destroy the moral of our troops and create anti-war
>dissent in the U.S.?

When are the right wingers going to understand that if we descend to the same level as the insurgents (using the excuse that "they did it first") we will be no better than them?

I'm one of those crazy guys who thinks the US IS better than people like Saddam Hussein. That we shouldn't torture people because it's not right, not because of what other people have or haven't done. That we should not invade countries who are not our enemy. That we should be willing to take a stand against injustice and not use feeble schoolyard excuses to explain away our actions. That we should lead the world in morality, not spend our time justifying immoral things we do.

Some right wingers think that we are no better than the tyrants of the world, and that we should use their actions as a model for our own. I am glad I do not live in their world - and I hope we never get near their ugly vision of the USA.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

> When are the Lefties going to understand we are in a war against
>an enemy that thinks nothing of cutting innocent peoples heads off, blows
>up innocent women and children and would set up a massacre of innocent
>people to try and destroy the moral of our troops and create anti-war
>dissent in the U.S.?

When are the right wingers going to understand that if we descend to the same level as the insurgents (using the excuse that "they did it first") we will be no better than them?

Who said we should?

[Channman 2]

> Like I said, anything is possible...

I don't have a Phd like our friend Kallend, nor do I have one of his cristal balls that have given him his great insight into all the worlds problems.

But when it comes to story telling there are non better than Iraqis and a willing US press to take them at there word.

CNN chose to lie to the American people by withholding the truth that Sadam was murdering his people by the 10's of thousands. How did they put it, we did'nt what to loss access, or be removed from Iraq altogether, Opps were sorry, but you can count on us to continue to report the news the way we see it.

Insurgents are murdering their country men by the hundreds, and place themselves amoung civilians when they ingage our soliders, a deadly encounter for all involved.

Last I remembered Kallend's son was over there, I'm not sure if Kallend has lumped him in with all the others but I would think not. But I'm sure the insurgents will deal with any American solider unlucky enough to fall into their hands in a manner that will get much press as they shout over the soliders creams, "remember Haditha".

Then we find out is was nothing more than lies. Opps were sorry, but we will continue to report the news the way we see it.

So I'm with you, instead of jumping on board the hate America train and our soliders are guilty of murder because some AP reporter says so. Let the investigation continue and those involved remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That buy the way use to mean something to us Americans Left and Right.

[billvon 2,998]

>Not from what I have observed. Most have taken a "wait and see"
>until the facts come out position.

It is your belief that right wingers on this board have NOT lambasted the press for reporting what they consider 'bad news' about Iraq? What have you done with the real Gravitymaster?

(BTW look no further than the previous post for someone doing just that.)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Not from what I have observed. Most have taken a "wait and see"
>until the facts come out position.

It is your belief that right wingers on this board have NOT lambasted the press for reporting what they consider 'bad news' about Iraq? What have you done with the real Gravitymaster?

(BTW look no further than the previous post for someone doing just that.)

Lambasting the press about bad reporting is not the same as prejudging this incident. It's just a reminder that the press has been wrong in the past and could be wrong this time too. In fact it is simpley presenting alternative theories as to why people should wait until the facts come out.

Look at what I posted about the violent culture of the people of Haditha. I didn't post the story with the intention of prejudging what happened. I posted it only as additional information that the press doesn't seem to want to cover.

You have to admit that with 26% of the population thinking their phones are being tapped by the NSA, we have to remind some that what"s in the press isn't always the whole story. And let me remind you that many stories are written with information supplied by Stringers.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>

You have to admit that with 26% of the population thinking their phones are being tapped by the NSA, we have to remind some that what"s in the press isn't always the whole story. And let me remind you that many stories are written with information supplied by Stringers.

Not long ago it used to be that 99.9% thought that phones could not be tapped without a warrant (and the President stated exactly that in a speech) and that the government did not datamine their phone records.

Then it turned out that the government had been doing these things secretly while the President was denying it.

Same applies to torture. Bush made a speech denouncing torture while knowing full well that the US was using techniques like waterboarding, and then he made a signing statement saying the McCain anti-torture act didn't apply to him.

You can remain in the 74% if you wish, but don't say that Big Brother's writing on the wall wasn't there for you to see.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>

You have to admit that with 26% of the population thinking their phones are being tapped by the NSA, we have to remind some that what"s in the press isn't always the whole story. And let me remind you that many stories are written with information supplied by Stringers.

Not long ago it used to be that 99.9% thought that phones could not be tapped without a warrant (and the President stated exactly that in a speech) and that the government did not datamine their phone records.

Then it turned out that the government had been doing these things secretly while the President was denying it.

Yeah and it has been going on since the late 1970s only now it's awful because you don't like the president.


I wonder if you always were bothered by the fact that our country chose to turn from JEH tactics, to datamining and keyword filtering/flagging.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>

You have to admit that with 26% of the population thinking their phones are being tapped by the NSA, we have to remind some that what"s in the press isn't always the whole story. And let me remind you that many stories are written with information supplied by Stringers.

Not long ago it used to be that 99.9% thought that phones could not be tapped without a warrant (and the President stated exactly that in a speech) and that the government did not datamine their phone records.

Then it turned out that the government had been doing these things secretly while the President was denying it.

Yeah and it has been going on since the late 1970s only now it's awful because you don't like the president.

I'll bite: since the 1970s, which presidents besides the current one publicly denied tapping Americans' phones without a warrant while knowing full well that it was being done.

Apparently you and GM think it just fine for a president to say one thing while doing the exact opposite.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[warpedskydiver 0]

I'll bite: since the 1970s, which presidents besides the current one publicly denied tapping Americans' phones without a warrant while knowing full well that it was being done.

Apparently you and GM think it just fine for a president to say one thing while doing the exact opposite.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

please define "INNOCENT CIVILIAN

http://www.sundayherald.com/print56107

Quote

Investigations by the military, accounts by survivors and reports by human rights organisations and medics have proved that this version of events contains barely a grain of truth.

Eman Waleed, a nine-year-old girl, was a few minutes walk from the site of the bomb which caught the Humvee, at the home of her grandfather Abdul Hamid Hassan Ali, an 89-year-old amputee in a wheelchair. Eman recalls the moment the killings started. “We heard a big noise that woke us all up. Then we did what we always do when there’s an explosion – my father goes into his room with the Koran and prays that the family be spared any harm.”

While her father prayed, Eman, her mother, grandfather, grandmother, two brothers, two aunts and two uncles stayed together in the main room. Eman recalls sitting in her pyjamas and hearing shooting as the marines moved towards her home. They stormed into the house, went to the room where Eman’s father was praying and shot him dead. Then they entered the room where the rest of the family were huddled together.

“I couldn’t see their faces very well,” said Eman, “only their guns sticking into the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny.”

The marines started to spray the corner of the room with automatic fire where Eman and her eight-year-old brother Abdul were being shielded by the other adults. Both Eman and Abdul were wounded but survived. Eman’s aunt fled the house as the shooting started, taking her five-month-old niece with her. She escaped. Her husband, who also tried to escape, was shot in the head. In total, seven family members died. Eman’s grandfather was shot nine times. His death certificate notes that his intestines had spilled through the exit wounds in his back.

She sounds innocent to me.
It is really sad that this has happened to all involved and it shows the extreme level of pressure that the soldiers are under. It is understandable that a unit could commit such acts out of anger for losing one of their own and after months upon months of attacks. Anyone would get fed up with it. But, it does not give an excuse for going on a rampage, if in fact that is what happened. Sadly it is looking more and more like it did. If it bears out that this is true, it only puts other troops in even greater danger as the Iraqi population turn further against the coalition and slip to the side of the insurgents. It is bad for the troops as well as the Iraqi people.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[miked10270 0]

ONCE MORE FROM THE TOP!

In a high stress situation, training, what someone has practised & "pretended to do" all those times before, is what kicks in. Surely we all remember this from our own constant reserve drills!

Soldiers are trained to "house-clear" in a very aggressive way, completely different from the way a police force is trained. While Police officers play "Shoot-Don't-Shoot" soldiers play "Shoot-First-Kill-The-Enemy".

Soldiers don't train with "Innocent Civilians" or non-threats in their scenarios in the way that police routinely do. Soldiers train at house clearing or urban warfare exclusively against an opposing force.

So... When the roadside IED goes off and the troops stress levels are sky high, they follow the lead into nearby buildings and follow their training which is to move from room to room eliminating threats - anything that moves!... Just like all the times they've done it in training against their mates from another platoon who were similarly armed. Soldiers "Win" (or pass) an exercise by "killing" everyone who isn't on their side.

It wasn't murderous cruelty & revenge that killed those "Innocents". It was tension stress and training.

THAT is why a military force makes such an incompetent police force. It's not that the troops are inadequate in any way, it's simply that they're TRAINED to behave in a different manner. THey're trained primarily for aggressive combat rather than gaining control. Put another way, "Control" to a soldier is defined as "I'm Alive & They're Dead".

In effect, our Great Leaders are hell-bent on using an unsuitable tool for the job, then blaming the tool when it turns in their hand.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>

You have to admit that with 26% of the population thinking their phones are being tapped by the NSA, we have to remind some that what"s in the press isn't always the whole story. And let me remind you
that many stories are written with information supplied by Stringers.

Not long ago it used to be that 99.9% thought that phones could not be tapped without a warrant (and the President stated exactly that in a speech) and that the government did not datamine their phone records.

Then it turned out that the government had been doing these things secretly while the President was denying it.

Same applies to torture. Bush made a speech denouncing torture while knowing full well that the US was using techniques like waterboarding, and then he made a signing statement saying the McCain anti-torture act didn't apply to him.

You can remain in the 74% if you wish, but don't say that Big Brother's writing on the wall wasn't there for you to see.

Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied... is a complete non-sequitur as it relates to this discussion. I know how you like to chant it whenever possible but if you want to discuss something about Bush lying again and again, why not go and chant it in a more appropriate thread or start yet another to add to the already voluminious ones in existence?

• Quote

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>

You have to admit that with 26% of the population thinking their phones are being tapped by the NSA, we have to remind some that what"s in the press isn't always the whole story. And let me remind you
that many stories are written with information supplied by Stringers.

Not long ago it used to be that 99.9% thought that phones could not be tapped without a warrant (and the President stated exactly that in a speech) and that the government did not datamine their phone records.

Then it turned out that the government had been doing these things secretly while the President was denying it.

Same applies to torture. Bush made a speech denouncing torture while knowing full well that the US was using techniques like waterboarding, and then he made a signing statement saying the McCain anti-torture act didn't apply to him.

You can remain in the 74% if you wish, but don't say that Big Brother's writing on the wall wasn't there for you to see.

Bush lied...Bush lied...Bush lied... is a complete non-sequitur as it relates to this discussion. I know how you like to chant it whenever possible but if you want to discuss something about Bush lying again and again, why not go and chant it in a more appropriate thread or start yet another to add to the already voluminious ones in existence?

You would like it to be, but it isn't. The entire mess is interconnected and takes its origin from an untrustworthy and dishonest administration. You cannot separate the parts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[billvon 2,998]

>In effect, our Great Leaders are hell-bent on using an unsuitable
>tool for the job, then blaming the tool when it turns in their hand.

Good post. Yes, I worry that in this case as well, they will find a few sacrificial "bad apples" and fail to address the larger problem, which is the use of the military for something it was never intended for. As long as they continue to do that, the abuses will continue.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>In effect, our Great Leaders are hell-bent on using an unsuitable
>tool for the job, then blaming the tool when it turns in their hand.

Good post. Yes, I worry that in this case as well, they will find a few sacrificial "bad apples" and fail to address the larger problem, which is the use of the military for something it was never intended for. As long as they continue to do that, the abuses will continue.

I couldn't agree more. The Military aren't politically correct police officers. They are trained to eliminate any threat and to dominate the battlefield. Had Bush sent more troops in at the beginning of the war and let them do their job, we probably wouldn't have as many problems we have now.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

>In effect, our Great Leaders are hell-bent on using an unsuitable
>tool for the job, then blaming the tool when it turns in their hand.

Good post. Yes, I worry that in this case as well, they will find a few sacrificial "bad apples" and fail to address the larger problem, which is the use of the military for something it was never intended for. As long as they continue to do that, the abuses will continue.

I couldn't agree more. The Military aren't politically correct police officers. They are trained to eliminate any threat and to dominate the battlefield. Had Bush sent more troops in at the beginning of the war and let them do their job, we probably wouldn't have as many problems we have now.

Don't agree. Key to the problem is the lack of a viable plan and political preparation for the post combat situation.
If the US administration had understood the internal issues better they sould have:

- Not desolved the Iraqi military and security forces and not started from scratch which alloed for the situation that allowed weapons etc. to "disappear" and the militias to be formed.

- Had a list of competent Iraqis to form an immediate interim government.

- Put Iraqis in charge of the rebuilding effort.

etc.

This approach would have helped IMHO. However not sure it would have completely succeeded. Iraq is the type of country where the idea of "exporting" a western style democracy into a highly split country was always very problematic.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[tbrown 26]

I don't think the Marines involved are a bunch of "heartless Nazis", but from the start I've been afraid something like this would inevitably happen. Like the My Lai massacre, it began with booby traps (or an IED) killing and wounding some of the Marines, while the locals acted like they didn't know waht was going on (baloney). It was too much and they snapped. Not excusable, but that's what happened. And it makes us look really bad in front of the world.

I take NO satisfaction of an "I told you so" kind, but this is yet another reason we should never have gone there in the first place.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Guest]

From the Strategy Page:

June 6, 2006: Accusations that American troops murdered civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the news again. Some of it is the usual propaganda that the enemy has learned is worth tossing out there from time to time. Some of it sticks with someone, somewhere. Even European media sometimes fall for doctored or mislabeled photos of dead civilians, and publish them as "American atrocities". The implication is that American troops are out of control, poorly trained and led. Much of this is fed by those opposed to the removal of Saddam, via a war that did not have to approval of the UN. This is all more about scoring political points than anything else.

What is unusual about the current accusations is that such events are rare. While there are a lot of civilians killed by combat actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, most are clearly just people caught in the cross fire. The enemy knowingly takes cover among civilians, to take advantage of American "Rules of Engagement" (ROE). But at the same time, the American ROE these days puts the safely of American troops above all else. Thus if the enemy hides among civilians and opens fire, U.S. troops will return fire, and the civilians either get out of the way, or get hit. Brutal, but the alternative is dead Americans. The enemy makes the most of the civilians they have caused, through their actions, to get killed. The current atrocity accusations are about "cold blood" killings. The investigation will have to decide when the "heat of battle" turns into "cold blood." That's a tough decision to make, and the large number of imbedded journalists have written stories about it. These are not the kind of pieces editors love, as they are not as headline grabbing as atrocity stories.

There are other kinds of stories editors have avoided. Take, for example, what commonly occurred during World War II. When the Germans, for example, were found to have killed Allied prisoners, there was a period of weeks or months after that where Allied troops were taking far fewer German prisoners. After D-Day in 1944, this happened first on the Normandy beachhead, when some German SS troops killed some Canadian prisoners. Soon, German troops realized it was not a good idea to get captured by the Canadians, as German prisoners did not survive their captivity very long. This sort of thing happened again at the end of 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge, when SS troops killed a lot of American prisoners. Retribution was quietly applied. These events got out pretty fast after the war, and were even reported in the history books. But less remembered were cases in early 1945, as Allied troops advanced into Germany, and occasionally encountered armed resistance from German civilians. Retribution was swift, brutal and often not very precise. [Harju's note: the US 3rd Army encountered snipers in the town of Bitburg. Patton brought armor in and completely leveled the town] There were other incidents where people released from concentration camps, organized themselves into death squads and went after Germans. Some of these stories are only now coming out into the open, although they were whispered about by Allied Military Police and intelligence officers who investigated deaths among German civilians at the time. Sometimes the patterns were noted, and sorted out, but dead German civilians were not, at the time, something the victorious Allies were very concerned about.

Try as you might to stop it, incidents of troops making their own rough justice will persist. But there is a lot less of it. But it's not considered news that there is far less of this atrocity stuff in the current Iraq and Afghanistan fighting, than in earlier wars. Interesting, but not newsworthy. But when it does happen, as it will inevitably will, the longer the fighting goes on, it is news. But it is very poorly understood, and poorly reported news. That you can depend on.
----------------------

Our enemy perceives our restraint as weakness. That is a miscalculation others have made, much to their regret.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Amazon 7]

All too true Tom...all to very true. The trouble is it will all be laid on the grunts on the line.. the ones taking the casualties. That is what totally sucks when the Buck gets passed all the way down the line to the kids that just want to make a difference and serve their country and survive to go home and then they are attacked and they react to get the ones who are closest to where the attack occured.

Notice how all the people who are in charge and are supposed to be responsible get no culpability at all.....sickening.

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

All too true Tom...all to very true. The trouble is it will all be laid on the grunts on the line..

They're the ones that pulled the trigger. Personal responsibility: if you shoot an unarmed civilian in the head in a revenge attack you deserve to be put on trial for murder. If you didn't do it, you'll be aquitted.

Quote

Notice how all the people who are in charge and are supposed to be responsible get no culpability at all.....sickening.

That I agree on.

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

All too true Tom...all to very true. The trouble is it will all be laid on the grunts on the line..

They're the ones that pulled the trigger. Personal responsibility: if you shoot an unarmed civilian in the head in a revenge attack you deserve to be put on trial for murder. If you didn't do it, you'll be aquitted.

Quote

Notice how all the people who are in charge and are supposed to be responsible get no culpability at all.....sickening.

That I agree on.

Its easy for me sitting in my armchair with my wife and hounds and think what I'd like to do when faced with the decisions that the marines have to make.

Howeveer the reality is I've never been in the marines, had folks trying to kill me, watching my friends die a horriable death, and know that I might be next.I don't know how I would act.

Unless I've walked in a marines shoe's I can't judge them

R.I.P.

[zoobrothertom 5]

Who are you?

____________________________________
I'm back in the USA!!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Lawyer: Marine Denies Haditha Massacre
By Associated Press
1 hour ago

WASHINGTON - The lawyer for a sergeant who led a squad of Marines during an incident that left civilians dead in Haditha, Iraq, says his client insists his unit was following military rules of engagement, did not intentionally target any civilians and did not try to cover up what it had done.

No one has yet been charged in the Haditha case, which centers on allegations that a small number of Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment killed 24 Iraqi civilians _ included unarmed women and children _ on Nov. 19 after a roadside bomb in the town killed one of their fellow Marines.

Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Post in a story for Sunday's editions that Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told him several civilians were killed when his squad pursued insurgents firing at them from inside a house after the bombing.

He quoted the sergeant as describing to him a house-to-house hunt that went wrong in the midst of a confusing battlefield, but denying any vengeful massacre.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," Puckett told the newspaper. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

The Post characterized Wuterich's version of what happened at Haditha as the first public account from a Marine who was on the ground when the shootings occurred, which it said has led to an investigation looking into possible murder charges against a half dozen Marines.

A separate investigation is examining whether Marines tried to cover up the shootings and whether commanders were negligent in failing to investigate the deaths when they were reported to them.

Haditha residents have said innocent civilians were executed, including some who begged for their lives before being shot.

But Puckett said Wuterich told him in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a sweep for enemies in a firefight.

The Post said lawyers for two other Marines involved in the incident say Wuterich's account is consistent with what their clients have told them.

Gary Myers, an attorney for a Marine who was with Wuterich that day but not further identified, told the Post the Marines followed standard procedures when clearing houses, using fragmentation grenades and gunshots to respond to a perceived threat.

"I can confirm that that version of events is consistent with our position on this case," Myers told the Post. "What this case comes down to is: What were the rules of engagement, and were they followed?"

Kevin B. McDermott, who is representing Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the company commander who was relieved of duty after the incident, told the Post that Wuterich and other Marines informed McConnell on the day of the incident that at least 15 civilians were killed by "a mixture of small-arms fire and shrapnel as result of grenades" after the Marines responded to an attack from a house.

The lawyer told the paper McConnell told him that he had reported the high number of civilian deaths to his superiors that afternoon and that within a few days the battalion's intelligence chief gave a PowerPoint presentation to higher-up Marine commanders.

"Everywhere up the chain, they had ample access to this thing," McDermott said.

Puckett gave this account to the Post, based on his interview with Wuterich:

Immediately after the roadside bomb, Marines noticed a car full of "military-aged men" near the bomb site who ran when ordered to stop. Marines opened fire, killing four or five men.

The unit subsequently came under fire and a corporal identified the shots as coming from a specific house. A four-man team, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms before hearing people behind one door. They kicked that one in, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room and one Marine fired a series of rounds through dust and smoke, killing several people.

Even though they realized they had killed men, women and children, they saw a back door ajar and believed insurgents had moved to a second house. The Marines moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using another grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people.

Still having not found the insurgents, Wuterich told his team to stop and headed back to reassess the situation with his platoon leader, realizing that a number of civilians had just been killed.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Lawyer: Marine Denies Haditha Massacre
By Associated Press
1 hour ago

WASHINGTON - The lawyer for a sergeant who led a squad of Marines during an incident that left civilians dead in Haditha, Iraq, says his client insists his unit was following military rules of engagement, did not intentionally target any civilians and did not try to cover up what it had done.

No one has yet been charged in the Haditha case, which centers on allegations that a small number of Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment killed 24 Iraqi civilians _ included unarmed women and children _ on Nov. 19 after a roadside bomb in the town killed one of their fellow Marines.

Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Post in a story for Sunday's editions that Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told him several civilians were killed when his squad pursued insurgents firing at them from inside a house after the bombing.

He quoted the sergeant as describing to him a house-to-house hunt that went wrong in the midst of a confusing battlefield, but denying any vengeful massacre.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," Puckett told the newspaper. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

The Post characterized Wuterich's version of what happened at Haditha as the first public account from a Marine who was on the ground when the shootings occurred, which it said has led to an investigation looking into possible murder charges against a half dozen Marines.

A separate investigation is examining whether Marines tried to cover up the shootings and whether commanders were negligent in failing to investigate the deaths when they were reported to them.

Haditha residents have said innocent civilians were executed, including some who begged for their lives before being shot.

But Puckett said Wuterich told him in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a sweep for enemies in a firefight.

The Post said lawyers for two other Marines involved in the incident say Wuterich's account is consistent with what their clients have told them.

Gary Myers, an attorney for a Marine who was with Wuterich that day but not further identified, told the Post the Marines followed standard procedures when clearing houses, using fragmentation grenades and gunshots to respond to a perceived threat.

"I can confirm that that version of events is consistent with our position on this case," Myers told the Post. "What this case comes down to is: What were the rules of engagement, and were they followed?"

Kevin B. McDermott, who is representing Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the company commander who was relieved of duty after the incident, told the Post that Wuterich and other Marines informed McConnell on the day of the incident that at least 15 civilians were killed by "a mixture of small-arms fire and shrapnel as result of grenades" after the Marines responded to an attack from a house.

The lawyer told the paper McConnell told him that he had reported the high number of civilian deaths to his superiors that afternoon and that within a few days the battalion's intelligence chief gave a PowerPoint presentation to higher-up Marine commanders.

"Everywhere up the chain, they had ample access to this thing," McDermott said.

Puckett gave this account to the Post, based on his interview with Wuterich:

Immediately after the roadside bomb, Marines noticed a car full of "military-aged men" near the bomb site who ran when ordered to stop. Marines opened fire, killing four or five men.

The unit subsequently came under fire and a corporal identified the shots as coming from a specific house. A four-man team, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms before hearing people behind one door. They kicked that one in, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room and one Marine fired a series of rounds through dust and smoke, killing several people.

Even though they realized they had killed men, women and children, they saw a back door ajar and believed insurgents had moved to a second house. The Marines moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using another grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people.

Still having not found the insurgents, Wuterich told his team to stop and headed back to reassess the situation with his platoon leader, realizing that a number of civilians had just been killed.

It is as simple as that

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Lawyer: Marine Denies Haditha Massacre
By Associated Press
1 hour ago

WASHINGTON - The lawyer for a sergeant who led a squad of Marines during an incident that left civilians dead in Haditha, Iraq, says his client insists his unit was following military rules of engagement, did not intentionally target any civilians and did not try to cover up what it had done.

No one has yet been charged in the Haditha case, which centers on allegations that a small number of Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment killed 24 Iraqi civilians _ included unarmed women and children _ on Nov. 19 after a roadside bomb in the town killed one of their fellow Marines.

Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Post in a story for Sunday's editions that Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told him several civilians were killed when his squad pursued insurgents firing at them from inside a house after the bombing.

He quoted the sergeant as describing to him a house-to-house hunt that went wrong in the midst of a confusing battlefield, but denying any vengeful massacre.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," Puckett told the newspaper. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

The Post characterized Wuterich's version of what happened at Haditha as the first public account from a Marine who was on the ground when the shootings occurred, which it said has led to an investigation looking into possible murder charges against a half dozen Marines.

A separate investigation is examining whether Marines tried to cover up the shootings and whether commanders were negligent in failing to investigate the deaths when they were reported to them.

Haditha residents have said innocent civilians were executed, including some who begged for their lives before being shot.

But Puckett said Wuterich told him in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a sweep for enemies in a firefight.

The Post said lawyers for two other Marines involved in the incident say Wuterich's account is consistent with what their clients have told them.

Gary Myers, an attorney for a Marine who was with Wuterich that day but not further identified, told the Post the Marines followed standard procedures when clearing houses, using fragmentation grenades and gunshots to respond to a perceived threat.

"I can confirm that that version of events is consistent with our position on this case," Myers told the Post. "What this case comes down to is: What were the rules of engagement, and were they followed?"

Kevin B. McDermott, who is representing Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the company commander who was relieved of duty after the incident, told the Post that Wuterich and other Marines informed McConnell on the day of the incident that at least 15 civilians were killed by "a mixture of small-arms fire and shrapnel as result of grenades" after the Marines responded to an attack from a house.

The lawyer told the paper McConnell told him that he had reported the high number of civilian deaths to his superiors that afternoon and that within a few days the battalion's intelligence chief gave a PowerPoint presentation to higher-up Marine commanders.

"Everywhere up the chain, they had ample access to this thing," McDermott said.

Puckett gave this account to the Post, based on his interview with Wuterich:

Immediately after the roadside bomb, Marines noticed a car full of "military-aged men" near the bomb site who ran when ordered to stop. Marines opened fire, killing four or five men.

The unit subsequently came under fire and a corporal identified the shots as coming from a specific house. A four-man team, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms before hearing people behind one door. They kicked that one in, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room and one Marine fired a series of rounds through dust and smoke, killing several people.

Even though they realized they had killed men, women and children, they saw a back door ajar and believed insurgents had moved to a second house. The Marines moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using another grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people.

Still having not found the insurgents, Wuterich told his team to stop and headed back to reassess the situation with his platoon leader, realizing that a number of civilians had just been killed.

It is as simple as that

Really? How many lawyers proclaim their client's guilt? Maybe you should wait for the result of the inquiry before giving a verdict.