Well, if you want to admit that there's a lot you don't know, go read "Froggy Ruminations". Here's a guy that knows a lot of stuff that we don't...
His take on it, if I may be so bold, is that when you clear a building you shoot anyone that twitches and is not actively surrendering, end of story. It is either you and your fire team or a terrorist at your six.

I already linked Froggy's piece. Boyd stipulates in his post that those that haven't experienced combat are particularly unqualified to make sweeping judgments about combat.

Our troops continue to face organized combatants dressed in civilian garb -- organized combatants dressed as civilians. ALL of these organized combatants are dressed as civilians. This is a huge point that is being missed in this controversy. This type of civilian dress is occlusive, hiding much about the individual draped within. I trust the command structure to sort through the facts and accusations, and come to a reasonable finding.

Bill, I agree with you.

I think the Marine is, essentially, not-guilty from what things I have seen so far. I certainly hope so, and I'm MORE than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But, like you said - there's lots we don't know. Let the proper authorities do their investigation and make the call.

Meanwhile, what I can do is keep this young man in my thoughts and prayers.

Thanks for your openness and even handed reporting of this situation.

Thanks for the calming down.

I think some bloggers have to step back and take a deep breath. To jump to the conclusion that the Marine is not guilty, based on incomplete information, is the same as Al-Jazeera's jumping to the conclusion that he is guilty. We simply don't know the whole story and should, prudently, put our judgment into abeyance.

There's a process underway that will ascertain matters of guilt and innocence, of whether that Marine was following the ROE properly or not. Until that is done, we'd best serve ourselves--and the world--by putting a sock in it.

Well, some may be more qualified to render judgment (soldiers and Marines in similar situations), and it's ok to render an opinion, but my interpretation of Boyd's post was that shouting out an unequivocal and drastic judgment when you don't have all the facts is BS.

Tone and form count for a lot, I think.

I'm with you, Bill.

From the information available, I see no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of this Marine. Of course I reserve the right to revise my opinion once results of the military's investigation are made public.

Here's the thing that sticks in my craw, though... The cynic in me can't help but suspect that Kevin Sites has just thrown this video out there (without context or comentary, raw footage only) trusting that others will fill in the blanks and turn this story into another Abu Grhaib. For that reason alone my histionics reflex is on full alert.

I don't want to sit idly by and see my comrades maligned in the press again. Not when I can see it coming so clearly...

Well, uh, if I have to shut up because I have limited information, then might I suggest it was shoddy journalism to put a confusing and incomplete story into the international arena where it can be turned into anti-American propaganda? If I have to shut up because the best thing is for tne authorities to investigate this, then maybe it would have been a good idea to just give the info to the authorities?

You have a point about the media (which I partially expressed in my other post), but there are many ways to take the point about "shutting up" about too little information. I believe I interpreted it as "be careful about making an unequivocal judgment." How do you choose to take it?

Re: Donald Rumsfeld, National Treasure Quote:

Rummy didn't go far enough describing what is known and what is not known. As is often the case,the Bard has the best take on the subject:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ATTRIBUTION: Hamlet.... ...AUTHOR: William Shakespeare (1564–1616) QUOTATION:

The media have no philosophy and can't recognize the truth.

I agree wholeheartedly with Bill. On LGF Monday, in the comments section, I was asking readers to take a deep breath. By yesterday, I was wanting conservative bloggers to "shut the F up." (Please excuse my language.)

The liberal press had backed off this story by Wednesday. Even on Tuesday, Chris Matthews was warning people not to make hasty judgments on the marine and he was lamenting how others in the world would use the film as propaganda. Not that I'm a Chris Matthews fan, by any means...but apparently he "got the memo" that this story was not gaining public support.

Yet, the conservative blogs went on bloviating about Kevin Sites and the MSM well into Thursday.

Well, my son who is dealing with the terrorist prisoners who were not shot by marines in Fallujah is definitely hamstringed by media scrutiny. There is no way we are going to control Al-Jazeera, but we can avoid piling on the American media when they've already offered their mea culpas.

Can't we all just move on and leave it to he military system to deal with the marine?

Bill and Soldier's Mom --

I can agree that I don't have enough evidence or info to make an unequivocal judgement on the Marine's shooting the guy. Heck, for all I know Sites watched this soldier run around all day saying, "I'm gonna kill the first haji I see, man, I don't care if he's got his hands in the air and his pants on the ground, I'm gonna waste the mf."

But isn't that a different issue entirely from why this video was aired on international television instead of held back until an investigation was performed by the chain of command? I have no problem judging unequivocally that that was wrong and has served our enemies' cause. Journalism doesn't kill people, journalists do.

Salt lick,

Here's the point I think I'd like to make. We conservatives also need to be mindful of how we are perceived.

It seemed to me that by Thursday, after all the dust was nearly settled, the conservatives were still piling on. It's a bit like the very situation with the marine in Fallujah. Maybe he had the right to kill the terrorist and maybe he didn't. (He probably did.) The pictures that came out of it, however, were horrible.

Maybe the conservatives have the right to pile on Kevin Sites and the MSM, and maybe we don't. (We probably do.) But the screeching that has gone about it after the MSM backed off, is not a helpful picture.

I don't know every circumstance of the shooting, but that is not necessarily required to make a rational judgement on the information available.

I think there is quite enough information available to say with conviction the soldier didn't do wrong...

It's distressing to see someone shooting a man when he's down. It provokes the emotions of people, to witness an American soldier shooting a seemingly helpless wounded man in the head on the spot.

"That can't be right, because it FEELS wrong" is what the heart says.

However, war is about *killing*, and more to the point, killing so they can't kill YOU. It isn't a police action, or criminal apprehension over there, it's WAR.

Leaving aside that the GC doesn't apply, if only because the other side is not part of that treaty, even acting as if the conventions did apply,

A down and wounded man is NOT a prisoner who has surrendered, and a man pretending to be dead has certainly not surrendered.

Given what the soldier himself endured from a similarly unsecured combatant who was "down", and this particular enemy's tactics of making themselves into weapons, any hint of shenanigans warrants a "security round" into the head of the combatant.

What could *possibly* make the US soldiers actions criminal?

I can not think of a single unknown circumstance consistent with what is KNOWN, making that soldier guilty of warcrime.

If the man had been caught, disarmed, was sitting in a controlled group, went unconsious and was shot for coming out of consciousness, that would clearly be murder. But that isn't what happened at all. The man was down, but not dead, and had not surrendered or been searched or disarmed.

I can not think of a single unknown circumstance consistent with what is KNOWN, making that soldier guilty of warcrime.

Well, I don't think he did anything terribly wrong either, but I can think of many scenarios that would make it wrong, not the least of which having been previously informed that wounded, unarmed combatants were left in the mosque. If he made a mistake and forgot, or didn't listen, or panicked, it's negliegence, not a war crime. If he was simply angry at being shot at 5 minutes prior to teh shooting, it's a crime. If he wasn't aware that the zone had ben cleared and felt threatened by the possibility of a booby trap, he didn't do anything wrong.

There are many, many, many scenarios that rely on context. I'm surprised you can't think of one.

Why did he shoot a man that he thought needed to be dead, whereas the cameraman walked up to prone wounded on the other side of the room. It might be because the cameraman was stupid, but it might be because the cameraman was aware of some piece of info about the place that the soldier wasn't.

Many, many scenarios. One tiny piece of footage. We don't have all the facts.

That would be nice, Bill, but (there's always a "but", isn't there?) it can't happen in this situation.

There are two types out there who are running with the "Marine is a war criminal" angle:

Anti-war types who don't care if he is or not, they just see this as an opportunity to discredit the Military & GWB.

The non-political types who are genuinely upset that an American soldier would shoot a wounded enemy (and that's all they think there is to it because of the reporting to date).

While "Class 2" might agree to stand down until they find out what actually happened, "Class 1" will not because they don't really care.

THEIR goal is to brand this a war crime in the mind of the public to discredit Iraq operations & GWB. They're not interested in an investigation unless it hangs the Marine - and they'll label any investigation that doesn't a "Cover Up".

To get the Marine a fair hearing in the Court of Public Opinion and to prevent the "War Crime" label from sticking, those who have arguments against that labeling need to make them loud & clear.

Of course, they should emphasize that we don't know enough yet to make a final determination - but the point that there's a case against the "War Crime" claim has to be made.

Otherwise the Antis "War Crime" charge will stick whether deserved or not.

BD -

I suppose, but how have I, for example, not made that argument loud and clear? Was my post from a few days ago not demanding or loud enough? (it was pretty loud and demanding)

Again, there really isn't too much argument here. But making loud arguments that leave no room for equivocation without all the facts is merely angry ideology, no matter WHO does it. One can voice an opinion without being too much of a sanctimonous know-it-all.

Blind ideologues are blind ideologues. One can make a reasonable statement that beats back the bloviating hyperolists that want to condemn the marine without being too much of a bloviating hyperbolist yourself.

That Rumsfeld quote was actually set to music.

Funny, in a weird sort of way.

I don't think I'm motivated by "angry ideology" in saying there is enough known to decide this killing wasn't atrocity or warcrime.

Perhaps there was some breech of discipline in entering the area, but that I highly doubt. I think they were supposed to be in there, checking out who and what was there. Assume this to be the case and it still does not turn the shooting itself into warcrime.

The "he's fucking faking he's dead" remarks were said with surprise and tense alarm. Not kickass hunter "it's coming right for us" bravado.

Was there a way to safely withdraw in the event the wounded deceiver had a grenade? Not really. A split second could have meant death or maiming.

Mistake? maybe. Warcrime? Atrocity? Not in context of what is known.

I don't think I'm motivated by "angry ideology" in saying there is enough known to decide this killing wasn't atrocity or warcrime.

I'm not sure where anyone said that you were motivated by "angry ideology."

Why do you assume that I was talking about you?

It amazes me that the perfectly reasonable argument I'm making, from the perspective of someone that also thinks that the Marine is likely innocent, is perceived as some sort of blanket condemnation by more than a few people.

As for this:

The "he's fucking faking he's dead" remarks were said with surprise and tense alarm. Not kickass hunter "it's coming right for us" bravado.

On the flip side of incomplete analysis, he also strode towards the body and didn't move away during or immediately after shooting the guy, if you've watched the whole tape. Just stood there three to four feet away.

For the sake of argument, if I feared that someone was setting off a grenade under a blanket, I'd shoot them in the head as well, but also probably get the Hell out of the way after I did it.

But you are forcing me to be devil's advocate and second-guess his action, when I can't possibly do it. I certainly lean heavily towards saying he didn't do anything wrong - that's what I tend to believe. it was a split second decision that looks appropriate. But I'd stop short of saying that there's NO possibility and loudly ranting about it.

PS - I'm not saying you are "loudly ranting about it." Boyd's post was primarily aimed at those that were condemning the Marine, but also somewhat directed towards those that issue scathing defense without complete info.

I have to cop to *some* angry ideology.

The enemy fights dirty. Eliminating the faking combatant was , I feel, prudent,and soldiers should have the discretion to dispatch the "reasonable soldier's" idea of a threat.

It angers me when the Geneva Conventions are asymmetrically applied to the situation. The poor victims of the American Boot were fighting from a mosque.

If not for the NBC tape, there would not even be an investigation. If not for the media, in particular Al Jazeera, there would be even a moment's doubt about the outcome of that investigation. My greatest fear is that the investigation is a political exercise only, and that the outcome will be based upon the expected political backlash from the U.S. if he's found guilty, and from the Arab world if he's found not guilty. That's the context in which my trackback post criticized this "debate". As Sarah points out above, there is ample evidence to determine that this was no "war crime", so unless people think the Marine had some motive other than his safety and the saftey of his fellow soldiers, the analysis is done. And I'd be shocked if anyone really thinks that this kid (1) knew that this guy has no weapon and (2) shot him out of some sense of racial hatred or something like that. Short of that, it's not a war crime. It might be a mistake, but not a crime.