Iraqi civilians routinely killed: Ex-marine
 

Wed, December 8, 2004

Iraqi civilians routinely killed: Ex-marine

By CP

TORONTO -- A former U.S. marine told a refugee hearing for an American war dodger yesterday that trigger-happy U.S. soldiers in Iraq routinely killed unarmed women and children, and murdered other Iraqis in violation of international law. In chilling testimony intended to bolster the asylum claim of compatriot Jeremy Hinzman, former staff sergeant Jimmy Massey recounted how nervous soldiers trained to believe that all Iraqis were potential terrorists often opened fire indiscriminately.

"I was never clear on who the enemy was," Massey, 33, told the hearing. "If you have no enemy or you do not know who the enemy is, what are you doing there?"

On several occasions, his soldiers pumped hundreds of bullets into cars that failed to stop at U.S. military checkpoints, killing all occupants -- who were later found to be unarmed, Massey said.

On another occasion, marines reacted to a stray bullet by killing a small group of unarmed protesters and bystanders, said Massey, who said he suffers from nightmares and post-traumatic stress disorder.

'MURDER'

"I was deeply concerned about the civilian casualties," he said. "What they were doing was committing murder."

Massey's statements echoed earlier testimony from Hinzman, who says he fled the U.S. military because he believed the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and any violent acts he committed there would be unconscionable.

"This was a criminal war," Hinzman said. "Any act of violence in an unjustified conflict is an atrocity."

Hinzman, 26, deserted his regiment in January just days before being deployed to Iraq, and fears he will be unfairly court-martialled if returned to the U.S.

While a federal government lawyer said U.S. deserters often get about a year in jail, Hinzman countered he would be treated more harshly because of his views on the Iraq war.

Brian Goodman, who is chairing the three-day Immigration and Refugee Board hearing that ends today, indicated he will likely decide Hinzman's claim early in the new year.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Ottawa...08/772570.html

---------------------------------

So what is this all about? A disgruntled soldier doesn't want to fight, comes to Canada and hopes through his claims and of others that the Americans are in an illegal war so he can stay in Canada as a free person rather than being court martialled in his country?

Does he have a claim that's valid or not? What should happen to him?

When cars can and do contain bombs, then what are soldiers to do when a car doesn't stop at the check point? The car must be stopped. But that is just one of the issues. I'm not sure about the others.

You beat me to it. ALL drivers in Iraq know to stop at checkpoints. They ALL know that if they dont slow down they'll get one warning shot, then one shot in the engine.. and if they still fail to stop they are going to get blown apart.

It's not rocket science. A car speeding at you, that refuses to stop... most likely contains a bomb that is trying to split your convoy in two or is trying to bomb your base. If they dont follow those rules it's on them.

HAH, damn right he'll be court-martialled

The checkpoint issue aside, these people murdered innocent women and children; there is no justification for killing unarmed civilians. As Massey says, it is "trigger happy US troops" firing at innocent bystanders, there is absolutely no reason to fire at a GROUP of UNARMED protesters and bystanders because of one stray bullet.

But like he said, all Iraqis are potential terrorist, so I guess kill 'em all if you feel like it, who cares if they are unarmed civilians, or women and children for that matter.

Like I stated in the other thread, we have our perceptions of terrorist completely backwards, some of us need to take a look in our own backyard before we accuse the Iraqis of being terrorists.

Sure there is. It's been well documented that some Iraqis used women and children as "human shields" while firing on American troops. Are American troops supposed to allow themselves to be killed rather than shoot the people that are providing cover for their attackers?

Well, I can't see why troops would fire at a group of them because of one stray bullet, if it is clear that the civilians are unarmed while participating in an peaceful protest, it just doesn't make sense to kill them.

But maybe that is standard military procedure, I wouldn't know. Either way, in my opinion there is no justification for it. These are human beings we are talking about, these people have family and friends, they don't deserve to die in that fashion. Some people act as if their lives are not of value.

And it isn't as if these poor people intended to be used as sheilds if that is indeed the case, what postive outcome could come from killing them because you might get one insurgent in the process......it is absurd.

It is also absurd to take one soldier's story at face value as the complete truth. The claim that there is some kind of code of silence is bullshit. There are roughly 150,000 troops in Iraq and hundreds or thousands of reporters. If this behaviour of indiscriminately shooting into crowds was common place, we would definately hear about it. Of course, we all pick and choose which facts we want to believe. You will believe that this is true, and that our troops are horrible, baby eating monsters, and I will dismiss it as lies.

As long as this is one ex-marine saying these things, and as long as this is only a couple of highlighted incidents, I tend to believe the US army isn't as bad as is claimed.

Firstly, the US marine isn't an ex-marine for nothing. Why did he quit? What did he see? What is his motivation for speaking out? could he be lying, or is he automatically assumed to tell the full truth?

Secondly, a couple of unfortunate incidents (warranted or not) do not mean this is common practice in Iraq, no matter what this guy says. Not even international human rights groups go as far as this in their claims. Besides, what happened to the people involved? Were the responsible marines punished?

Now, even though I believe there are some bad things going on in Iraq, I have to point out that it's still a warzone, and in such circumstances (especially with insurgants dressed like civilians) innocent people die. If the choice is between soldiers getting killed, or innocent civilians getting killed, the soldier *has* to choose to save his live. Pretending that the soldier can take a chance is just naive.

When you are carrying live ammo and are in a combat zone, you are very tense.
Tense people are jumpy.

When one of your buddies, whom you most likely trust, opens fire in a particular direction, you ALL open fire in that direction and ask questions after the order to cease fire is given.
Standard reaction to an ambush or guerilla attack.

I can believe it is happening but I don't believe it is done with intent.

Americans have a very bad reputation for just opening up. Didn't more US casualties occur from friendly fire in Gulf War 1?
Recently, a US marine opened up with an LMG on a British convoy of the Black Watch regiment. They were travelling in a land rover convoy and he only stopped when a brit trooper climbed out and yelled at him. It happens, more so with the US troops, but it happens everywhere.

Now, I don't have any stats at hand but this is my opinion:
Britain has been involved in a lot more of these type of conflicts through the past few hundred years, so the training on holding fire is a lot more ingrained. Ireland, Burma, India and many places in the Gulf. What looks threatening behaviour to green US troops is less so to soldiers more familiar with the region.
The typical US doctrine since the Vietnam war has been one of superior firepower and the people who were in Vietnam and rarely saw the guys firing at them have influenced the current practices of the troops. Unfortunatley, jungle warfare tactics aren't that suitable here. Now I'm not saying that they are going ahead and actively teaching this, but if you have an instructor who made it therough 'nam, then chances are, sitting around the campfire, you'll hear his stories of regarding what training says you should do and what you REALLY should do. And those stories perpetuate with soldiers, they feed on them and pass them on. "When my daddy was in Khe Sanh..." has a lot more impact on their training than what the manual says. So now you get a lot of troops eager to protect themselves by shooting a lot.
It's understandable, but unfortunate.

Why should Iraqi citizens stop at American checkpoints?

Back to the article....

I support the Man's right not to fight in war which he considers 'unconscionable' however, I don't think he deserves asylum in any country.

He should go back to the USA and do his time in jail. He has breached his contract with the army. His anguish is entirely self inflicted and his life is not in any danger.

Because there are armed men standing there, checking Iraqi cars for known terrorists and/or weapons and explosives? Officially, the US soldiers are part of an army of occupation, with certain rights and obligations. They are responsible for security, and if they feel checkpoints are needed to provide that security, they have the right to set them up. I doubt the current Iraqi government and most Iraqi civilians have a problem with these checkpoints.

Besides, given the fact that there are *armed men* standing there, with orders to shoot people that don't stop, and the fact that everyone should know that... why should the Iraqi citizens NOT stop? Such a situation isn't the best place to make a political/legal statement; it could kill you.

Deserters should be shot.

Because it's stupid to run a checkpoint if stopping and allowing a search means tha tyou and your passengers will not be shot and killed.

this seems little more than an aesthetic argument.
what it comes down to is what you would prefer to believe about the actions of soldiers, which is in the main a function of your position on the war itself.
there have been many many reports about trigger happy americans in iraq.
there have been many many john wayne counters--everyone is totally honorable, blah blah blah.
what to believe?
given the nature of infotainment coming out of iraq, particularly in the states, filtered by journliasts in bed with the military, for example, there is little (if anything) that could be called an empirical basis for judgement.
which is of course part of the point of putting journalists in bed with the military.
but judgements occur nonetheless
on what grounds?
aesthetics, a sense of symmetry between the general and the particular, for example.
return to the top of the post.

I don't know why I noticed this, but did anyone pick up on the terminology used here?

There is a big difference between a "former marine" and an "ex-marine".

I am guessing that this guy will fall into the later category.


Anyways.....

1 - Car doesn't stop--they can and should shoot.

2 - Protestors/Stray Bullet - That is just wrong, sounds like a training issue if it is correct.

Q: what terms means what?

Anyway, to point 2, if the gunman was firing from the crowd of protestors, I would fire back too, figuring that the protestors could possibly be more than just protestors.

And I don't see that there is a systemic problem here either.

I'm sorry, but a campaign to root out terrorists doesn't include a remit to shoot at everyone in the vicinity of where you THINK a bullet came from.
Your training should dictate that the first reaction to a stray shot is cover.
You DO NOT fire indiscriminately, particularly when there are crowds of civilians. (If his account is factual)
It is the military's first priority that any action should not lead to the death of civilians if at all possible.
If you have a shot land near you, you take cover and then you assert the direction of fire. Then you take suitable action.
Rather miss getting the odd gunman in the crowd, than killing innocents.

I can agree with the shooting of cars trying to run road blocks but that is within your rules of engagement.

Something like the slaughter at My Lai is not common but this account shows that it can occur. Nothing is out of the ordinary in war and we shoudl avoid instances as described here:
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/mylai.htm

"Ex-Marine" is a derogatory term used to define someone who was once a Marine, but no longer has the right to declare the heritage (i.e. Treason, cowardice, dishonorable discharge, etc.).

If you are a Marine, you are a Marine for life, unless you lose the right to call yourself a Marine. A true Marine will ALWAYS refer to himself/herself as a "Former Marine".

I found it odd that both terms were used, unless there was some editing by the original poster (DRTFA)

I also expect a serious shitstorm to come down on this guy by the Marines. Not for speaking out, but for being a coward.

He is not a coward for speaking out, anyone with a conscience should do so and be allowed to.

He is a coward for running away.

Let me say one thing: If this came from a real soldier I might be inclined to listen.

Since it came from a deserter who could easily get the firing squad should he return to the US, then he could tell me the sky is blue and I wouldn't believe a word of it.

I agree with this.

I have three friends in the Marines right now, and I'd be willing to bet that at least two would volunteer to be on this guy's firing squad if asked.

I'd desert them too.

I'd much rather spend a year in jail than chance getting killed for a trivial matter such as this.

One thing I hate most is people who are blindly patriotic.. generally those who are "Good, shoot him!" aka "Sheep". Those who feel that "you have a duty!" or "you should LOVE YOUR COUNTRY!" Yeah yeah.

Typical meaningless egotistical macho bullshit.

Well said, couldn't agree more with you.

Is this guy supposed to be the next John Kerry?

Sounds like typical meaningless egotistical cowardish bullshit to me.

I've come VERY close to signing up for this war many times. No, I'm no "sheep" as you put it, but I do believe that in the end of this war Iraq will be a much, much better place than it was before. Some may see this as a direct flame to you but I saw yours as a flame to myself, and my four good friends who've all come back from Iraq early (think about that for a second).

Sorry, but I think you're mistaken. It's the military's first priority to protect themselves, not any civilians. They should *try* to protect them, but not at their own expense.

Um, I'm responding to the first post...

There's nothing "cowardish" about it. It's called using your head!

If your four friends killed civilians randomly, then they're pretty fucked up and have some issues.

Yeah, it's just too bad that his friends didn't kill civilians "randomly."

I meant legally and morally.

I understand the "because they kill you if you dont" aspect

its no different than airport security checkpoints. There are car bombs and insurgent squads killing iraqi civilians and police. Us military checkpoints are there because the US is currently 'securing' the country.

Out of my four friends who are fighting or fought only ONE killed an inncent civilian.

A man dragged a young child (approx. 4 from what he said) into the street, with an RPG in the other. Taking time to aim the RPG behind the little boy, if my friend didnt shoot everyone in their Hummer would be dead.

So yes he did kill an innocent civilian, but if I were in the same spot I would have done the exact same, and no matter what moral highground you claim you would do the same. If not for you then for the other 4-8 people in the vehicle.

1. Already hit on, the military's first priority is mission accomplishment. Second is accomplishing that mission with the least amout of casualties on your side or in the required time period for time critical operations. Third is with the least amount of civilian casualties. This comes directly from my superiors in the US Navy.
2. I dont know if you realize this or not, but most of combat is reactionary. It's not like everyone's happy and then a bullet lands near you, and you stop to think about it. If your life and those around you are in danger you react. I will never play armchair commander when I dont know exactly what the situation was like, nor should anyone else.

I think you read me wrong. I didn't say protect the civillians. :thumbsup:
I said that their planned or unplanned actions should not obviously endanger civilians.

I could twist what you say and make it sound like you'd justify nuking fallujah just because there were some terrorists there and you'd definitely lose a lot of troops in a campaign to take it.

But I won't because I agree with you, a troop's first priority is self preservation and the assigned mission. In the quoted case, a stray bullet hits, your priority is cover and then attempt to find the shooter. Not open fire on innocents. (Again: if this account IS accurate)

If a marine is assigned to laser designate a scud, and he sees that the scud is surrounded by children and the scud is being raised to launch, then goodbye kiddies.
If he's observing the target and he sees it driving past a school, then he should try and hold off if possible and then lase it when it has cleared a relatively safe distance from the school.

That's the kind of thing I was getting at.
The example about the guy taking out the rpg'er is a good example too.

Ok in that you are correct. It IS important to keep civilian casualties at the lowest possible cost, but by no means is it the first, or even second priority. Sucks, I know, but so does war.

Okay, sorry I misread your comment. I agree with you in principle, but I think you're overestimating the soldiers involved. We're talking about a very dirty war here, where enemies and civilians are pretty much impossible to distinguish (apart from the guns, which are *also* owned and used by civilians!). Then there's the constant sense of fear, the constant stress, the dead and wounded on your side, the bombs, the booby traps... I'd say you'd start to get a bit trigger-happy too, after a few months of that.

Is it wrong to just shoot? Sure. But it may be understandable in the circumstances. These soldiers aren't supermen. They're just like you and me, except that they're in warzone, trying to make it out alive.

Dude, if the man had an RPG, he wasn't innocent. What was he doing with it? defending himself from pickpockets? Your friend killed an iraqi intent on killing others. He did the right thing.

I believe he means that his friend had to shoot through the child to kill the man with the RPG.

The Sargent who made the testimony isn't a deserter from what I believe. He was released with PTSD. Does this mean you believe him more now?

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...633419,00.html

And so, this person must live with this.

It is unlikely ever he shall answer for it in this world, in the next, I cannot tell and it is not for me to speculate.

You're right, he'll be greatly rewarded for saving those lives.