Backroom Errata

[Montmorency]

Without further information, I suspect the investigation found no wrong-doing because the soldiers who shot the captured insurgents were technically following ROE for the battle to "check" dead bodies or apparently dead bodies.

In other words, if you assume that there were numerous incidents like this one during the battle, and the letter of doctrine allowed it, then this group of soldiers could absolutely not be court-martialed without implicating dozens or hundreds of others, potentially up to the staff. Price of justice too high to pay this time.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Without further information, I suspect the investigation found no wrong-doing because the soldiers who shot the captured insurgents were technically following ROE for the battle to "check" dead bodies or apparently dead bodies.

In other words, if you assume that there were numerous incidents like this one during the battle, and the letter of doctrine allowed it, then this group of soldiers could absolutely not be court-martialed without implicating dozens or hundreds of others, potentially up to the staff. Price of justice too high to pay this time.

Probably a fair assessment of the mind of the decision makers in this instance. People feigning casualty status in order to conduct an attack from surprise tend to make ALL of the opposing soldiers leery of any questionable circumstance and leave them prone to committing war crimes. That has happened to US forces in the past, where fear/frustration become pervasive and encourage behavior that is out of line.

[spmetla]

Without further information, I suspect the investigation found no wrong-doing because the soldiers who shot the captured insurgents were technically following ROE for the battle to "check" dead bodies or apparently dead bodies.

In other words, if you assume that there were numerous incidents like this one during the battle, and the letter of doctrine allowed it, then this group of soldiers could absolutely not be court-martialed without implicating dozens or hundreds of others, potentially up to the staff. Price of justice too high to pay this time.

When I went through basic training (Ft. Benning 2002-3) I was taught that up to the point of search and capture it was fine to to engage uniformed or identified enemies with force. Once take into care and custody after search then Soldiers are obligated to safeguard said prisoner.

This incident in particular now that I re-read it a bit older and wiser I see this as being a warcrime. When I first read this I was gearing up for my first deployment to Iraq and was not too sympathetic in attitude. That being said given the heat of the moment after combat not all people come down from that high quickly. It is difficult to switch into caring for someone that moments before in a different situation was trying to kill you.
One of the odd things about war and one of the attractions to it for many young men is that it simplifies things to us versus them. The value of live of those that aren't with 'us' degrades substantially, especially if we assume that the innocents are such and actually suppor our enemies.

It's one of the reasons that prisoners need to be safeguarded and sped to the rear; because the capturing Soldiers generally don't want to care for their enemy, especially from one that will more likely than not offer no kindness as stipulated in the Geneva Conventions.

This incident in particular though, If I were forced to decide in my current position and rank as an officer I would prosecute the Marine if he were mine. The prisoners were in our care and needed to be safeguarded.
When I was enlisted though and shared the mentality of those on the line I would side with the Marine in his callous and deadly attitude toward the enemy and the civilians that support him (actively or passively). The US military had told civilians to evacuate because they would attack which is one of the reasons that civilians were treated harshly in that battle, because they were assumed to support the enemy even if it was passively.

War is hell and the man's death is tragic. It shames me now that that such incidents happen but at the same time I can understand the Marines' actions. At the end of the day though debating how just the man's death is or not is tragic due to the war and situation in general, there's no clear cut answers when it comes to killing. We try to regulate war through uniforms, conventions, weapons bans but it is still killing on a massive scale to help ones side.
One of the tragedies (and strategies) of all insurgencies is that due to the lack of a uniformed enemy the formal military or police will always be extremely doubtful of the innocence of any civilian which results in a lot of civilians being killed by association with the enemy without regard of the civilian's circumstance.

Even though I would try the marine and see this as a warcrime I still don't mind the verdict too much which is not too comforting for my own analysis of my consistency in such moral dilemmas or how callus I've become to the plight of such civilians in the crossfire.