US Marine captured in Iraq

[cal04]

AN Iraqi insurgent group said overnight it has captured a US Marine who was wounded in a clash in western Iraq in which eight other Marines were killed.

The Army of Ansar al-Sunna said on its Web site that it would soon issue pictures of the Marine, who it said it captured after ambushing US forces near the town of Haditha, northwest of Baghdad.

It did not say when it carried out the attack.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16146685%255E1702,00.html

[SteppingRazor]

1. Just cause the Army of Ansar al-Sunna says it...

doesn't make it so. I'll wait for the photos. And even then, I'll make sure they're not photos of an action figure.

[hobbit709]

2. And if it's true

will Rummy demand that the "insurgents" adhere to the Geneva Convention?

[rodeodance]

4. oh my!!

[leftchick]

5. sad isn't it?

if true this fellow doesn't stand a chance. :(

[cliss]

34. He might negotiate with them....

Recall the unbelievably hypocritical stance the US took regarding the Italian hostages. They said, "We don't negotiate with terrorists".

Just recently, there was a thread which said, "US negotiating with Iraqi insurgents, Jaafari says he'll have no part in it".

[RageFist]

41. That is actually

a damn good question...they are not a nation, since they're foreign fighters (they couldnt POSSIBLY be home-grown), so technically they wouldnt have to follow it...I truly feel sorry for this guy if its true...Prez Cheney killed the moral high ground a long time ago sadly...

[izzie]

10. I hope it is not true not after the story in the Post today.

In all the things we know about how bad the Japanese treated prisoners during WW2 and Gen. Wainwright lasted the whole war and we killed off a Iraq General in about 2 weeks by beating him to death.I am sure they have people who already knew this long before I did so----------- Lets hope they really do not have one of our men.:nopity:

[Mizmoon]

31. i can't find that article

could you post the link, please? I'd like to read it very much.

[Tempest]

13. Quite possible they do have one

The military still hasn't explained how the U.S. soldier found dead on Monday ended up more than a mile from the rest of his unit who were also killed.

He could have been captured, put up resistance and the captors killed him rather than keep him.

[leetrisck]

15. We still don't know if Sgt.Maupin is being held

or is dead - think the military still carries him as missing and promoted him to Sgt. Where is businessman Mr. Ake?

[me b zola]

69. MSNBC (maybe CNN, I'm not sure which)reported (9:00 A.M.ish)

That this captured soldier is quite possibly the same one that was found dead a mile from the others.

They reported that the captured marine was brutally killed, body badly maimed, and that there was a picture which they had access to but would not show on tv.

[Judi Lynn]

3. He'll be treated with respect, due to the decency we've shown

to beings we've bagged and tossed into our own prisons. Golden rule, and all.

[Dhalgren]

6. I know it won't happen, but if the insurgents really do have a US

prisoner, wouldn't they gain much in relative world opinion if they treated the prisoner in accord with Geneva Convention rules? They would have the perfect opportunity to show everyone who the true criminals are. I don't hold out any hope that anyone in this inhuman debacle will show any signs of humanity or foresight, but it is something to think on...

[northzax]

8. um, these guys deliberatly target civilians

I hardly think they're boy scouts.

[leesa]

12. The US deliberately targets civilians as well. Learn your facts.

[northzax]

17. may I suggest reading some high school level philosophy?

something about two wrongs and a right? let's see, what was that line again?

or did you have another point? was you point that this hypothetical soldier deserves to die? that somehow it's acceptable for Iraqis to kill civilians because the US has? damn, most people get out of that moral equivalency by the age of 15, or they become freepers, pick one.

[brentspeak]

39. They do??? Show us the proof on that!!

Civilians have been killed by US troops because there's no way to completely avoid hitting them during battles: insurgants deliberatly start fire-fights in the middle of crowds. I know for a fact that many of our troops have actually put themselves at great danger by restraining their shooting during battles, for fear they'll hit civilians. That's an impossible situation for any soldier in battle.

[northzax]

52. proof? you want proof?

everyone knows that GIs are trained to shoot little children in their beds. sheesh, don't you read the ANSWER newsletter?

[The Stranger]

59. Actually, you have shown absolutely no proof for anything you have said.

Iraqi civilians have been bombed into the Stone Age, shocked and awed, tortured, murdered, mutilated, raped, drowned, and starved. You seem to forget that they were the ones that were illegally invaded.

[northzax]

67. can you cite proof for that statement?

the one about 'illegally invaded?" who's law, exactly, was violated? seriously, cite it. US law wasn't violated, International Law (which isn't law unless you sign a treaty, the US has not signed a relevant one besides the UN charter) wasn't violated, Iraqi law may have been violated, if, in fact, there was an Iraqi law stating "no foreign power may invade Iraq"

citation please?

[RaulGroom]

72. Uh, actually, the Iraq invasion clearly violated the UN charter

Read the section on military attack. Then come back.

[northzax]

83. the UN charter is meaningless

without action by the Security Council or the General Assembly. go read those sections and get back to me.

to clarify: the Security Council passed resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq in the interests of advancing the purposes of the United Nations. It never passed a resolution withdrawing that resolution, or condemming the action. In fact, it has passed a resolution endorsing the current government, which can be legally taken as an endorsement of the actions of the invasion.

The remainder of the UN is obligated to abide by the resolutions of teh SC. (article 25)

The law is convoluted and stupid, but it is, in fact, the only applicable law. The UN charter concerning military force means what the Security Council says it means in any given case. The SC has endorsed the action, therefore it's legal. QED.

that doesn't mean it wasn't stupid to invade Iraq, it was. but it was legal. And the Security Council has endorsed the occupation, which makes that legal as well. In fact, leaving Iraq before the transition would be illegal, in violation of a Security Council resolution, so if Law is what we're concerned with, we're kinda stuck there.

[RaulGroom]

109. The SC recognized the occupation, it didn't endorse the invasion

And your interpretation of the meaning of the UN charter is at odds with Britain's international lawyers, who are in fact very worried that Blair may face prosecution.

[anotherdrew]

75. please spare me your half-baked sophistry. US is a rouge nation now

Every soldier over there is following illegal orders and are therefore themselves war criminals. Just cause no one has decided to 'arrest' us doesn't mean it's legal. Maybe no one ever will make us all pay for what we've let be done in our name, but rest assured, in some way, some time, we are all gonna pay the price for this.

We invaded a sovereign nation, we targeted civilian infrastructure, WE enforced the most outrageous sanctions for over a decade resulting in hundreds of thousands dead. All because we couldn't figure out what to do about Saddam.

[northzax]

84. so you don't have a citation?

is that what you're saying? I tend to think that the word 'illegal' means 'in violation of a law' you can't give me a law that is being violated. Immoral? perhaps. Unwise? certainly. Illegal? cite the law.

or can't you do it? An arrest doesn't make something illegal, a violation of law makes it illegal. you can either tell me what law, relevant to the situation, is being violated by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or you can't. which one is it?

[The Stranger]

87. You really can't be serious.

For what part of the "invasion" do you want a citation to a law that was violated?

The State of the Union Address wherein the President lied to the Congress about weapons of mass destruction? The other administration members who appeared repeatedly before Congress and lied about weapons of mass destruction and the likely outcomes of the war? The Geneva Conventions that were vioated once the invasion had begun? The torture? The bombing of civilian areas? Kickbacks and no-bid billion dollar contracts to corporations who have defrauded the government and the people? Should I continue?

You seem to think that a statute or treaty has to state "Do not invade Iraq" for the invasion to be ilegal. How very pedestrian.

[northzax]

88. Unfortunately, Congress failed to do due diligence

but they did pass a resolution authorising the invasion. That makes it legal from our perspective.

Second: the US is not party to the Geneva Conventions, therefore it is not technically illegal for the US to violate them. Plus, that happened after the invasion, and not in Iraq itself, so it doesn't affect the legality of the actual invasion.

Third: the bombing of civilian areas? a: not illegal. b: even if the US was party to such a law, you would have to demonstrate that there was an intentional targeting of civilian areas with no military value. after all, the US targeted civilian populations in WWII, did that make that war illegal as well?

Fourth: kickbacks and no bid contracts are violation of US civil law, and do not affect the legality of the preexisting action. It's perfectly legal for a fireman to break down your front door to put out a fire. Once he's there, is he steals your silver, it doesn't make his breaking down of the door illegal, does it?

gee, I don't know why I keep insisting on a LAW before something is illegal? how irrational of me. the law should simply be what we want it to be, whenever we want it. Or maybe we have written laws for a reason, to prevent the ad hoc application of them?

[0rganism]

102. You are absolutely incorrect about the Geneva conventions

The four primary conventions were signed by the United States in 1949, after due ratification by our federal government. That makes them the LAW OF THE LAND, assuming we still abide by the Constitution. There are two additional protocols from 1977 that the USA has yet to ratify.

Your reference to WWII is a strawman, as these conventions did not exist in their current form until 4 years after.

[The Stranger]

103. Absolutely Wrong.

but they did pass a resolution authorising the invasion. That makes it legal from our perspective.

Congress' passing a resolution does not immunize from criminal prosecution those who lied to the Congress. On the contrary, their lying to Congress constitutes any number of violations of U.S. law, and possibly state law as well. Nor does the fact that Congress passes something make it "legal." Congressional statutes have been declared unconstitutional since the Marshall Court.

Second: the US is not party to the Geneva Conventions, therefore it is not technically illegal for the US to violate them. Plus, that happened after the invasion, and not in Iraq itself, so it doesn't affect the legality of the actual invasion.

This is simply and utterly incorrect. The U.S. is party to the Geneva Conventions, and to claim otherwise is to sacrifice all credibility. Nor does incidents that occurred after the "invasion", i.e., the first U.S. soldier's crossing into Iraqi territory somehow become excused or separate from a string of related crimes. Any prosecutor would laugh at such simplemindedness. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is both an ongoing and illegal enterprise.

Third: the bombing of civilian areas? a: not illegal.

Absolutely wrong. See above. I can't even fucking believe I am reading this.

b: even if the US was party to such a law, you would have to demonstrate that there was an intentional targeting of civilian areas with no military value. after all, the US targeted civilian populations in WWII, did that make that war illegal as well?

Now you admit that the bombing was illegal. Good job.

Fourth: kickbacks and no bid contracts are violation of US civil law, and do not affect the legality of the preexisting action. It's perfectly legal for a fireman to break down your front door to put out a fire. Once he's there, is he steals your silver, it doesn't make his breaking down of the door illegal, does it?

Again, completely and absolutely wrong. Taking your own example, if someone were to break down your door, that would constitute breaking and entering, and to then steal silver would elevate the crime to burglary. The fact that the door was broken down elevates the crime from theft to burglary. The fact that the fireman committed a burglary of the home would defeat any immunity originally granted for breaking down the door in the first place.

[cureautismnow]

104. Legality Citation

Yes, some would consider Bush-boy's grudge war illegal:

"Under the United States Constitution, Presidents do not have authority to declare war. This power is granted exclusively to Congress, and there is no provision in the Constitution for its delegation. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it cannot be superseded except by amendment to itself. On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected. Citing several factors, including unresolved issues from the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration claimed intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily, and Congress delegated its war powers to the President; from this point of view, the invasion of Iraq, while a war, may therefore be considered a police action commenced by the executive, like the Korean war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Legality_of_the_invasion

re: International Law, Junior's thirst for blood could also be considered illegal:

"Some have said that the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." For the use of force other than in self defence, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the security council under Article 42. Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorise war. The coalition formed around the USA argued that another understanding of the resolution is possible, although Kofi Annan, speaking on behalf of the UN charter, declared: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.""

ibid.

Of course, the ultimate question of legality can only be settled in a court of law. Unfortunately, no one (notwithstanding Fitzgerald?) on this planet presently has the power or means to coerce this vile little man to stand trial for his evil deeds.

[RageFist]

43. It depends on what kind of "civilian" you are talking about...

I met a marine in my sociology class who said an example of a "civilian" killed was an 8 year old kid...with an AK...who had just killed a man in his unit. I am certainly not saying that 20,000 plus civilian casualties does not, to me, sound atrocious. Having said that, not all civilian casualties are Women and innocent children. Sadly, this is a reality of war...which is why i am anti war

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. It's not clear that insurgency groups in the area of Haditha

target civilians specifically. They have certainly set off car bombs targetting government buildings (specifically the police), and they've executed captured Iraqi soldiers.

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/013604.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/20/iraq.main/

I think we have to be very careful about conflating different insurgency groups into one "Insurgency" - capital "I." I think these groups are only loosely coordinated, and it is difficult to predict the actions of one local group (which may even be tribe-based) from another.

Unfortunately, we do have the grisly precedent for Haditha:

Meantime, in Haditha, insurgents shot and killed 20 Iraqi soldiers Wednesday morning, a police official said.

The soldiers, dressed in civilian clothes, were abducted from a vehicle and taken to the Haditha soccer stadium, where they were shot to death, the official said.

The soldiers were traveling to the al-Haklaniya police station just south of Haditha, the official said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/20/iraq.main/

This is from April 20, 2005. I'd expect many of the same people at the ground and command level are involved, so we know what they do to prisoners...

[northzax]

19. good point

although I would argue that bombing a police station is targeting civilians, but that's a different story.

how about if I change it to "this is a group that has not shown regard for civilian life in past actions"?

[mike_c]

24. that is a fitting description of the *U.S. military* in Iraq...

eom

[northzax]

25. but the US military is not the subject of this discussion

strange how strong the moral equivalency faction is on this board, it is, in fact, possible to criticize someone without the initial self flagellation of saying the US does it to, you know?

[mike_c]

30. that's because the U.S. military invasion, occupation, and...

...barbaric behavior in Iraq is the CAUSE of these events. Moral equivalency my buttocks-- there's no equivalency between committing a war of aggression-- and brutalizing a civilian population-- and defending AGAINST those invaders.

[redqueen]

44. *crickets*

[northzax]

49. oh I'm sorry, was I supposed to respond to this drivel?

beyond post 32?

[redqueen]

51. Not if you don't want to. n/t

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

58. Ah, insults.

A tactic commonly used by the person who's won the argument, to be sure.

:eyes:

[northzax]

61. there was an argument?

I can't really recall you saying anything except impersonating some insects? did I miss something?

QED

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

65. there was no arguement with someone else

actually, a one line, oversimplified statement that ignores your comments is not an arguement, discussion or even repartee, it's a diversion. Since it was a complete non-sequitor to the discussion underway, there was no good reason to reply to it. In fact, the original discussion is continued down below, which I apparently, by your standards, won, since there is no reply to it.

imagine you are having a discussion about say, Plato, and someone walks by and says "Bill is a Pig" by ignoring that person and continuing your discussion, are you then conceeding that Bill is, in fact, a pig? No, you are ignoring the irrelevant distraction and moving on.

is there some reason you felt compelled to toss in your insect impersonation? or did you have something relevant to contribute to the discussion, beyond porcine comparisons?

[redqueen]

66. See post 62

There the same "non point" is made, but better... and oh my, well lookie there... you're ignoring that post as well.

What a shock.

[northzax]

86. 82, baby.

see, someone takes the time to compose a post that actually has something interesting to say, and I'll respond in kind. one liners get one liners.

[redqueen]

91. What...

you thought *I* wanted to engage you?

Think again.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

94. I know a lost cause when I see one. n/t

[northzax]

97. that so?.

then why the one-liners in favour of one?

[RetroLounge]

74. "I hate arguing with our nutcases"

talking to yourself again?

RL

[northzax]

89. oh go eat some cheese curds or something, will ya?

:)

[RetroLounge]

99. Only if they are deep fried!

:rofl:

:hi:

RL

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. You would consider bombing a police station targetting civilians?

Hmm. I wouldn't. Not in an occupied country where the police are allied with the occupation forces. They clearly serve a military purpose within that context. Now, civilians no doubt get killed when you do that. Civilians also get killed in the so-called "precision bombing" from jets and cruise missiles. Maybe the Haditha insurgents can chalk it up to collateral damage. So sorry, see...

In any case, my main argument is that we cannot legitimately conflate insurgent groups without confusing the issue.

[endarkenment]

28. so you would consider the French Resistance

a terrorist organization guilty of war crimes? Don't you think that resistance movements fighting against an occupation force and that force's quasi-civilian agents gets to actually attack the same agents that are tasked with attacking them? Or is it your opinion that the Iraqi police force is not tasked with attacking insurgents?

I think we all pretty much agree that deliberately targeting civilians, crimes commited by both sides in this conflict, is wrong. However it is a huge stretch to push the Iraqi police force over into the 'civilian' side of the equation. it is right up there with our claims that the civilian casualties that result from actions such as the sacking of Fallujah are just 'collateral damage'.

[northzax]

32. Funny thing about La Resistance

when they found a collaborator, they tended to kill them. Fine. And their wives. and their children. Obviously not all sections did this, but it did happen. That, my friend, is a crime, don't you agree? Simply because you may be fighting what you perceive to be a greater evil than yourself does not allow you to commit evil as well.

Police Stations tend to be in the middle of populated areas. Blowing them up leads to the killing of people who simply happen to be in the area. It's a predictable result. Blowing up a checkpoint tends to kill the people waiting at the checkpoint.

What, in particular, gives this particular band of insurgents the right to use violence to persue their political aims? targeting soldiers of an army of occupation is one thing, but targeting anyone who 'collaborates' with what is now an elected government is simply terrorism. They had the opportunity to participate in elections, right? and either chose not to do so, or didn't like the result, so they respond with violence against other Iraqis who don't agree with them (and by the way, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they actually are Iraqis, not Saudis or Jordanians)

A situation and a question for you. The US leaves Iraq completely tommorow. The Iraqi government as currently constituted writes a constitution, which is ratified by a majority vote of the people, as currently specified. New elections take place, there is 80% turn out, no major fraud, and an elected government, more representative than the US's, in fact, takes power. Are the insurgents still insurgents? do they become terrorists now? how much legitimacy must the Iraqi government have, in your eyes, before insurgency becomes terrorism? Can they still target police, since the army and police now want to stop violence across the country and are arresting people and trying them in a court of law? when does a government, in your mind, become legitimate enough that it is no longer acceptable to use violence against it if you don't like it? I'd really like to know your opinion on that. There are groups that won't be happy unless Iraq becomes a fundamentalist Muslim state. If it doesn't go that way, due to additional elections, where's the bright line that tells them to stop the violent method and adopt the political ones? What does Iraq have to do, as a nation-state, before the violence becomes illegitmate, in your eyes?

[Hardrada]

36. How is this our business?

Sooner we're out the better.

[northzax]

50. how is it not?

is murder and civil strife not our business? Was Rwanda 'not our business?' (apparently) is Darfur 'not our business?' what, exactly, is our business?

[endarkenment]

80. Oh cripes.

"Was Rwanda 'not our business?' (apparently) is Darfur 'not our business?' what, exactly, is our business?"

Attempting to equivocate between the mess in the sudan and the mess in rwanda and the mess that we created all by ourselves in Iraq is dishonest, and I think you know that.

We should withdraw our forces from Iraq and let the Iraqi people settle their own differences. If after we get out there is a humanitarian crisis that requries international intervention to resolve, it should be done by international agencies independent of our government. As we created the mess we should of course pay all costs associated with such an effort.

[northzax]

82. ok, a fairly reasonable hypothetical for you

the Sunnis take over Iraq, following the departure of the US military. They proceed to, I don't know, use chemical weapons on the Kurds. we go back in?

What international coalition are you talking about, exactly? one that doesn't include the US/UK, obviously, which leaves us with..Russia? China? because international coalitions are doing a wonderful job in sudan, aren't they? or Rwanda? (hey, wait a minute, those are both the fault of colonial powers that arbitrarily created hatred within made up countries...hmm...I knew the Dutch should be paying for Rwanda, it was their fault, after all.

So you would support a military government in Iraq, as long as it was an Iraqi military government? what about a fundamentalist religious government involved in oppression of other sects? what would define a 'crisis' in your mind?

[endarkenment]

107. The international coaltion would be UN organized.

Your hypothetical is at this point rather silly. The sunnis are not going to take over Iraq. There are no chemical weapons - where have you been, that was a lie used to take us to war, remember?

"because international coalitions are doing a wonderful job in sudan, aren't they?"

The international effort to stop the violence in Sudan is far less than perfect, I agree. However surely you are not arguing that our unilateral effort to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, an effort that has failed entirely and has resulted in the deaths of something like 125,000 Iraqis and the establishment of huge permanent military bases for our use in Iraq, casting enormous doubt on the actual motives for our 'mission' there, which of course was initially stated to be to rid Iraq of WMD that did not exist, surely you are not arguing that this mission, which has no end in sight and is a manifest failure, is a better model than that provided by the UN?


By the way it was the Belgians, not the Dutch, that created the Hutu/Tutsi class system, and yes they do owe some responsibility for the mess they created across that region of Africa. Similarly, it was the British who had the brilliant idea of putting the minority Sunnis in charge of Shia-majority Iraq precisely because in doing so the Sunnis would be dependent on British aid to keep them afloat. As for the Kurds, the great powers have a long and sordid history of encouraging the decimation of Kurds and allowing the suppression of their national ambitions. We have turned a blind eye to the murder of Kurds in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and most recently Turkey. I find all attempts to use the suppression of the Kurds as justification for our intervention in the regions highly problematic and stinking of hypocrisy.


What sort of government the Iraqis people decide to implement is their business. Unless that government creates a mess that qualifies as a humanitarian crisis, what else it does is really none of our business, nor the business of the international community. What is a humanitarian crisis? That is for the various international organizations to decide, not for some PNAC imperialist nutcase in the white house.

[Hardrada]

105. I think you nailed him there.

Good points.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. This is all very interesting

Your claims re: the French resistance are important claims, but hardly settled. It is certainly an ethical problem, and one that people struggle with. Is the killing of spouse and children a "crime." It is repugnant, to be sure, but the question of "greater good" gets deployed all over the place. Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a "crime"? Certainly many people argue so. Others argue not, that it was the "greater good" relatively speaking. In terms of predictable results, there could be no more predictable result than that, I should think. The same goes for the style and tactics used during assault on Fallujah and the general invasion of Iraq. The loss of civilians was utterly predictable in both cases, but war supporters and even lukewarm doubters argue for the greater good in both cases. Now, you say "no moral equivalency." The "moral equivalency on this board" astounds you, etc., the keyword being "moral equivalency," which is thought to be bad. Perhaps if the actions and rationales weren't so similar in form (predictable killing of civilians in the course of military operation justified by the notion of greater good), there would be no need to wonder about moral equivalency. But since they are, it's hard to get away from. As I see it, simply shouting "moral equivalency" is no real argument when the conditions seem, well, so damn equivalent.

As far as "trageting collaborators," as soon as one takes a properly functional, military perspective, this issue also becomes cloudy. A collaborator can be seen as part and parcel of a military machine in its totality. And the police? They function as an arm of the American military in Iraq. There's simply no getting away from this. Let me be clear: I am not on the side of the insurgency. But to pretend that the insurgency is not waging a functional fight against a military occupation, to which police and collaborators contribute, is just laughably one-sided. I can at least see their reasoning for doing so, from a military perspective.

As for the "government" and violent methods, I'll state this as clearly as possible: There is no legitimate government in Iraq. When does it become legitimate? 1) When all American/Coalition troops are withdrawn from the territory; 2) When third party nations or international bodies convene a real cross section of Iraqi leadership; 3) When those parties determine a form of government outside of American/Coalition influence. What will happen then? It's not for me to say. What is increasibgly clear, however, is that no form of government can take root in Iraq under any taint of American/Coalition stewardship. We have done too much damage to Iraqi civil society, and our interests are too suspect, even down to the level of the American person in the street, who believes that the ongoing slaughter is justified because we are "fighting them over there." When is it legitimate to use violence to overthrow a false government? I think you can refer to Thomas Jefferson for that answer:

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

[anotherdrew]

78. nicely stated, well done

but of course it will hold no sway with the MURKAS NUMER WUN crowd.

so many people don't want to admit it, we've done a terrible terrible thing. America has gone too far this time I'm afraid. Viet NAm was bad enough, but now I don't think we'll ever recover from the evil we've done and do in Iraq. No one thing was enough, but the sum total of our high-level and low-level actions in that country have permanently altered this nation. We've got half the country basically stark raving mad here folks and I see no end in site.

[northzax]

81. good points, although I disagree with some interpretations

and frankly, without knowing more about the particular group in this incident, it is difficult to discuss their motives and actions. Certainly the Iraqi insurgency is not a monolithic group, some are motivated by religion, some by greed and some by nationalism. The question then, is are all of these equally acceptable motivations for the use of violence? Is a group that wants to restore Saddam Hussein in order to oppress an ethnic group on the same moral footing as one that wants a democraticaly elected regime, simply because they are both fighting the Americans?

I'm not sure there is a good answer for the mass killing of civilians in WWII from a moral perspective. Certainly it is inarguable that the killing of civilians in occupied territory is verboten, but in an industrialized war, where the industrial base is intertwined with the civilian population, the line blurs. There can also be a bargain between the benefit of the few and the benefit of the many. That is the calculus that led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we knew we were invading Japan, Japa knew we were invading Japan, the double shock of immediate destruction, while killing 200,000+, saved the lives of a few million Japanese citizens over the next year. It's a choice you hope you never have to make, but one that can be made. On the other hand the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were, in my opinion, beyond the pale of this calculus. In neither case was a reasonable military target involved, in neither case was a greater good served, it was simply retribution and destruction for the sake of retribution and destruction and thus as immoral and criminal as the German destruction of Warsaw.

As for collaborators, another difficult decision. There can be a case made for the killing of those who are in a position to aid and abet an occupation, certainly, but the killing of their families in order to serve as a warning to others is of doubtful morality at best. It's a strange world in which the killing of a 100,000 to warn can be acceptable while the killing of one is not, but such is the scale of life. In the case of Iraq, can you not make a case, from the perspective of any single insurgency group, that anyone not involved in that particular group, involved in advancing their aims, is an enemy? Maybe the police are 'collaborators' or the army (notice I never said anything about the army) but technically, isn't anyone who acts in any small way to advance peace and stability for the current regime a 'collaborator' from that point of view? The shopkeeper who sells food, the electrician who repairs a power line, the doctor who works in a hospital, all are helping to stabalize society under the current regime, and therefore all are potential collaborators. That means, from the perspective of a band of 20, there are 30 million collaborators. That's a tough call to make.

There is a problem with your definition of 'legitimacy' for the current government. By your definition, the governments of Germany and Japan, still with US troops, under governments created by the United States and other powers, are not legitimate. Surely they are? So it is, therefore, possible to create a legitimate government with outside influences, the legitimacy comes from time in place, and peaceful transfer of power. I would posit that Iraq had no legitimate government prior to the entry of US troops, since it was a dictatorship rooted in force. Therefore, the current government is no more, or less, legitimate than that one was. In fact, given the elections that took place, and will continue to take place, (hopefully) this government is perhaps more legitimate than the previous one. What if there is a constitution, guaranteeing universal sufferage, and that constitution is ratified by public referendum with a majority vote? would that make it legitimate? a supermajority? 90%? would the remaining ten percent have the right to continue to take up arms against the will of the majority of the population until they get what THEY want?

See, the problem with your concept, as noble as it is, is that there is no outside force that will lead negotiations towards a new government for the country, it's something that the Iraqis have to figure out for themselves. unfortunately for them, it's a long, painful and bloody process. Do you somehow think that, in the absence of the US, the various insurgency groups would simply go away? some would, others would continue to use violence to achieve their political ends, the police and army would still be the enemy, collaborating with an illegitimate government. It's a no win situation for them, if they stop fighting, they lose. if they keep fighting, maybe they win. why not keep going? revolutionaries rarely make good citizens after the peace. So, to be perfectly brutal about it, what if we provide a distraction, while the work of creating a constitution acceptable to the majority of Iraqis is underway, what if we take the heat and provide political and military cover for those setting up the system? might work out best, in the long run, for Iraqis as a whole. Certainly, given the crappy situation we laid out for them, it's the least we can do.

TJ's words, although fine for his purposes, have been twisted too many times for me to take them seriously. It seems all too easy for anyone to decide that their particular government meets this standard and therefore violence is acceptable, even if the government does, in fact, meet the needs of the rest of the population.

[alcibiades_mystery]

90. OK

These are well argued points. I'll address them in order:

1) The moral calculus re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Yes, all well and nice. The point to any of the calculi(es;-)) is that they make sense in a larger picture, and that that larger picture is determined in some sense by the values of a given society. The Hiroshima bombings can make sense to us morally speaking, on the basis of the points you raised. In postcolonial societies, the terms of the calculus may differ. So, for example, the removal of the crypto-colonial regime in Vietnam did not "save lives" in the long run, one would assume, but the values of the society dictated that the regime must be removed, for a whole host of reasons. The terms of the calculation here required a moral abstraction, whereby self-determination trumped lives. Given the larger picture of colonial struggle, the calculus can vary.

2) On collaborators, you even seem to weaken your own point here. When you move to the higher level of abstraction (anyone who increases stability, etc.), you actually make the insurgents argument for them. Since there has been relatively little in the way of such targets (and we're excluding the religious strife, which seems to be differently organized), the rationale for attacking just those Iraqis who cooperate and collaborate directly with the US/Coalition occupying government seems all the more justified from the military perspective. One could, as you say, consider anyone adding to "stability" to be collaborators. But the Iraqi insurgents (and we'll get to their diversity in the next point) don't seem to be doing that. They seem to be directly targetting just those Iraqis who directly collaborate (no doubt with the attendant "collateral damage") - police, translators, government officials, workers on US bases, etc. In other words, they seem to have a pretty cohesive idea about what constitutes military assistance to the occupation forces within the larger Iraqi society. You "could make the case" in a theoretical way, I suppose, but "the case" is not supported by the actual practices that we've seen on the ground. They are making distinctions that you fail to make. One might also argue that the kinds of "stability" you refer to goes on all the time regardless of the state form, and that you are illegitimately tying it to governmental stability: sociology has certainly investigated such affective social bonds at length; from this perspective, the shopkeepers and electricians and carters, etc., stabilize the occupation government only incidently, as opposed to the other kinds of direct collaborations which are essentially tied to the specific occupation government. Their real role in stability occurs, as it were, beneath the state form.

3) It's funny that you now fall back on the diversity of the insurgency in order to question motives. I agree, the motives are diverse. If we are to be intellectually honest about it, however, that would make you as incapable of damning the motives in general as it would make me of justifying them in general. In other words, there can be no progress made on this point. I suppose we'll have to say that some insurgent groups cannot justify violence based on their ill motives (say, kidnappings for money), while others canbased on their motives (say, self-determination for the Iraqi people or some subset thereof). Either way, it advances the argument not at all in either direction.

4) Put quite simply, I was not stating that an occupation can NEVER result in a legitimate government. I was saying that THIS invasion and occupation cannot result in a legitimate government. So the Germany and Japan examples are moot. And I'd agree that the previous government lacked legitimacy, but as long as the US continues to control the policy (and - ahem - contracts) on the ground, with their imported puppets or otherwise, you will only have a US controlled government, whatever degraded choices provide the illusion and simulacra of self-determination on the ground. Numbers are meaningless when control does not exist in principle and in concrete action. And, as you should well know, no insurgency would survive this long without substantial support on the ground.

Sorry, must go to Lowe's with the wife now to look for lamps. Nice discussing this with you, in any case. :-)

[northzax]

95. looks like we cordially agree to disagree

if such a thing is possible. I wish I could give your comments the honor or a long, well thought out reply, as you did to mine, but I'm going on vacation and have a flight to catch. Next time, until then, enjoy the lampshopping.

salut.

[anotherdrew]

79. so we committed the same crimes... war makes everyone wrong...

Police Stations tend to be in the middle of populated areas. Blowing them up leads to the killing of people who simply happen to be in the area.


So let's just pull out and try to pretend this never happened? Shall we stay on there and hope for the best? What do you suggest we do about the crimes we have committed? Because clearly many many of the Iraqis are not willing to take your moral high-ground and say that killing collaborators is wrong, so what do we do? We can ONLY control ourselves keep in mind, and all our efforts to control the iraqi's have not worked. I suggest we pull out NOW, ASAP.

[malaise]

71. What a ridiculous argument

The invasion of Iraq was illegal. People are going to resist.

Good point re the French Resistance.

[northzax]

85. remind me, what law was violated again?

come on, I'll make a deal with you. I'll donate $25 to DU if you can cite the law that was violated in invading Iraq. Illegal means a law was broken, right? which one?

[malaise]

100. Unlike you I live on planet earth

and the United States is merely one country in the group. The US violated international law and invaded Iraq. What happens when everyone else decides to violate treaties and laws agreed to by all? Today you have power by virtue of your weapons' arsenal. What happens when you don't - will international law then apply or are you a law unto yourselves. Remember empires rise and fall like the tides.

[mbperrin]

110. Perhaps it will be a law like the last time we tried war criminals..

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html#Charter

Check and read. Convictions and sentences. Laws AFTER the war.

OK?

[Judi Lynn]

11. Sad, sad situation. We've seen what Bush did to Fallujah

after their righteous indignation drove them to blow up the vehicle, then hang the bodies of the contractors.

There's nothing they could teach us about evil behavior, despite the pious, haughty, self-glorification, and pompous claims of virtue we've heard from the lying, blood-lusting, criminals running this unholy, depraved spectacle.

[mike_c]

33. put the blame for Fallujah where it belongs....

Bush wasn't there. Sure, he shares the blame, on multiple levels, but the destruction of Fallujah and the deaths of (literally) uncounted thousands of civilians was not his handiwork. It was a war crime committed by soldiers and marines, many of whom undoubtedly looked into the eyes of innocent people before they murdered them.

[marylanddem]

57. Bush is the "commander-in-chief"

And yes, I blame it all, all the bloodshed, on his chickenhawk ass

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. If I were them, that's exactly what I'd do...

Not to be "human" but to embarrass the United States by comparison.

[marylanddem]

38. Unfortunately, they have nothing to gain

By treating a single captured marine humanely - they have been so demonized and we have given them so much cause to despise us...would our troops show mercy? The world is already against us, anyway.

[Kraklen]

40. They've let prisoners go.

Take the italian reporter. She was taken prisoner by insurgents, let go, and then shot by U.S. troops.

It's hard to tell who's got a better track record, the U.S. or insurgents.

[tabasco]

42. That's what I'm hoping.

That is the same reason we should treat prisoners in accordance with international law. First, it is the right thing to do. Second, it increases he chances that our people taken prisoner will be treated humanely. Real soldiers do not abuse prisoners. If you abuse a helpless person you are no longe a soldier, you are a criminal.

[Igel]

68. No, they'd lose it among the people they care about.

Shari'a is very explicit about how you treat prisoners.

Putting panties on their heads isn't licit treatment.

Keeping them alive until the end of hostilities is also not one of them.

Cultural diversity: not just for sociology departments.

[KayLaw]

77. They tried that with poor results

Remember Jessica Lynch? The Iraqis were very kind to her but the Pentagon concocted a phony-baloney rescue and the propagandists said she was raped and abused.

[saigon68]

45. TREATED LIKE GRANER DID TO THEM

Saddam Salih says his US torturers told him he was one of the hooded Iraqi prisoners shown in a picture standing in a row as a grinning female soldier pointed at their genitals.

"This is your picture," one of the guards taunted him, displaying the now infamous photo. "You are the fattest one here and that must be you."

Salih, 29, says he plans to attend Wednesday's court martial of Army Special Jeremy Sivits - the first soldier to stand trial in the alleged abuse of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison

[AzDar]

7. 'Last throes'.... my sweet ass, Cheney! Enjoy your vacation, War Pig!!!!

aaaaarghhhhhh.

[northzax]

9. yadda yadda yadda

post the photo if you got him, otherwise I believe this about as much as I do Bush on Economics.

it's a digital camera guys, take the photo, email it to your webmaster and lets get on with it. it's not like you have to wait for developing.

[Ian David]

16. Any word yet on what they're feeding him? n/t

[TNOE]

23. Brillant Post!

Yes, what will the Limbaughbots have to say about that!

[ClayZ]

56. The moral High Ground "golden ring"

could be grabbed righ now. Is anybody on the same merry-go-round?

MERCY!

[dArKeR]

18. Yahoo - Iraq group says captures U.S. Marine after clash

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050803/ts_nm/iraq_marines_capture_dc_1;_ylt=Ai.gR_vkuKNjw6UJ2kp__0EUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

[leftchick]

20. Pentagon denies U.S. Marine captured in Iraq :Reuters

If they are denying it I would believe the opposite.

Pentagon denies U.S. Marine captured in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday denied a claim by an Iraqi insurgent group that it had captured a U.S. Marine in western Iraq.

"I don't have anything to suggest that is accurate. I have no indication that there are any unaccounted for personnel," Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters in response to questions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050803/ts_nm/iraq_marines_capture_dc_2

[Imagevision]

106. The Pentagon I would trust anymore then I would Bush-Cheney

as far as comments.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Why this may be credible

The Marines acknowledge that at least one Marine broke from the attacked patrol yesterday, and that his body was found "several kilometers" away.

[stanwyck]

22. Please let me know as soon

as anyone sees a name or a team. My son is a Marine in the 2nd division/team 8. Team 2 has been sustaining heavy casualties in the past two days.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. How many are in a combat team?

I'm more familiar with the company designations (Echo 2/5, for example).

[stanwyck]

35. I should be referring to battalion

My son is in the 2nd Marines, combat logistics battalion 8. I believe the 2nd and 3rd battalions are the ones that have received the casualties this week. My son always refers to his team, which is much smaller, only 3-5 Marines. The news reports are always confusing to me because I get only half of what I need in order to determine if he was involved. I just panic every time I see another headline with Marines killed...I keep looking for (and hoping I don't see) the "8" because that would be the real identifier.
We hear from him about every two weeks. He never says where he is. He did send quite a few digital images when he was at the base in Fallujah. I don't believe he's allowed to use his digital camera when he's not on base. He sent "happy" pix...images of him with his buddies.
I imagine some of our DU Marines could explain the breakdown of the numbers. This is all still very foreign to me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. OK. So your son is in (unknown company) 8/? 2nd Marine Division

These guys that were killed today were in 3rd Battalion/25th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, at least according to the following article: http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=38765

What makes it confusing to me is the notion of a "combat team." Since I never was a Marine, and know the structure mainly from reading in military history, I'm just at a loss when they start talking "combat teams," and then include Battalion and Regiment under that umbrella. I'm more used to the Division --> Regiment --> Battalion --> Company --> Squad --> Team structure that prevailed in previous conflicts. In that structure, yes, the "team" is the smallest element, made up of maybe two to three people. It seems to me that they've inserted this "combat team" between Division and Regiment, so that "combat team 2" contains a number of regiments (ostensibly, combat team 1 would also contain a number of regiments). This does seem like a strange grouping, since the super-regimental level is so big. I'm not really sure either, but I think you wouldn't be able to identify your son's unit by combat team. If he is in the 8th logistics battalion of a regiment, then his combat team is unknown to you. In any case, I'm just trying to figure this out with you. You're in my thoughts, as is your son.

[Romulus]

64. "regimental combat team"

Former Marine here, hoping to shed some light.

Though I left the USMC almost ten years to the day, here is my understanding of the terms:

The USMC deploys reinforcesd battalions, regiments, and divisions as self-contained "units." For instance, I was with Battalion Landing Team 3/6 (i.e., 3rd Battalion/6th Marine Regiment) in Somalia 1994. For the expedition, we had various support units from engineers, artillery, EOD, etc., attached to our "normal" battalion to turn it into a "battalion landing team."

According to U.S. Central Command, 14 Marines and a civilian interpreter, assigned to Regimental Combat Team 2, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) . . .

I believe that "team," used here in the context of "Regimental Combat Team," refers to a ground-based unit since there is no amphibious "landing" happening over there. That would mean that "Regimental Combat Team 2" = the reinforced 2d Marine Regiment.
Deployed units often have other replacement sub-units attached to them to fill in slots that are vacant. For instance, my unit was once deployed to participate in a NATO exercise in Europe, but we were short one company that was tasked with some other assignment. A reserve infantry company from NH was activated and attached to us for the exercise, but kept their separate unit identity.

I believe the "II Marine Expeditionary Force" refers to the overall Marine forces in Iraq, and the "II" indicates that east-coast based Marine units make up most of the current Marine force in Iraq. "I" would refer to the west-coast Marine units, and "III" would mean the Pacific-rim based units. "IV" would refer to the reserve forces (I hope we don't have to activate IV MEF)
:scared:

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. That was my understanding as well

Which is why I'm confused about the article stating that the Marines were all from the 3rd Battalion/ 25th Marine Regiment, out of Ohio. I would have thought that "2" refers to a reinforced Marine regiment. So, if I understand you correctly, this battalion from the 25th Marine regiment was added to the 2nd Marine regiment to form a reinforced regiment, or combat team? Is that right?

[Romulus]

98. that's my understanding - filler

Either the whole reserve battalion was activated and attached to RCT 2, or just the scout/snipers may have been sent to RCT 2.

Most USMC scout/snipers are trained at sniper school and have their own MOS of "scout sniper." These school-trained guys are the only ones who field the M40 rifle. The non-school-trained scout/snipers get the same title, but not the MOS designation (IIRC), and are more like recon guys for for the battalion. There was a tryout for the scout sniper platoon, kind of like a lite version of the Navy SEAL tryouts. Very few made it through the full-gear run, endurance swim, navigation tests, etc.

The scouts operated as a team with the trained snipers. The old mix was 4 scouts + 2 snipers = 6 man team. I am not sure what the mix is now, but this latest casualty story may mean things are the same. For instance, last year, a four-man scout sniper team was wiped out in Fallujah.

Back in the day, a battalion only had one platoon of scout snipers (three or four six-man teams). Nowadays, I understand the regiments have their own platoon or company-sized recon units. Maybe these reservists were school-trained, therefore in high demand, and subsequently farmed out to the active duty regimental recon platoon/company? We may never know . . .

[annabanana]

60. my prayers with you and your son..

That he comes home safe, sane, whole and soon.

[leftchick]

29. Here is the Centcom link

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/Casualty_Report.asp?CasualtyReport=20050804.txt

It will be released there first as soon as they are IDed and their families have been notified.

My prayers are with you and your son for his safe return. And may this madness end and he and the rest of our Military stay home.

[redqueen]

46. Oh, God...

Please let this not be true. :(

[veracity]

47. It will be open season on US captives....Here's Why!

All Bets Are Off! There's no way we can expect this Marine, or any other captives to be treated differently from the way we have dealt with Iraqi prisoners. Here's the warning that few heeded:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_-_all_bets_are_off.html

[ClayZ]

53. I call for pictures of splendid treatment,

Spas and martinis, with two elephants fanning him. He should be reading
"Struggle and Peace" and have a heaping table of treats beside him. Perhaps a beach scene with a poster on an easel saying "Wish you were here."

Those pictures would then be splattered alongside the torture photos on every newspaper in the world.


Just a little fantasy her this morning on the Left Coast.

[OneTwentyoNine]

55. I was afraid of this if true....

They won't kill this soldier or others that are caught but submit them to the same kinds of torture that Bush and his Nazi's claim they need to do to get "vital information".

This won't be pretty....

[robertpaulsen]

73. Last time this happened, they sent pictures of a GI Joe doll.

Someone please post the pictures when they arrive. I'll believe it when I see it.

[anotherdrew]

76. if only: Bush offers to surrender in return for release of soldier

[Moderator]

93. Time for a quote from the DU rules:

Since this is a heated thread and some posters are getting very close to the line, here is a snip from the rules:

Do not post messages that could be construed as advocating violence or military defeat against the United States, the U.S. military, US service people, or the people of the United States.

Do not post broad-brush smears against US service people. Do not blame the troops for the mistakes of their officers or their Commander-in-Chief. Show the appropriate level of respect to those individuals who have put their own lives on the line to defend this country.

[leftchick]

96. Video of supposedly dead Marine now on the Internet....

One of Iraq's main insurgent groups, the Army of Ansar al-Sunna, posted video on the internet on Wednesday showing what it said was a US Marine killed in an ambush near Haditha. The grainy video also showed scenes of fighting.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16147906%255E1702,00.html

[Massachusetts]

101. US Marine captured in Iraq

Gonzales, you POS Cheeto Bandito, I hope you (Dickless cheney, bushit and rutfeld), ROT in HELL for making it MORE difficult for OUR TROOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Canuckistanian]

108. Let's hope he wasn't captured by college fraternity boys

They can be rough. :sarcasm:

If this is true, look out for a new level of indignation from the usual RW characters.