"e took stock of the location of the grenade strike and its trajectory, figuring it must have been fired from a nearby house. He sneaked inside. Upstairs, he said, he found the Special Republican Guard member with the grenade launcher next to him.

He said he ordered the man to stop, forced him to turn around, and removed his black beret. He shot him twice in the back of the head.

He took the man's military ID as a souvenir."

Not good. Not good at all. I mean, good that the Bad Guys are dead, but not this way. A 21-year Marine knows better. At least he damn well should.

Without critically knowing what was going there, there is no evidence of a second person seeing him committing these acts so he has plenty of way to get out unharm.

Whether or not there were any witnesses, his clear and detailed confession in the interview will probably be enough to get him in some serious trouble.

DSmith, Covarrubias admitted, confessed, whatever to what happened, in a very detailed fashion. IMO there's very little leeway for interpretation of the event.

I can understand why he did what he did, but I also don't understand why he did what he did.

Does that make sense? No, I didn't think so.

I feel for what he did and why he did it, but it was wrong. Shoot someone, even your enemy, in the back of the head?

Wrong.

This Marine was under a diminshed neurological capacity due to his wounds. He will not be successfully convicted if prosecuted.

How do we know the Iraqi was not reaching for something or making a move? Every year plenty of cops are acquitted in civil trials (with a much lower standard of proof) after they shoot kids in the back. This guy was engaging Republican Guard in a WAR, not on a Detroit street. No way does he get convicted.

I do not mourn for this Iraqi piece of excrement.

There are some odd details in the account, and the chain of events is a little too pat. It will be interesting to hear what the inquiry turns up.

His biggest mistake was talking to the reporter.

Henceforth, combatants should be well versed in how to deal with the media in addition to all their other responsibilities.

There was another instance I remember which did not "play well" with the audience. A Marine describing an action proudly referred to a "kill" and then pointed to a dead Iraqi lying on the ground in the background. While this is understandable in Marine talk, I immediately was concerned about the reaction of people like Natalie Mains who has no depth of knowledge or realistic expectation of a combattant.

1. Is the Marine telling the truth? Is this a "sea story?"

2. Was the Republican Guardsman in uniform? If he was, this is a prima facia war crime. You can't shoot prisoners.

3. Did this violate any orders, standing or otherwise, from his chain of command?

I hope he was making this up. If not, he is in deep kim chee.

should not have talked to the press, however head injury sould solve the guilt problem.
as a Marine no longer enlisted I looked on my Gunnery Sergants to take care for us younger Marines, this man I would follow through the gates of hell.

We'll never know, because apparently there were no witnesses.

But I think he's making some of it up. Sorry to say this, but I don't think he shot an Iraqi Republican Guard in a house with a grenade launcher.

I think he shot an Iraqi or 2, quite possibly a civilian(s).

In any event, I don't think he was quite in his right mind, with the head injury and all, so he'll escape punishment, as he should. And I think considering his injury, somebody should have kept him from leaving for his little "stroll."

As detailed in his own account, that is a War Crime. Whether or not there are mitigating circumstances (side effects from concusive blast) will be a factor in determining if he should be held completely responsible.

I'm curious if there is any chance of the responsibility for this incident working its way up the chain of command? I wonder who he told that he was going for a stroll?

It's not the shooting in the back of the head that was wrong, its that in the interview the Marine gave the impression that this man had surrendered. You can't do that to a POW.

I wonder what the Iraqi was wearing?

Damned Shame either way, because even if this WASN'T a war crime, then he still has just about ruined any chance of getting into the police.

It doesn't look good from the facts as presented, but I'm going to withhold judgment for a while.

The guy had 30 sniper kills in the last Gulf war. That's got to do something to your mind. I try to remember that these guys are paying a psychological price for our benefit, as well as taking physical risks.

One thing's certain... wars are always accompanied by atrocities on all sides, and stuff much worse than this has happened that we'll never hear about.

I agree with Belle that his biggest mistake was talking to the reporter.

Apparently he had a concussion at the time. Given his injuries (definite diminished mental capacity) and the nature of the fight, it seems unlikely he'd be convicted of anything. They may have to kick him out of the Marines a few months early, though. Hope they don't screw with his pension.

Have to agree with CM, however: His chances of being employed by any substantial police force are at best diminished since he'd represent a hugely increased liability risk.

As he described it, what he did was a war crime. His best defense will be that he was bragging for the newspapers and what he said wasn't really true.

Everything's fishy. A cry for help maybe? I wonder even about 30 CK's. That's a lot in a war with as few infantry fights as GWI, even in open country.

Pretty much everything has been covered by previous commenters. IANAL but I have studied the Law of Armed Conflict.

1. Prima Facie a war crime was committed. This is because the Special Republican Guard was in uniform (just a beret *is* a uniform inasmuch as it clearly indicates he was no civilian), he wasn't committing an atrocity (thereby de facto forfeiting any claim to POW status), and he was under the Marine's control. Therefore he was a POW, and entitled to protection.
2. Counterarguments : there were other (armed?) enemy combatants nearby, it could be argued that any control was temporary and partial, and I'd agree with this argument. It could also be argued that this was the "heat of battle", but IMHO such an argument is too weak to be sustainable, but would be considered during sentencing. It could also be argued that as other SRG members were committing atrocities in the vicinity nearby, that the SRG as an organisation at that place and time had forfeited all rights to be considered legal combatants. I consider this argument pursuasive, but not conclusive - the atrocities happened too distant in time for my liking.
3. But there's one rock-solid defence: the guy was actually concussed at the time. No competent military tribunal on Earth would convict him.

However, there should be a Court-Martial, because such behaviour is not desireable, and this message needs sending out. There's also a matter of justice being seen to be done.

On re-consideration, I think that both the "Heat of battle" argument and "Atrocity" argument taken together are compelling. As a Hypothetical, imagine if an Iraqi had done this to a US Marine, then said "the Yanks were using babies as human shields - what I did was Justice, not a Crime." Just a personal opinion here, but I wouldn't convict him under the circumstances, and our guys wouldn't be subject to a higher standard of proof. As for the SRG guy - he was S.O.L. (Out of Luck), and paid for the crimes of others.

Not so fast...

The may *claims* to have been concussed at the time. But he related the events later in a way that implied no remorse - he didn't feel he had done anything wrong. Furthermore, he clearly planned and successfully executed his personal mission, indicating that he had not lost his rational mental capacity.

Heat of battle fails because the battle was over, when he set out on a private mission to kill the guy (pre-meditation). It was not an authorized military mission, it was a mission of revenge.

The guy is a killer and should break rocks.

Alan E. with all due respect to your lawyering you wasted a lot of time.

When the investigater sits down to talk to him, he simply says...

"It never happened, I wanted to be in the paper."

Case Closed.

Paul

Maybe it is just a "sea- story" He better hope it is.
otherwize, thats execution of a captured prisioner of war.
There should be witnesses to the bodies of those he claimed to have executed.

either way, it's still a STUPID thing to run around bragging about, especialy to the press. No one said marines were smart though.

Like everyone here, I hope he didn't do it and was only bragging. If he isn't he broke two crimes. The first being the geneva convention thing and the second being one that infantry marines live by: what goes on during delpoymenet stays on deployment