I don't think this is a war crime. Unlawful combatants can be summarily executed. It wasn't a nice thing to do, but death is a common outcome for people who fire at Marines.

Cranky is right, never before have we had to protect the populace OF the enemy FROM the enemy, WHILE fighting THE enemy. Topsy turvy, and the bad guys have used it well; the only antidote is to make sure the world know that this is what's going on.

The executions described, if they have been described accurately, are likely war crimes. The Marine Corps does not summarily execute anybody. There are a host of reasons not to permit this time of behavior - one of which is that we don't want our troops shot in the back of the head by our enemies. Anybody to dense to see that is beyond stupid. Grow the hell up, boys. Yes, war is hell, but there are rules of engagement and there is NO QUESTION that the events described here don't come even close to being covered by them.

"There are a host of reasons not to permit this time of behavior - one of which is that we don't want our troops shot in the back of the head by our enemies."

Not really. Historically, it has often worked well to start off wars by saying "Surrender now, without a fight, or we'll fight you and then mercilessly kill you all." But there are plenty of other reasons, like maintaining basic discipline.

Still, I don't think that what this guy did was that horrible. Once he got into position, if he had just shot the SRG man it wouldn't be a war crime at all. The fact that he put him through ten seconds of terror first is a tiny thing compared to the events of that day.

your all missing the point.

he did the right thing by killing them but the wrong thing by talking about it.

they were obviously hardcore beleivers who even if brought in as prisoners would have gone on to make trouble later. and thats if he were able to maintain control of them all the way back to his lines. no these kind of bathists are the cockroaches that have to be culled from the herd.

war is death, not cops and robbers where he has an obligation to bring in the bad guys.

as for how he found him, and what he made the iraqi do, he should have just shot him with no theatrics or fanfare.

he had sniper training and I think you see in the mindset that he has killed others with out affording them the chance to surrender, so his attitude was whats the difference.

also if he had found them out of uniform but armed they actually can be subject to summary execution on the field of battle. maybe thats why he had him take off his hat. that way he'd be out of uniform.

Maybe the Iraqi was out of uniform except for a beret nearby, and when the marine came in the Iraqi put his beret on with a smirk, "what can you do to me now" kind of thing. Who knows?

Too bad he had to tell it to a reporter.

The marine was clearly suffering from post-concussion syndrome. No doubt that affected his actions and subsequent interviews.

Yes, war crimes were committed:

As dusk came, two Iraqis resorted to what Covarrubias said was a common tactic among soldiers: They commandeered a private taxi, shot and killed the driver, and sped toward the Marines' bunker with the car's bright lights on.

Riding in the rear of the cab were a grandmother, a 16-year-old girl and her baby. As the driver sped toward the Marines and fired his gun at them, the man in the passenger seat grabbed the baby and held it out the window, apparently hoping it would keep the Marines from firing on the car.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Apr-25-Fri-2003/news/21188509.html

Sick bastards.

I think the actions described by the Marine are acceptable.

*HOWEVER* there is something about this story that bothers me, and I can't pinpoint it. It smells.

A lot probably depends on what the Iraqis were wearing. Does a beret constitute a uniform?

Combatants outside of a uniform can be shot period pretty much anytime you want, even in cold blood. As can unlawful combatants, which these seem to have been, as they apparently used human shields.

Plus, this wasn't in cold blood. It was one Marine with a pistol vs. two Iraqis with AK-47s and a grenade laucher. He might have gotten the drop on them, but what else was he supposed to do? He couldn't capture them by himself.

This is a war, it's not a game or police action.

I'd give the guy a medal.

amen, give him a medal. I can't imagine why he's being investigated except maybe just to cover the Army's butt. Especially with THIS Administration, there's no way a Marine sniper who was nearly killed by these vermin is going to be punished for his actions.

They hijacked a taxi, killed the driver, held the baby out the window, maybe killed the 16 year old too... they deserve to die. What those guys did was several human rights violations right there. Covarrubias did Iraq a favor by killing them.

This was cold blooded murder, and a war crime. Certainly the first Iraqi was wearing a uniform - he had on the beret - presumably he was in SRG uniform. The second guy who knows, but it is not up to individual soldiers to decide to execute even unlawful combatants.

I understand that this sort of thing happens frequently on the battlefield in a major war, and this guy's judgement may have been damaged by the concussion.

However, his bragging about the incident later indicates a lack of remorse normally associated with a sociopath (cold blooded).

He's gonna be breaking rocks in Leavenworth.

Talking about it to a reporter was not smart, but with his injuries I can see how he may have not used the best of judgement in terminating the combatants.
I will support him and don't believe he will be convicted of any crime.

So, this guy is now planning to be a cop?

Heaven help you all when he pulls YOU over.

If his kind of unilateral judgement, impaired or not, constitutes "justice", then he's no longer a Marine, he's an executioner.

His actions are a disgrace to the Corps.

I hope some exculpatory evidence turns up - maybe more about that head wound - but as described I fear the first of the two deaths qualifies as a war crime, little different form killing POW's as occasionally occurred in WWII.

But I do wonder whatever possessed him to describe this way? Just say that both were trying to escape, and there is no problem.

It's not that important, whether it was a war crime or not--as has been pointed out, WE care and we will find out and we will punish him for any wrongdoing.

In Saddam's "army" this behavior would have got him a medal and a fat check. In our military, it doesn't.

That is the important thing.

I like your way of thinking gab.