What makes a shooting a massacre?
Is it really so hard to understand that one can simultaneously despise the perpetrators of a possible massacre, while simply asking they be at least charged and maybe tried with a guilty verdict? I have received well above my usual share of Nazi and baby killer BS for having the temerity to ask the howling lynch mob, all likkered up and screaming for vengeance outside USMC HQ, to wait for morning.
What offends me most is the implication that by asking for justice, I support massacring innocents. I will flat ass guarantee that I hate the actions of anyone who has done what these Marines are accused of more than any lefty on the planet. Any act such as this damages a well-earned trust that most of America has in the military, it also gives aid and comfort to our enemies who will use it, and already are, as propaganda.
Disclaimer: If this turns out to have been an actual revenge massacre, then I hope all guilty rot in hell. I add this because apparently the overexposure to patchouli renders some unable to understand my position. I will shorten this to: If Massacre, Guilty Hang (IMGH) for convenience.
The following is my view of how the determination will be made as to whether this was a tragedy or a travesty. It could serve as a simple primer about when shooting civilians is sadly acceptable and when it is criminal. I will not discuss the possibility of a massacre because then all of these calculations are void and IMGH. I lay this out as it will likely form the basis for a defense to any charges that may come down.
These are some of the implications of shooting a non-combatant during immediate action and house-clearing operations.
Disclosure: I have never been to Iraq and have no direct knowledge of this incident or anyone involved. I do have extensive experience training teams in hostage rescue and close quarters battle (CQB) and have been on countless training and multiple live operations kicking doors in.
There is one and only one relevant standard for this whole incident and that is the reasonable belief that your life or the life of others is in danger. If that is reasonably believed then deadly force may be employed, absent that belief it may not. There are other factors that would impact this, like rules of engagement, but in this case the Marines ROE obviously included the right to return fire. The question is was there any, and if not why did they fire? If the Marines killed people without reasonable belief they were in danger, then they committed murder. If they had a reasonable belief in their danger, they did not.
There are two distinct parts to an engagement like this. The first is what the Marines did as soon as the IED went off, this is called immediate action and is a very chaotic situation where very little is known and the first priority is to identify and eliminate threats. This is also the most likely time for non-combatants to be accidentally targeted. A large explosion has occurred and it is difficult to determine where the danger lies. Hearing and equilibrium are affected and yet immediate life or death decisions must be made. Acting could kill an innocent; failure to act could jeopardize your whole unit.
Any shootings during this phase must be viewed with a greater amount of forgiveness, as misidentifying someone's actions or intentions is much easier. Unfortunately this can lead to civilians being killed, even though their actions actually posed no threat. What matters is why shots were fired, not whether there was an actual threat.
So if for instance there was a group of men around a taxi and one of the Marines thought they made an aggressive move, it is possible that they would be engaged. Their actions could have been benign, or they could have just been trying to get away. But if the shooter believed they were a threat, that is all that matters, as far as murder is concerned. In addition there is a distinct possibility that stray rounds could cause casualties during this initial phase as fire is laid down to suppress real or received threats. At some point a determination is made as to whether they are still under attack or in a secure defensive position. If under attack then the initial level of self defense is applicable, and they will continue with immediate action to remove any active threats. If they are at least secure from ongoing attack then a change occurs.
After the initial engagement stabilizes and the unit is secured in a defensive posture there will be a tightening of the margin of error as far as what constitutes a threat. It won't be an overly large change, but the lack of immediate danger allows a higher level of threat perception. At this point a decision is also made whether to pursue any identified or perceived threats in the area. If the Marines had taken fire from nearby buildings or from those taking cover behind them, it is likely they would pursue and attempt to kill or capture their attackers. This may or may not have been actual fire, so the threshold is whether they believed they had taken fire. Even if they had not, they might still decide to search nearby buildings to look for those responsible for the IED blast.
At that point the margin for error drops again slightly. Don't misunderstand me, in every case the responsibility is to ensure that no civilians are engaged, my point is that the difficulty of ensuring that is higher the more imminent and active the danger faced or perceived. Once a determination is made to continue operations and enter the buildings absent fire from them, then a threat must establish itself again; the previous explosion is no longer even relevant, except that they may apprehend those thought responsible. They may not use deadly force against them unless they again present an actual or perceived current threat.
Once the Marines began house clearing, they either believed that enemy combatants who had engaged them were inside or they were conducting a search for those possibly responsible for placing the IED. In the first case their actions are really an extension of the immediate actions they took upon being ambushed and consequently more forgiveness is applicable in any case of mistaken identity that results in a shooting. Most Iraqi homes have at least one AK-47 for simple household security and the appearance of such a weapon alone would not brand someone as the enemy in the same way RPGs or heavier munitions would. Those inside the nearby houses could not help but know that an ambush had occurred and that Americans were taking action. In light of that anyone even near a weapon would have committed a suicidal act as it would hardly be able to safeguard anyone against a Marine squad and it's presence would immediately draw fire.
I have been discussing the belief or perception of the Marines because that is the only thing that determines whether this was a tragedy in the fog of war or a criminal act. No amount of moralizing prejudgment by disgraced ex-Marines makes them guilty and no rationalizing about lost buddies can change the truth if it was revenge.
The worst of Murtha's vile acts is that he has helped create an environment where anything less than hangings will be seen as a whitewash. Especially in the eyes of the world, where since an honorable US Congressman has declared their guilt only the corrupt military could free them. Now the best outcome we can have, if this was a justified action, is for the world to believe it was rigged if they are not charged or are freed after trial. And regardless a gold-plated invitation to pile on for the anti-America brigades in our media and overseas has been given.
If the investigation results in charges and there is a trial the jury will be asked to walk in the footsteps of these men and follow the thought processes I have just laid out. They will be asked to determine if this was a horrible tragedy caused by response to enemy action or mistaken identity, or if the worst happened and Marines killed innocents on purpose. I truly hope that the initial leaks and subsequent disregard for presumed innocence are as wrong in fact as they are in their doing. But if the evidence shows that this was not done mistakenly, and that for whatever reason innocents were killed on purpose then I reiterate my hope that all responsible rot in hell. First for the lives that they stole and second for the disgrace they have brought upon all serving honorably. Either way I trust the case will be handled fairly and justice done by the military, much more than I would trust any civilian court.
