U.S. Marines ponder if "shoot first" justified

Source: Reuters

U.S. Marines ponder if "shoot first" justified
By Adam Tanner
29 minutes ago



CAMP PENDLETON, California (Reuters) - Does a U.S. Marine serving in Iraq have the right to shoot first and ask questions later if hostile forces could be nearby?

The question is at the heart of the case against Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, 27, the U.S. Marine accused of leading a November 19, 2005, massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha.

Witnesses who were on patrol with Wuterich in Iraq have testified that he told them to "shoot first and ask questions later" as they followed up the killing of a popular Marine in their unit.

"This is not what we do," Wuterich's former commanding officer, Capt. Alfonso Capers, testified on Wednesday when asked about the "shoot first" remark attributed to Wuterich that day. "It says everybody is expendable."



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070906/ts_nm/usa_marine_haditha_dc

---

On edit, adding photo of Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich:

Winning hearts and minds, My Lai style.

Is before you get into a situation where hostile forces "could be" nearby. And also consider whether it's such a good idea in the first goddam place. But war is so much fun. The federal coffers just hemorrhage money, reporters get to go to exotic places, and government officials get to push really important papers around. Then everyone writes a memoir and makes even more money! What's not to love about war?

:shrug: It certainly never was the "American" way before Bush* and his gang of thugs came along.

The only expendable thing is the Brass who made this policy.

The subject at the heart of the matter is not shooting SUSPECTED ARMED OPPONENTS first and asking questions later. It is about shooting OBVIOUSLY UNARMED CIVILIANS and not asking questions later at all. Justifying shooting obviously unarmed civilians on the basis that there might be bad people with guns in the general vicinity - a safe bet anywhere in the entire country - is pretty damned thin. But this is watering down the issue and saying that shooting some 6 year old girl in the face would be entirely justified because hostile forces could be nearby. It is not about shooting possibly armed young males.