The first rule of analysis is to disregard all first reports.

Gee whiz. Prisoners?? Then where was the guard? Jeepers, you don't really think the Marines actually left 5 wounded prisoners in a mosque unattended for 24 hours just so some other Marines could "evacuate for treatment," do you? Preposterous. They were left for dead.

Wrong place, wrong time. Right Marine.

I agree. Like with most "scandals" this past year, the actual facts will probably tell a different story.

I'll wait and see.

The old adage "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" comes to mind. Not sure why, but if I'd been shot in the face the day before (don't know when, how, where... just spit balling here), I'd be pretty jumpy about letting it happen again. No excuses just an observation!

The pristine air war with it's video (whose distribution is closely controlled) of precision weapons detonating on their intended targets is made for television. Ground warfare with its lower, easier clouded perspective is not. Unless we want to show how brutal and terrible a thing war is. If that is the intention, I'd say save it for the post-op. If the intent is to sensationalize and/or hurt our cause, get back on the friggin' bus!

The people who demonize this Marine are clueless. It's amazing to me that some people expect perfection in war. How can they be so dense? How can they be stupid? It's really such a profound willingness to be daft that I can not comprehend it.

This Marine did what he felt he needed to do in a time of extreme danger. Based on his experiences in Fallujah he did what he felt was right. If I had been shot in the face the day before. If I knew that the day before and a block away a terrorist's body had been booby trapped and killed some Marines. If I had been urban fighting for eight days. I would would have shot him too.

Prisoners?
This is Fallujah. This is where the "insurgents" captured, killed, mutilated, hanged and burned American civilians. I don't care if the marines take no prisoners there. What are we supposed to do with them, put them in prison? Kill all the enemy and this whole mess will be over sooner.

Your first link implies that the "Let's watch Bush win Iraqi hearts and minds!" quote is from Kevin Sites, whereas it's actually a comment of Lambert, the blogger there.

I believe I see a logical contradiction here:

Marine who shoots wounded unarmed man in the head at point blank range = guy who responds naturally if regrettably to the pressures of combat.

And yet the official position is still that invading and occupying Iraq was the best way to remove the threat of terrorism from that region. You see what I'm getting at here? An occupying soldier who shoots an unarmed wounded man in the head is responding naturally. So what would be the "natural" response to having your entire block leveled by bombs and seeing your friends and family reduced to collateral damage? Something a little more extreme and protracted, perhaps?

"So what would be the "natural" response to having your entire block leveled by bombs and seeing your friends and family reduced to collateral damage? Something a little more extreme and protracted, perhaps? "

So you're saying the "victim" of the shooting was *not* a foreign terrorist, or a Ba'athist hard-liner or Fedayin fundie with blood on his hands up to his elbows dating back decades and nothing to lose, but in fact just an honest, unassuming local who'd been driven over the edge by the war?

Interesting thesis.

And no, I'm not sure I do see what you're getting at. That liberating a terror-sponsoring nation, eviscerating the UN's terror-sponsorship mechanism, and getting into a position to put direct pressure on three more terror-sponsoring nations is wrong because combat is brutal by its very nature? Not sure I buy that.

Joshua: "So what would be the "natural" response to having your entire block leveled by [hijacked aircraft] and seeing your friends and family reduced to collateral damage? Something a little more extreme and protracted, perhaps?"

Yeah, looks like. And now they reap the whirlwind.

Or did you mean to imply that there is some fundamental (so to say) difference between us and our enemy? Not PC, what?

Three rules for life:

1) Do not attack the US or its allies or interests.

2) Do not cheer those who break rule number 1.

3) Do not stand next to those who break rule 1 or rule 2.

Hey Mitch, you know what I bet would really help with these discussions? If you never ever start a sentence with "So you're saying…" ever again. Because pretty much everything you've ever written after typing that phrase is such a flagrant distortion of whatever it is I *actually* said, I think it just automatically tends to make the tone of the dialogue a bit more hostile than it really needs to be.

Leaving aside the temptation to mock you a little bit with a "So what you're saying…" of my own (and believe me when I tell you that the temptation was well-neigh irresistible), allow me to clarify my point:

IF one believes that it is reasonable that a U.S. Marine who comes from a country unencumbered by Islamic fundamentalism-- who has received training on how to cope with combat conditions and the appropriate handling of unarmed, wounded enemy combatants --may be induced by the conditions of combat and the circumstances of the Iraqi occupation (ie, approximately 1,100 combat fatalities &c) to murder an unarmed man, THEN it seems equally reasonable to suppose that the conditions of that same occupation, which are incalculably worse for Iraqi civilians-- who do not have any of the Marine's training and who, unlike the Marine, did not volunteer to be in the situation they are currently in --may likely fuel a protracted and violent response from the native Iraqis who are suffering under the conditions of the occupation.

Get it?

You take an American and put him in a violent combat situation in a foreign country and it's perfectly reasonable that he might crack and shoot an unarmed wounded man. How much more extreme would that American's response "reasonably" be if it was his town that was being bombed, his friends and family that were being killed, and his country that was being occupied and ravaged? Would he "reasonably" do something unreasonable, like pick up a gun and join a resistance movement?

Of course hind sight is 20/20. The Marine in question did not know that the terrorist was indeed unamred. Perhaps he was hiding a grenade that he was going to use to kill more Marines. Given that at least one dead body had been rigged to explode when touched, how would you go about handling a suspicious body? Would you get close enough to check the pulse, risking triping an explosion, or getting knifed in the stomach? I wouldn't.

What that Marine did, given the totality of circumstances and knowledge of the enemy, did exactly the right thing. Given a questionable situation, he protected himself and his fellow Marines exactly as he should have.

And no, I don't equate what combatants do on the battle field to terrorists sawing off people's heads. Don't be so simple.

"having your entire block leveled by [hijacked aircraft] and seeing your friends and family reduced to collateral damage?"

You know, it's funny you should put it like that. One of my best friends was home in her apartment on the corner of Nassau and John on the Morning of September 11th, 2001. She stood on her roof in the shadow of the smoke from the towers and watched people jumping out of the top-floor windows and slamming into the street. She could hear them land from where she was standing. She figured if the tower tipped her way she'd probably be crushed by the 60th floor.

She opposed the invasion of Iraq and she voted for Kerry in the last election. Evidently she draws a distinction between the invasion of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

And you'll notice that 82% of Manhattan residents did likewise, so I think it's safe to say that my friend may well be representative of people who experienced 9/11 more immediately than the rest of the country.

Jarhead:

"And no, I don't equate what combatants do on the battle field to terrorists sawing off people's heads. Don't be so simple."

Two points:

ONE, I didn't say that what combatants do on the field is the same as terrorists sawing off people's heads. I said that if combat leads to inhumane behavior, then invading a country and killing a whole shitload of civilians might be reasonable expected to produce, at a minimum, a large-scale insurrection.

TWO, shooting the guy in the head at point blank range wouldn't lessen the threat posed by a " dead body [that] had been rigged to explode when touched". So somehow I'm disinclined to believe that was the Marine's primary concern. Furthermore, as far as "the totality of circumstances", I would hypothesize that shooting unarmed wounded men in front of camera crews might actually get *more* Marines killed in the long run because insurgents will be more inclined to fight to the death rather than surrender and get shot in the head while they're lying helpless on the ground.

But that's just me pointing out the holes in *your* "simple" logic. I actually don't have an opinion about what the Marine did; I'm not going to second guess what a soldier does in the field. My original point in this comment thread was simply to suggest that if one believes, as Mitch professed to, that the "pressure, stress, the high emotion of watching your friends get killed and wounded, of being shot at yourself," will logically lead to "GIs killing prisoners", then it would be equally logical to question the wisdom of having invaded Iraq because the "pressure, stress, [and] high emotion" of watching your home community get killed, wounded, and shot at would obviously produce at least a strong a negative reaction on the part of Iraqi civilians.

It's a broad philosophical point. I have no comment on the specific circumstances of this shooting.

Joshua,

Perhaps, but you completely beggar logic by assuming that your scenario is the case in this situation. You *seem* (I'd certainly never wish to put words in your mouth) to be assuming that the "siege" and assault of Fallujah is what drove the "victim" (speaking narrowly) or, more broadly, the "resistance" as a whole. Again, it's an interesting thesis, one that certainly flatters what would seem to be your personal views, but of whose basis in reality I'm still unsure. Do you actually have a breakdown of the motivation of the "resistance" in Fallujah - say, numbers of Ba'athists, Sunni fundies, gangsters and foreign thugs, versus innocent Iraqis that have been driven around the bend by eight months of the most porous investment and siege in history?

Was the Marine wrong to shoot the guy? We'll see; I suspect the literal and figurative juries are out. Was the guy wrong to be sitting in a mosque on top of a huge cache of weapons, in a war zone, whatever his motivations? I'm inclined to say "yes", and I'll continue to suspect that neither he nor the other 14 "resisters" in the Mosque, nor more than a thin film of the terrorists as a whole, were the innocent, benighted caricatures you're trying to betray. Are we right to liquidate the terrorists in Fallujah, destroy their weapons, eradicate their base of operations, at the behest of the Iraqi government? I think so.

"You know, it's funny you should put it like that. One of my best friends..yadda yadda...you'll notice that 82% of Manhattan residents did likewise, so I think it's safe to say that my friend may well be representative of people who experienced 9/11 more immediately than the rest of the country."

New Yorkers put up with a lot of sh*t that would nauseate the rest of the US. They submit passively to muggings that would draw a fusillade of gunfire in most of the rest of the country. To fight that, they accept a galloping, arrogant police state. They willingly live with crushing taxes, lousy and hostile services, crumbling infrastructure, in a toxic environment run by amok special interests and with an arrogant, disinterested elite in a place that is, incidentally, tailor-made to be a mass charnel house in the event of any number of natural, accidental or malicious disasters. New York's a fine place to visit, but you'll pardon me if I don't consider them my role models when it comes to voting.

"TWO, shooting the guy in the head at point blank range wouldn't lessen the threat posed by a " dead body [that] had been rigged to explode when touched".

Untrue. If the terr had a grenade - not uncommon - killing him would lessen the threat pretty immediately.

"My original point in this comment thread was simply to suggest that if one believes, as Mitch professed to, that the "pressure, stress, the high emotion of watching your friends get killed and wounded, of being shot at yourself," will logically lead to "GIs killing prisoners", then it would be equally logical to question the wisdom of having invaded Iraq because the "pressure, stress, [and] high emotion" of watching your home community get killed, wounded, and shot at would obviously produce at least a strong a negative reaction on the part of Iraqi civilians.

It's a broad philosophical point. I have no comment on the specific circumstances of this shooting."

OK. Then, as a broad philosophical point, organized crime is also understandable, considering the poverty and oppression from which so many organized criminals hail?

*sigh*
"shooting the guy in the head at point blank range wouldn't lessen the threat posed by a " dead body [that] had been rigged to explode when touched". So somehow I'm disinclined to believe that was the Marine's primary concern"

Would it lessen the threat if he (the insurgent) "Perhaps... was hiding a grenade that he was going to use to kill more Marines."? Or if the terrorist was otherwise "playing opossum" in order to ambush Marines? I think it would.

"You *seem* (I'd certainly never wish to put words in your mouth) to be assuming that the "siege" and assault of Fallujah is what drove the "victim" (speaking narrowly) or, more broadly, the "resistance" as a whole. Again, it's an interesting thesis, one that certainly flatters what would seem to be your personal views, but of whose basis in reality I'm still unsure."

Ditto

"You *seem* (I'd certainly never wish to put words in your mouth) to be assuming that the 'siege' and assault of Fallujah is what drove the 'victim' (speaking narrowly) or, more broadly, the 'resistance' as a whole."

I'm not assuming anything, Mitch. What I'm suggesting is that, applying your defense of the Marine in question to the entire country of Iraq, the invasion could be considered regressive because it may incite more violence from the civilian population of the country.

I have no theory about the motives or character of the specific victim (you put that word in quotes, but the fact remains that he was unarmed and wounded) in question, nor even about the characteristics of the resistance as a whole. That wasn't the point. The point was that the invasion may produce more insurgents than it destroys. Something along the lines of the old joke, "100 terrorists minus 1 terrorist equals 110 terrorists".

"May" incite more violence. Again, it's a thesis. Here's mine: the potential violence is a constant. The variable is, will it all happen over the course of a few weeks in Fallujah et al, or will it happen over the course of 20 years, scattered from Istanbul to Chicago?

And I suggest that 100-1<>110, so much as that there are n million potential terrorists waiting to happen; whether they manifest that behavior by shooting women in stadia in Afghanistan and killing Christians in Darfur at some indeterminate time, or by going to Iraq and ending up on the business end of a Marine sniper's shot, it's all a matter of converting potential to actual terrorists (and then converting them in turn to mulch). The equation might be more like:

100 armed, overt terrorists minus one terrorist equals 110 armed, overt terrorists and 200 more that decide they can wait to meet their 72 virgins. Next week, 110 armed, overt terrorists minus 10 terrorists equals 110 terrorsts and 500 more that give the virgins a rain check. The following week, 110 terrorists minus 30 terrorists equals 90 terrorists and 1000 that sit this one out...

You have your thesis, I have mine. Time will tell.

There is no time, whatever your political beliefs, when shooting an unarmed, wounded prisoner in the head is justified. There is no time when this is the "right thing to do."

Jesus Christ, people.

Eric: "There is no time, whatever your political beliefs, when shooting an unarmed, wounded prisoner in the head is justified. There is no time when this is the 'right thing to do.'"

How was the marine in question to know that the terrorist in question was a prisoner, when there was (according to the reports that I've read) no one guarding him?

How was the marine in question to know that the terrorist was wounded and not, as others have, merely pretending to be wounded?

How was the marine in question to know that the terrorist was unarmed?

Given the information he had at the time, how much should the marine have increased his chance of death at the hands of a terrorist to save the life of that terrorist?

To that last question, my answer is, "Not very d*mn much". If it turns out that the terrorist was killed in error, the official position of the US should be "Oops. Mistakes of this sort are less likely if the enemies of the US follow the laws of war."

Sigh indeed. We seem to have a reading comprehension problem here. Jarhead said:

"dead body [that] had been rigged to explode when touched"

Notice, please, the use of the phrase "DEAD body". The operative concept, for purposes of this discussion, is DEAD. As in "DEAD body". Get it?

To which I replied that shooting the guy in the head wouldn't lessen that particular threat. 'Cause, see, what Jarhead said was "DEAD body" that was rigged to explode "when touched". Shooting a body in the head involves touching it, quite forcefully, with a bullet. So if the body was rigged to explod "when touched", shooting it would cause the body to explode because shooting it would involve TOUCHING IT.

And even that might be a good idea, if one were at a safe distance; but this Marine shot the man in the head from point blank range.

Therefore, I surmise that his intention in shooting the prisoner in the head (whether he knew the man was alive or not, though he certainly seemed to believe that this was the case) was not to negate the threat of a "DEAD body" that was rigged to explode "WHEN TOUCHED".

Okay? Now then. On to this:

"OK. Then, as a broad philosophical point, organized crime is also understandable, considering the poverty and oppression from which so many organized criminals hail?"

Well, you didn't use the "So you're saying…" line, but you seem to be having the same problem.

"You have your thesis, I have mine. Time will tell."

Indeed it will. Luckily for you, the next time it tells in the United States it will probably tell in someplace like New York or San Francisco or Boston—or one of those other big cities full of stupid dirty people who, evidently, are too thick to know what's good for them (hm, where have I heard that kind of characterization before?), rather than in the clean and enlightened suburbs of the Twin Cities.

Thank goodness those terrorists don't realize that the cream of America's moral and intellectual crop—the REAL America—lives *outside* the cities.

Ps to Eric: No, no. According to Mitch and Jarhead there *IS* a time when it's the "right thing to do." Weren't you paying attention?

Doug: Any living thing in that city represents a potential danger to the Marines. This does NOT justify a shoot first, ask questions later policy.

The man shows every appearance of being a non-combatant. If there's no guard, guard him. If he seems suspicious, like maybe he's faking, point a gun at him. But you can't shoot him dead until he demonstrates that he is an active combatant. Shooting a non-combatant is a war crime, Doug, not to mention just plain murder.

This is as clear a violation of the laws of war and God as there can be, which is why the marine will be tried for murder. Of course these things will happen in war, much as crime will happen in cities. That such things will and do happen is no excuse for them.

Oh, yow. Where to start.

"Indeed it will. Luckily for you, the next time it tells in the United States it will probably tell in someplace like New York or San Francisco or Boston—or one of those other big cities full of stupid dirty people who, evidently, are too thick to know what's good for them (hm, where have I heard that kind of characterization before?"

Whatever. You tried to wrap New Yorkers and their voting decisions (82% stupid) in their boundless, noble victimhood.

"rather than in the clean and enlightened suburbs of the Twin Cities."

Er, I don't live in a suburb. I guess it's hard to avoid stereotyping, living in garage and walking around jacked up on boutique coffee like everyone else in Seattle.

"Thank goodness those terrorists don't realize that the cream of America's moral and intellectual crop—the REAL America—lives *outside* the cities."

Right. Because they were all slave states.

"Ps to Eric: No, no. According to Mitch and Jarhead there *IS* a time when it's the "right thing to do." Weren't you paying attention?"

PPS to Eric - I didn't say that, but that never stops Joshua.

"The man shows every appearance of being a non-combatant. If there's no guard, guard him. If he seems suspicious, like maybe he's faking, point a gun at him."

It's easy to get holier than thou when you're not there. And the fact is, the rules for an infantryman in a war zone are different than for, say, you.

"This is as clear a violation of the laws of war and God as there can be, which is why the marine will be tried for murder. Of course these things will happen in war, much as crime will happen in cities. That such things will and do happen is no excuse for them."

Again, the rules of war aren't QUITE that clear. It's perfectly legal to, for example, shoot enemy combatants that are running away from you (as John Kerry did), even after they've dropped their weapons. It's legal to shoot them as they hide, whether in ambush or in terror. It's not legal to shoot them after they've surrendered, but the standard for that is a lot more ambiguous than civilians might believe.

No, I'd have rather this not happened (despite the slander to which Joshua so easily resorts). But the circumstances are, at the very least, a lot more ambiguous than you probably know (or are willing to recognize), Eric.

I"ll be posting more on this later. I'm out of time for this tonight.

Eric: "Doug: Any living thing in that city represents a potential danger to the Marines. This does NOT justify a shoot first, ask questions later policy."

It certainly changes the balance between the necessity to ask questions and the propriety of shooting. Please note that the terrorists have chosen to feign both death and surrender in that city, and recently, in order to attack marines.

"The man shows every appearance of being a non-combatant."

If he was wounded, as reported, that is an indication that he is probably a combatant.

"If there's no guard, guard him. If he seems suspicious, like maybe he's faking, point a gun at him. But you can't shoot him dead until he demonstrates that he is an active combatant."

Incorrect. It is the terrorist's responsibility to demonstrate that he is no longer a combatant. There is no requirement that a person be actively prosecuting hostile activities for him to be a target. Any member of a hostile force is legitimate target unless he has surrendered. It may be the case that the dead terrorist had previously surrendered, but the marine could not have known that.

"Shooting a non-combatant is a war crime, Doug, not to mention just plain murder."

Knowingly shooting a non-combatant is a war crime. I've seen no evidence that this happened here.

"This is as clear a violation of the laws of war and God as there can be, which is why the marine will be tried for murder."

No, using ambulances to carry bombs is a greater violation of the laws of war. Feigning surrender in order to get close enough to attack is a greater violation of the laws of war. Prosecuting a war without being identifiably a member of a combatant force is a greater violation of the laws of war. Each of these, by itself, is enough justification to completely ignore the laws of war as regards an enemy that uses these tactics. As a matter of tactical expediency we have decided not to so treat the enemy in Fallujah. The soldier may have violated orders (specifically the rules of engagement); he did not violate the laws of war.

"Of course these things will happen in war, much as crime will happen in cities. That such things will and do happen is no excuse for them."

When the enemy chooses to hide among civilians in all ways, it also chooses to increase the risk to its troops. The jihadis in Fallujah have so chosen; the consequences of that choice are the responsibility of the jihadis.

"It certainly changes the balance between the necessity to ask questions and the propriety of shooting. Please note that the terrorists have chosen to feign both death and surrender in that city, and recently, in order to attack marines."

This is certainly and clearly true--but there are still firm lines and this incident went way beyond those lines.

"If he was wounded, as reported, that is an indication that he is probably a combatant."

It's also an indication that he's not an active combatant.

"Incorrect. It is the terrorist's responsibility to demonstrate that he is no longer a combatant."

What more can the insurgent (he may have been a terrorist but there's an important distinction) do then be unconscious? It's a bit of a Catch-22--if he's unconscious he obviously can't surrender, if he's feigning sleep then he won't surrender. This Catch-22 does not excuse slaughtering people in their sleep on the grounds that it may be a trap. The marine is obligated to act as if the trap is a possibility but not a certainty. Shooting someone in the head is an act of certainty. And in this case that certainty clearly turned out to be wrong.

"Each of these, by itself, is enough justification to completely ignore the laws of war as regards an enemy that uses these tactics."

Actually, none of these by itself, or all of these together, is enough justification to ignore laws of war for the standing, regular army of an occupying country which has signed the Geneva Convention. That document is not signed between the USA and the Iraqi insurgents, subject to both following them. No matter how egregious the enemy's actions are, there is no excuse for ignoring those laws, ever. Period.

Their actions in no way absolve our troops of their responsibilities.

"despite the slander to which Joshua so easily resorts"

A of all, I never said you wanted it to happen, only that my interpretation of your statements was that you believed it was understandable.

B of all, Mr. "I hate it when people use 'tactics' and 'strategy' interchangeably", slander is spoken. When it's written, it's libel. And in either case, nothing I've written about you up to this point would qualify as either so you can just climb down off your high horse there, slick.

"You tried to wrap New Yorkers and their voting decisions (82% stupid) in their boundless, noble victimhood"

No, I didn't. I used them to refute Doug's suggestion that 9/11 justifies whatever happens in Iraq. In other words, I used my friend's immediate and personal response to 9/11 to refute the boundless noble victimhood that so many pro-war Americans cop in connection to 9/11 and point up the interesting paradox that, the less likely a 9/11-style attack is in a given region, the more likely it seems to be that the residents of that region are supporters of the "war on terror".

And I can't help noticing that, while you're unwilling to second guess a Marine who shoots a wounded unarmed man in the head, you're quite willing to call 22 million New Yorkers—including my friend —82% stupid. What with me just having come back from spending a week in that friend's apartment as her guest, with a view of the WTC site from her window, and given that her brother is a former Blue Angel and a combat pilot in Iraq, I can't help being struck, once again, by how nice it must be to live in the little bubble of your world where even the opinion of someone who lived through 9/11 and whose brother is risking his life in the war can just be written off as "stupid" if it doesn't agree wit yours.

I hope you get the chance to share that judgment with my friend and her brother in person some day.

"It's easy to get holier than thou when you're not there."

Yes, I suppose it is.

"Er, I don't live in a suburb. I guess it's hard to avoid stereotyping, living in garage and walking around jacked up on boutique coffee like everyone else in Seattle."

Actually, I just had your location mixed up with Ryan's. In any event, your accusation of stereotyping rings pretty fucking hollow after your little rants about New Yorkers.

"A of all, I never said you wanted it to happen, only that my interpretation of your statements was that you believed it was understandable."

OK.

"B of all, Mr. "I hate it when people use 'tactics' and 'strategy' interchangeably", slander is spoken. When it's written, it's libel."

Yeah, I know that. I also wrote that at work. I keep 3/4 of my brain tied behind my back, of necessity.

"I used them to refute Doug's suggestion that 9/11 justifies whatever happens in Iraq."

Right. By citing their *voting*. Like that has jack to do with anything.

"And I can't help noticing that, while you're unwilling to second guess a Marine who shoots a wounded unarmed man in the head, you're quite willing to call 22 million New Yorkers—including my friend —82% stupid."

OK, I'll clarify. 82% of New Yorkers are morons in the voting booth.

"What with me just having come back from spending a week in that friend's apartment as her guest, with a view of the WTC site from her window, and given that her brother is a former Blue Angel and a combat pilot in Iraq, I can't help being struck, once again, by how nice it must be to live in the little bubble of your world where even the opinion of someone who lived through 9/11 and whose brother is risking his life in the war can just be written off as "stupid" if it doesn't agree wit yours."

a) Pardon my lack of clairvoyance as to your friend's complete background. I wish them both the best of luck. And if they voted for Kerry, I will continue to mock them, by your leave.

b) The irony of the Joshua we all know writing the above with a straight face would get shot down if it were in a hollywood story pitch. Too predictable.

"I hope you get the chance to share that judgment with my friend and her brother in person some day."

No problem.

"Actually, I just had your location mixed up with Ryan's. In any event, your accusation of stereotyping rings pretty fucking hollow after your little rants about New Yorkers."

Ah. And your little rant about how all the real intelligence and moral virtue in this country is (not) in its major cities sprang from nowhere, I presume?

"This is certainly and clearly true--but there are still firm lines and this incident went way beyond those lines."

I completely disagree. The lines are not especially firm, and to the extent the lines are discernable, this incident was clearly on the side of propriety.

"It's also an indication that he's not an active combatant."

It's good to know that you can discern the severity of wounds from across a room. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the same from a marine in the heat of combat.

"What more can the insurgent (he may have been a terrorist but there's an important distinction) do then be unconscious?"

His inability to respond is not different from an unwillingness to respond in the heat of the moment. As far as his status, he was not uniformed and the available evidence indicated that he had been fighting from a mosque. Both of those are war crimes, the former warranting summary execution.

"It's a bit of a Catch-22--if he's unconscious he obviously can't surrender, if he's feigning sleep then he won't surrender."

'War is all hell.'

"This Catch-22 does not excuse slaughtering people in their sleep on the grounds that it may be a trap. The marine is obligated to act as if the trap is a possibility but not a certainty. Shooting someone in the head is an act of certainty. And in this case that certainty clearly turned out to be wrong."

If you have seen the video, the marine said (to my best recollection), "This guy is faking dead, this guy is faking dead." He then paused; there was no response from anyone in the room on either side. The marine then said again, "This guy is faking dead", and fired his weapon. The marine made every reasonable effort to discern the status of the jihadi before shooting. And shooting someone in the head is just good marksmanship.

"Actually, none of these by itself, or all of these together, is enough justification to ignore laws of war for the standing, regular army of an occupying country which has signed the Geneva Convention. That document is not signed between the USA and the Iraqi insurgents, subject to both following them. No matter how egregious the enemy's actions are, there is no excuse for ignoring those laws, ever. Period.

"Their actions in no way absolve our troops of their responsibilities."

The jihadis have a standing policy of ignoring the laws of war. That explicitly moves them outside the protection of those laws. Our decision to afford such protections as we have is purely a tactical and strategic convenience. As I said, the marine may have violated standing orders regarding rules of engagement, he did not violate the laws of war.

"I used them to refute Doug's suggestion that 9/11 justifies whatever happens in Iraq. In other words, I used my friend's immediate and personal response to 9/11 to refute the boundless noble victimhood that so many pro-war Americans cop in connection to 9/11 and point up the interesting paradox that, the less likely a 9/11-style attack is in a given region, the more likely it seems to be that the residents of that region are supporters of the "war on terror"."

Much as you might like it otherwise, the attacks on 11/9/2000, which you might recall hit more than New York City, were attacks on the US, not just on your friend's neighborhood. I knew people working in the the Pentagon that day, too. Oh, and my brother-in-law is an MP and I live in one of the larger cities in the country, so please spare me your appeals to victimhood. If you wish to be a victim, be my guest, I prefer vengeance.

Until such time as NYC successfully secedes from the Union, an attack on NYC is an attack on my country, and I refuse to cede my right to demand revenge merely because I live in a different city.

"Until such time as NYC successfully secedes from the Union, an attack on NYC is an attack on my country, and I refuse to cede my right to demand revenge merely because I live in a different city."

Well put.

"I don't think it is reasonable to expect the same from a marine in the heat of combat."

If this was a heat of combat incident, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. There was no combat. We've both seen the video, and you yourself described the three, unanswered "He's fucking faking dead" the marine had time for (btw, can you at least admit he swore?) before he shot the man in the head. Those three sentences do not constitute "every reasonable effort to discern the enemy's status," especially when the stakes are a man's life.

"Both of those are war crimes, the former warranting summary execution."

What are you even talking about? Neither of those are war crimes, and even if they were there's no war crime provision for summary execution. Summary execution of POWs is, in fact, a war crime--even heinous war criminals have the right to a trial.

'War is all hell.'

True, but we're not demons. That excuses nothing.

"That explicitly moves them outside the protection of those laws."

Okay, you don't seem to understand the concept of human rights. War laws, such as the Geneva Convention, are not treaties we sign with our enemy. They are treaties we sign with ourselves and our God. Nothing the Iraqis do can nullify our obligation to give them the human rights we have agreed to. No matter how repellant their methods (which, frankly, are no worse than any modern guerrilla warfare), we owe this not to them but to ourselves.

"I refuse to cede my right to demand revenge merely because I live in a different city."

I'm trying to find which amendment in the Bill of Rights the right to revenge is under. I'm nit-picking, of course, but I think it's a revealing slip.

Work for justice, not revenge. And go read the Oresteia.

Here. This quote from the NYT pretty much perfectly sums up my thought on the matter:
"It is hard for anyone to imagine the stress of urban combat - the fatigue, the threat, the noise, the filth, the death," a senior Marine officer said Tuesday. "But if the incident turns out to have occurred as it appeared in the video, then it is inexcusable. Understandable perhaps, but not excusable."

I don't blame the Marine for snapping. Hell, I probably would too--because as noted above, War IS Hell, and there is no doubt that it pushes men (and women) beyond themselves into something else, something subhuman. This is how My Lai happens, and Nankin. People who would be horrified at their actions if they had never ben to war instead rape and loot and pillage. No, it's not surprising that this Marine snapped; indeed, it's surprisng more don't.

But by the same token, we don't reward someone for snapping. He may be forgiven, and in some sense, blameless for his actions. But by the same token, that which he now is has crossed an unconscionable line.

He executed an unarmed man. That's not okay. That's not remotely in the same universe as okay. Oh, sure, the man was one of "them," but have we really forsaken our humanity to the point that "they" are no longer human? There are few rules to war, but the rules we go by--that musty old Geneva Convention that we accept because WE'RE THE GODDAMN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND WE'RE TOO PROUD *NOT* TO--those rules must be obeyed, lest the Hell of war become something far worse than Lucifer himself could devise (as too many wars in our species' history have.)

And so this man may be forgiven. But he still must be punished, and Right Quick. And no, this incident is not George Bush's fault in the sense that Bush was not there. And yet this Marine was pushed beyond his boundaries in a war that we did not have to fight; this Marine forsook his humanity for a war he need not have been engaged in. And in that sense, yes, this is our President's fault. If not his, then whose?

"Much as you might like it otherwise, the attacks on 11/9/2000, which you might recall hit more than New York City, were attacks on the US, not just on your friend's neighborhood."

There was an attack on 11/9/2000? Damn those sneaky terrorists, I didn't even hear about that one.

"Until such time as NYC successfully secedes from the Union, an attack on NYC is an attack on my country, and I refuse to cede my right to demand revenge merely because I live in a different city."

Uh-huh. Extend that logic to US attacks on Iraqi citizens. See where it takes you.

"OK, I'll clarify. 82% of New Yorkers are morons in the voting booth."

Mitch, I'm not really even sure where to begin here. You've always been a nearsighted bigot, and you've written a lot of cheap sloppy propaganda, but I've usually been willing to believe, based on your reputation if not your performance, that you're basically a pretty smart guy. Ryan seems to like you well enough and his opinion is generally worth consideration.

But you've never been worth two shits in a debate. That whole business about Bush and prayer was just embarrassing. And now you're down to some crap about how any New Yorker who voted for Kerry is a "moron in the voting booth"?

You know, you've given me all this shit about my condescending and sarcastic attitude, which I freely admit to having. But at least my condescension and sarcasm are aimed at specific people for specific reasons (say something stupid, I'll be sarcastic about it). But I've got half a dozen posts on my blog about how lefties who assume that people who voted for Bush strictly because of religion or because they're stupid are making a huge tactical and factual error, and how if Democrats want to be successful in the future they need to add the perfectly reasonable concerns of rural voters to their economic platform. Democrats fucked rural voters over economically in the '90s and that's a big part of why so much of the South has gone from having voted Democrat in the '60s to voting Republican in the '00s. That's obvious, and any Democrats who ignore that basic reality are setting themselves up to lose.

But your take is, and has been in the past, that anyone who would vote for Kerry is stupid. When pressed, you fall back to the position that-- anyone who'd vote for Kerry is a moron in the voting booth and should be mocked on general principle.

It supports a theory I've been toying with, which is that the 9/11 attacks sent a lot of former liberals into the Republican tent and that one of the results is that the Republicans have now been stricken with a virus that used to be almost exclusively a liberal disease: Republicans now have a bad case of "arrogant, dismissive, chauvinistic ideologues". So you click off these watered-down GOP talking points about the arrogance of the left while simultaneously, with a completely straight face, saying that *everyone* who voted for Kerry is just plain stupid.

I'm a little sad about it. I like commenting here because you respond quickly and the arguments are usually superficial enough that I can fire off a few quick shots between doing other things at work. But I'm starting to worry that I might actually be wasting my time. If you'd ever managed to pull out a decent argument before I'd assume you were just phoning it in now that your guy won. But I'm starting to think you might just be incapable of anything better.

Ah well.

You are a simple one aren't you. Yes, technically the bullet did "touch" the body of the now dead terrorist. You got me. However, and I should have known better than to assume common sense on your part, there is no magic forcefield that sets off a booby trap when an object touches the skin of, or in this case passes through a body. It takes a somewhat more substantial movement of a body, such as might be required to check and see IF said body is dead or alive to set off your typical booby trap. Either a live grenade with the body keeping the spoon in place, or a body on a land mine, or attached to a trip wire or some sort. All requiring more to trigger them than a bullet to the head.

You seem to be assuming that anyone knew he was dead. (And if he was then nobody was "murdered" were they?) If you watched the video, the Marines on sight said "He's faking he's dead" before the Marine shot him. Obviously they didn't know if he was dead or not. Why risk moving the body around to check if he's dead or alive when you can shoot him in the head and make sure he's dead? Once you're sure he's dead you can move on. Until then he poses a threat.

BTW, I never said that if he was dead, that it was OK to shoot him in the head. Through your selective reading (and cutting and pasting) you made up a point that no one else was talking about. I first asked "Perhaps he was hiding a grenade that he was going to use to kill more Marines."

Then, "Given that at least one dead body had been rigged to explode when touched,"

And the important part of the same sentence that you want to ignore, "how would you go about handling a SUSPICIOUS body?" Not dead body, suspicious body. i.e. one that you don't know is dead or not.

Thanks for clearing up that comprehension problem.

And as for the "So what would be the "natural" response to having your entire block leveled by bombs and seeing your friends and family reduced to collateral damage? Something a little more extreme and protracted, perhaps?"

Perhaps something like this, from the London Times

""It was horrible," he told an AFP reporter."We suffered from the bombings. Innocent people died or were wounded by the bombings.

"But we were happy you did what you did because Fallujah had been suffocated by the Mujahidin. Anyone considered suspicious would be slaughtered. We would see unknown corpses around the city all the time.""

Or maybe

"A man in his sixties, half-naked and his underwear stained with blood from shrapnel wounds from a US munition, cursed the insurgents as he greeted the advancing marines on Saturday night.

"I wish the Americans had come here the very first day and not waited eight months," he said, trembling. Nearby, a mosque courtyard had been used as a weapons store by the militants."

Joshua,

Never chalk up to being "not worth two shits in a debate" what you can better ascribe to not really caring to "debate" you.

The shorter Joshua "debate":
1. Joshua opens, perhaps with a point (perhaps not) but always with a condescending, snide jibe.
2. I respond, and call Joshua on his snide condescension.
3. Joshua is offended by being called snide and condescending, and responds with a slightly different variety of snide condescension. As a special bonus, occasionally there's some mention of your past capacity for violence.
4. Bored, I might respond. I might yank your chain. I don't know.
5. You huff about how bored you are with the whole process, and what an intellectual giant you are among midgets.
6. lather, repeat.

How do I need to say this, Joshua? I reject your initial premise; as a practical point, I challenge you to show where the "resister" in Fallujah is motivated by the American assault; you call it a broad philosophical point. OK, so let's look at the "philosophical" point - that an "iraqi" (for sake of argument) might "resist" because of the attacks in Fallujah; they're resisting on behalf of a genocidal regime and/or a band of autocratic thugs. If your town is run by Nazis, and the bombing drives you to shoot at the other guys, you're still fighting on behalf of Nazis.

Some of my best friends are New Yorkers. I think Kerry was a lousy candidate, would have been a horrible president, and that most reasons to vote for him were specious, but I don't disparage the voters themselves, except as tongue-in-cheek exercises in, frankly, yanking your self-important little chain. And go ahead - get me in touch with them. I've debated better people than you, and more involved people than them.

As to the "propaganda" crack - pfft. Whatever. This blog is *my opinion*. Treat it any way you want - and be secure in the knowledge that your opinion is worth exactly what I'm paying for it.

No offense, of course.

Oh, yeah - more on how those Fallujans rose up in anger at the US attack:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008640.php.

I actually feel ripped off. When Josh mentioned that he had a blog I thought he may be someone I've actually heard of. Imagine my disappointment to see that he runs some no name blog where he *STILL* complains that Bush "stole" the 2000 election.

What a waste of my time. Gimme my quarter back.

Yes, Jarhead. You've discovered the secret of Joshua. Behind all the assumed intellectual superiority and insults and crap, he's still just another crank.

That the Iraqi was a "prisoner" is suggested by the person who wrote the story to fabricate just another "gotcha" moment for the mainstream media (and Al Jazeera) to hoot and holler about, complete with video. It's just more anti-American propaganda for the blue-state liberal "intellectuals" to slobber over. So much for supporting our troops -- like voting for the $87 billion before voting against it.

Note the hypocrisy. After the gunner lit up a teenaged VC with his 55mm, John Kerry jumped out of the swiftboat, ran the boy down, and shot him dead in cold blood. For this he was called a "war hero" and handed a Silver Star. The mainstream media asserted such "bravery" was an heroic, courageous and noble act that proved John Kerry's fitness for command as President of the United States.

But let just one wounded Marine in Fallujah cover his buddies' backs by icing an Islamic terrorist and SHAZAM!! It's a war crime that "proves" how corrupt and misguided US policy is in Iraq, that we are an "occupying" force murdering innocent Iraqis, and that the Marines are all cracked-up, blood-crazed killers......you know, just like those Ghenghis Khan guys in Vietnam, get it?

If you haven't figured out what's going on here by now, you just haven't been paying attention.

And then there's Alison who, while she never has anything interesting to say about anything, will always pop in to say something mean about me. I think she has a crush on me.

"I'm trying to find which amendment in the Bill of Rights the right to revenge is under."

Had I claimed a "right to revenge", the answer would be the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In fact I claimed a right to demand revenge. That would be covered by the 1st amendment (I'm sure you've heard of it), specifically, the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

"I'm nit-picking, of course, but I think it's a revealing slip."

Nit-picking is more effective when you get the details right. And what slip are you referring to? I want my government to take a bloody and protracted revenge on the enemy that murdered the citizens of my country on the 11th of September, 2001.

"Work for justice, not revenge. And go read the Oresteia."

In this case, revenge is justice. And I prefer not to seek the opinions of playwrights (or actors, singers, or talking heads) for ethical guidance.

"Here. This quote from the NYT pretty much perfectly sums up my thought on the matter:

"'It is hard for anyone to imagine the stress of urban combat - the fatigue, the threat, the noise, the filth, the death," a senior Marine officer said Tuesday. "But if the incident turns out to have occurred as it appeared in the video, then it is inexcusable. Understandable perhaps, but not excusable.'"

Violation of standing orders isn't commonly excusable. Neither is it necessarily immoral or a violation of the laws of war. As it happens, I think it unlikely that the event was even a violation of standing orders, but that's a question for the marine's chain of command.

"'Much as you might like it otherwise, the attacks on 11/9/2000, which you might recall hit more than New York City, were attacks on the US, not just on your friend's neighborhood.'"

"There was an attack on 11/9/2000? Damn those sneaky terrorists, I didn't even hear about that one."

Fair cop, 11/9/2001 (or 2001-09-11 if you prefer). Please pardon my egregious typographical error.

"Uh-huh. Extend that logic to US attacks on Iraqi citizens. See where it takes you."

Too bad about the underlying logic of your argument (if you will allow me to stretch the term). I'll not recapitulate the fundamental differences between the two cases. We all know them, even if you choose to pretend a moral parity.

"And then there's Alison who, while she never has anything interesting to say about anything, will always pop in to say something mean about me. I think she has a crush on me."

It doesn't appear to me that you have said anything interesting yet either. Perhaps you have a crush on Mitch?

"If this was a heat of combat incident, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. There was no combat."

It was, we are, and thus, you are wrong.

"We've both seen the video, and you yourself described the three, unanswered "He's fucking faking dead" the marine had time for (btw, can you at least admit he swore?)..."

Sure, though as noted I was working from memory. I didn't remember it, and don't find it especially interesting. In the vocabulary of a combat marine, the term he used is a general purpose intensifier. It is only interesting in that it gives support to the idea that he believed his life to be at risk. Are you shocked that a marine in combat would swear?

"...before he shot the man in the head. Those three sentences do not constitute "every reasonable effort to discern the enemy's status," especially when the stakes are a man's life."

Yes, they do. The stakes were not "a man's life", but rather several mens' lives, most of which are a great deal more important to me than the the life of a terrorist. The marine reasonably believed that his life and the lives of his comrades were at risk, waited as long as he reasonably believed he could while waiting for disconfirmation of that view, then took action to mitigate the threat. An imperfect plan, executed immediately and with great violence. That is the nature of combat.

"Both of those are war crimes, the former warranting summary execution."

"What are you even talking about? Neither of those are war crimes, and even if they were there's no war crime provision for summary execution."

Using a religious building to prosecute war is a violation of the laws of war. Prosecuting war while not identifiably a member of a combatant force is a violation of the laws of war, and subjects the violator to summary execution as a spy.

"Summary execution of POWs is, in fact, a war crime--even heinous war criminals have the right to a trial."

I've seen no evidence that the marine could have known that the terrorist (terrorist is an entirely correct word. I read your argument, I disagree) was a POW.

"'War is all hell.'"

"True, but we're not demons. That excuses nothing."

There is unavoidable damage to all sorts of things in war. This was such a case.

"Okay, you don't seem to understand the concept of human rights. War laws, such as the Geneva Convention, are not treaties we sign with our enemy."

Bzzt. Wrong.

"They are treaties we sign with ourselves and our God."

Cool, can I get a copy of God's autograph?

"Nothing the Iraqis do can nullify our obligation to give them the human rights we have agreed to."

First, a large portion of the enemy is not Iraqi. We are not attacking "the Iraqis". Our enemy is a terrorist coalition, not signatory to the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, or any other so-called "laws of war".

Second, those conventions were written with the understanding of the perverse incentives implied by your stated view. Violators and non-signatories aren't covered.

"No matter how repellant their methods (which, frankly, are no worse than any modern guerrilla warfare), we owe this not to them but to ourselves."

As a tactical and strategic convenience, there is something to your argument. That's why there are rules of engagement that are more restrictive than required by international treaties. As to "...no worse than any modern guerrilla warfare...", I note that their tactics are far worse than guerrilla warfare as practiced by the US, GB, Australia, etc. (See Afghanistan for a recent example) Indeed, it is no worse than other terrorist groups. Unlike you, I don't think that excuses their actions in any way.

Actually, I think the 'right to revenge' might be covered under the 10th Amendment; but I'm no Constitutional scholar.

D'oh! Gotta remember to read all the way down before I comment.

Several points:

1) The later versions of the Geneva Conventions do, I believe, cover non-uniformed indigenous militias. That being said, the foreign terrorists would not be covered. We'd be within our rights *as GC signatories*, as I understand it, to give them drumhead tribunals on the battlefield and to summarily shoot them.

2) While the Geneva Convention is only "binding" on signatories (a bit of a yuk, since in international law the only thing "binding" it is either the goodwill or the force of the parties involved), the US *usually* observes it in relation to non-signatories, in order to help protect our own POWs. Thus, Japanese POWs were treated the same as German POWs, even though Germany signed and Japan didn't (and it didn't help our POWs in Japan much).

3) As someone noted yesterday, soldiers are usually allowed a great deal of latitude (subject to the Rules of Engagement) to protect themselves and each other. As I mentioned yesterday, if in doubt about an enemy combatant's status, it's generally legal to shoot. Reading "The March Up" by West and Smith is interesting; Fedayin running from the field were routinely mowed down, and in one case, a Marine Gunnery Sergeant had to order his platoon not to shoot a fat, middle-aged Iraqi militiaman that was trying to surrender, but doing it pretty badly.

War is not law enforcement. The rules are different.

"I prefer not to seek the opinions of playwrights (or actors, singers, or talking heads) for ethical guidance."

I'm not sure where to even begin with this. Comparing the timeless classic that pretty much single-handedly defined the Western tradition of secular ethicalism and rule of law with actors, singers, and talking heads is mind-numbing. Did you just Google Oresteia, saw the word "play," and come running back?

"Had I claimed a "right to revenge", the answer would be the 10th amendment."

Holy shit, I was making a rhetorical point about your attitude, not your actual rights. Obviously you have a right to anything as long as it's within the bounds of the law (which disqualifies many forms of revenge), but that wasn't the fricking point. If you rebut people line by line instead of by the content of their arguments, this debate is nothing more than butting your head against a wall. Take a look at the other half of this conversation, between you, mitch, and Joshua: that's strayed so far from the original point that nothing of value can possibly be written.

That said, my point spelled out without fancy prose so you will see it is this--revenge is a worthless action that causes only a spiral of violence and no resolution. Justice is the only noble goal with which to launch a war.

See the war as you want. But if we ever truly want peace and safety, justice and not revenge must be our motivation.

"Violation of standing orders isn't commonly excusable."

I think it's pretty clear that the officer, who knows more about war conditions and crimes in his little finger than either of us ever will, was not talking about a violation of standing orders.

"Are you shocked that a marine in combat would swear?"

Not at all. I swear frequently when not in combat. Your omission of the fucks seemed related to the "he can do no wrong as long as that's the stars and stripes on his shoulder" attitude. If you just forgot, that's fine. But there has been swearing in Iraq and war crimes too--neither should be white-washed.

As for combat, the mosque was empty save for five unarmed, immobile Iraqis. They may have just left combat, but they were not in it.

"Violators and non-signatories aren't covered."

The absolute fact, you can look it up, is that they are. Remember that Afghanistan is not a signitory but that the administration had to declare the prisoners there "enemy combatants" rather than POWs in order to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. And remember that this designation is being thrown out of court level after level.

As for guerrilla warfare, the US, GB, and Australia have standing armies and no wars on their soil, therefore they cannot practice true guerrilla warfare. There is virtually no difference between these tactics and those of the Vietcong, Khmer Rouge, Che Guevara, the Israeli Irgun, Latvian and Lithuanian resistance against the Soviets, and elements of the American Revolutionary War. The tactics in those Asian land wars could be considered far more brutal, actually.

I'm not claiming this excuses their tactics in the slightest, but I'm trying to ward of the sense of Iraqi war exceptionalism that invariably arises in current American sentiments: the enemies are always claimed to be more evil, old standards not to apply because these are "terrorists," we're fighting a "new kind of war/enemy," etc., etc.

In reality, the Iraq War resembles nothing so much as every single 20th century land war of occupation, the vast majority with asymmetrical warfare. There is no exceptional element to it, neither the enemies nor their tactics are worse or different, only the names and maps have changed. With few exceptions, the occupying power is thrown out, though barely chastened; the real damage is to the invaded country which almost never recovers from instability and despotism. Originally I thought this war would be different because of our overwhelming might, now it appears to be going to script. Our overwhelming might is not exaggerated, but does nothing to change the dynamics of asymmetrical war. Exceptionalism clouds our ability to make good decisions based on the bad decisions of our predecessors, and perhaps even worse allows us to compromise our morality by ignoring the limits in war that we had carved out in the horrors of the past ones.

What was wrong in every war previous is still wrong.

There's more, but I wrote way too much and need to get back to my history thesis.

Let me clarify a point in that last little rant. When I said "neither the enemies nor their tactics are worse" I was referring not to the terrorists but the insurgents, which make up the vast majority of our problem in Iraq. The terrorsits, particularly the foreign ones, are worse and so are their tactics. However, it should be noted that the systematic use of violence against civilians has been a large element of every guerrilla campaign, campaigns that we've supported and opposed. Again, not excusing it but putting it in historical context.

The vast majority of the people we're killing in Iraq are insurgents, not terrorists. The distinction is important. The man this soldier killed was almost certainly an insurgent, as to the best of my understanding Fallujah was a Baathist hotbed, not an Islamist one. Baathists are thugs, yes, but they are for the most part not terrorists.

"revenge is a worthless action that causes only a spiral of violence and no resolution."

Japan in WWII notwithstanding, of course.

"I'm not sure where to even begin with this. Comparing the timeless classic that pretty much single-handedly defined the Western tradition of secular ethicalism and rule of law with actors, singers, and talking heads is mind-numbing. Did you just Google Oresteia, saw the word "play," and come running back?"

Let me give you a clue: "And go read the Oresteia" is not an argument, it is an appeal to authority. Similarly, "And go read 'The Prince'" is not an argument, nor is "And go read the Bible", "go read Heinlein", or "go read 'Das Kapital'. If you wish to make an argument, make it. Flip suggestions to "go read Orestia" deserve only flip responses.

"Holy shit, I was making a rhetorical point about your attitude, not your actual rights. Obviously you have a right to anything as long as it's within the bounds of the law (which disqualifies many forms of revenge), but that wasn't the fricking point. If you rebut people line by line instead of by the content of their arguments, this debate is nothing more than butting your head against a wall."

Pardon me for actually responding to your argument rather than responding to some platonic ideal of an argument that you wish you had made,

"There's more, but I wrote way too much and need to get back to my history thesis."

And apparently are unwilling to actually make. (In case anyone reads this without otherwise noting it, I have moved this last sentence from the end of the comment in question for emphasis.)

"That said, my point spelled out without fancy prose so you will see it..."

I saw it, presumably that is why I responded to it previously.

"... is this--revenge is a worthless action that causes only a spiral of violence and no resolution."

Too bad this argument is primarily supported by fiction and hypotheticals created by philosophers, not by the actual history of, you know, people. Ryan's invocation of Japan, above, is just one such example.

"Justice is the only noble goal with which to launch a war.

"See the war as you want. But if we ever truly want peace and safety, justice and not revenge must be our motivation."

As I previously responded, revenge is often just. The concepts are not antonymns.

I think it's pretty clear that the officer, who knows more about war conditions and crimes in his little finger than either of us ever will, was not talking about a violation of standing orders.

I don't know what "knows ... in his little finger" might mean. But I've actually studied the Geneva and Hague conventions fairly extensively. If you wish a second opinion, you might look at this article (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_11_14.shtml#1100799952, sorry, but the comment engine strips links) by Eugene Volokh, which pretty much supports my position right down the line. Since you seem convinced more by authority than reason, he is a well-respected law professor.

"But there has been swearing in Iraq and war crimes too--neither should be white-washed."

Ooh, swearing in Iraq. Yep, that right up there with war crimes. And no, I actually didn't remember it.

"As for combat, the mosque was empty save for five unarmed, immobile Iraqis. They may have just left combat, but they were not in it."

They were not obviously unarmed, and they obviously were not immobile. There is no requirement that an enemy be actively prosecuting combat for him to be a legitimate target.

"'Violators and non-signatories aren't covered.'"

"The absolute fact, you can look it up, is that they are. Remember that Afghanistan is not a signitory but that the administration had to declare the prisoners there "enemy combatants" rather than POWs in order to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. And remember that this designation is being thrown out of court level after level."

The absolute fact, I did look it up, is that the terrorist did not have a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance", that he had had plenty of time to acquire such a sign, and that he was a member of a force that had, as a matter of policy, committed perfidy on the battlefield. He was not covered by the Geneva conventions.

"As for guerrilla warfare, the US, GB, and Australia have standing armies and no wars on their soil, therefore they cannot practice true guerrilla warfare.

The US liberation of Afghanistan was a classic guerrilla war, and was conducted entirely differently.

"I'm not claiming this excuses their tactics in the slightest."

That is precisely what you are doing, and it is reprehensible.

With few exceptions, the occupying power is thrown out, though barely chastened; the real damage is to the invaded country which almost never recovers from instability and despotism.

With extraordinarily few exceptions, the occupying power stays unless removed by external influence. (See France, Germany, Korea, Japan, Namibia, Italy, the Phillipines [the US did not leave even remotely as a result of indiginous terrorism], Puerto Rico, etc.)

Since you have chosen to ignore the core of my argument while chastising me for paying attention to the argument you have actually made, let me recapitulate:

1) The dead terrorist (if you aid and abet terrorists, you are a terrorist) was not covered by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.

2) No evidence was available to the marine shooter to indicate that the terrorist was a POW.

3) Had said terrorist been covered by any international convention, the decision of the marine to shoot was still reasonable because:

a) He reasonably believed the terrorist constituted an imminent threat to his life and the lives of his comrades, based on the perfidious actions of other members of the terrorists force.

b) He made a reasonable effort to obtain disconfirming information before shooting, and obtained no such information either from other members of the USMC then present or from other members of the terrorist's own force who were shown, within seconds, to be able to communicate.