| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan | |
| Group: U.S. Marines Broke International Law | |
| 2007-04-15 | |
| We've discussed before, this unit of Special Forces Marines. KABUL, Afghanistan — A U.S. Marine unit broke international humanitarian law by using excessive force during a shooting spree last month that left 12 people dead, an Afghan human rights group The troops fired indiscriminately at pedestrians, people in cars, public buses and taxis in six different locations along a 10-mile stretch of road in Nangahar province after an explosives-rigged minivan crashed into their convoy on March 4, according to the report by Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission. Six people were killed near the blast site, while the other six died on the road as the troops sped away, said Ahmad Nader Nadery, the group's spokesman. The dead included a 1-year-old boy, a 4-year-old girl and three women, the report said. Thirty-five people were wounded in the shootings. "In failing to distinguish between civilians and legitimate military targets the U.S. Marines Corps Special Forces employed indiscriminate force," the report said. "Their actions thus constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian law standards." The group said its report was based on interviews with victims and their families, witnesses, local community leaders, hospital officials and police. A U.S. military commander has also determined that the Marines used excessive force and referred the case for possible criminal inquiry, a senior U.S. defense official told The Associated Press on Wednesday. U.S. military officials said after the incident that the suicide attack was part of an ambush that included militant gunmen shooting at Marines, which may have caused some of the civilian casualties. The human rights group's report said "there is some evidence at the immediate site of the incident to support this claim, but it is far from conclusive and all witnesses and Afghan government officials interviewed uniformly denied that any attack beyond the initial (suicide car bombing) took place." The group also alleges that U.S. troops serving with NATO's International Security Assistance Force in southern Afghanistan returned to the area after the bombing for an investigation and a cleanup operation, which involved the removal of all bullet shells and cartridges. The group said it interviewed a member of Afghanistan's National Police criminal investigations office who said his unit had searched around the site after the incident, but that "ISAF forces had collected all shells, magazines, cartridges from the spot and we could not find any trace or sign of them." U.S. military officials were not available to comment on that allegation. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly pleaded for Western troops to show more restraint amid concern that civilian deaths shake domestic support for the foreign military involvement that he needs to prop up his government, increasingly under threat from a resurgent Taliban.
Another official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the initial military investigation concluded that there was a "reasonable suspicion" the Marines violated the rules for the use of deadly force, and that crimes, possibly including homicide, may have been committed in the aftermath of the convoy being struck. One Marine was wounded in the blast, which also killed the bomber. Army Maj. Gen. Francis H. Kearney III, head of Special Operations Command Central, opened an investigation into the incident after taking the highly unusual step of ordering the unit of about 120 Marines out of Afghanistan. "We deeply regret the loss of life and casualties that resulted from the (suicide car bombing) and the actions that followed," Lt. Col. Lou Leto, spokesman at Kearney's command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., said in a statement. "We will work to prevent similar events from occurring in the future." The Marines are in a special operations unit that deployed from Camp LeJeune, N.C., in January with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit. After Kearney ordered them out of Afghanistan, they returned to their unit's ships in the Persian Gulf. The unit is one of four Marine Special Operations Command companies established since the command was created in February 2006. The one ordered out of Afghanistan was the first to deploy abroad. | |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #26 Marines Special Forces can shoot and hit things ten miles away? I am quite impressed. As for the rest, I'm not at all qualified to have an opinion. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-04-15 23:21 |
| #25 But now someone's 18 yr old bride, 1 yr old kid, and multiple over 90 yr old grandfathers are all over the highway. You left out the baby ducks, fluffy bunnies and little Hadji in his homemade wheelchair, anonymous one. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-04-15 20:48 |
| #24 I respect our armed forces but these spec ops marines shot at everything in sight. ... They shot up everyone who was cutting grass around the river and quite a few civilians driving down the road. Which was the smart thing to do. So long as the Afghani people do not begin capping Taliban fighters who roam around in civilian garb, they are going to suffer right along with them. While mainstream media cheerfully ignores how Taleban fighters endanger civilians, it is the Afghanis who must purchase a clue. If they allow civilian garbed Taliban free passage, then the whole population becomes targets. How is it that the Coalition must do all the heavy lifting while the Afghanis shrug off any responsibility for securing their nation from its previous tyrants? If these opportunist civilian assholes refuse to accept some portion of the duties involved, then they start to become Taliban accomplices. Maybe when more of them end up dead for their inaction they will do something about it. Until then, our troops have the right to do whatever it takes to assure their safety as they go about doing Afghanistan's dirty work for them. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-15 20:45 |
| #23 What is "international humanitarian law"? I, for one, think it would be a better world if the ones shot up were lawyers and their fellow travellers. Lawyers are only needed to protect you from other lawyers. They are a predatory, parasitic breed that needs to be treated as varmints. |
| Posted by: Random Thoughts 2007-04-15 20:10 |
| #22 I'm with Badanov on that - stay alive - the bad guys created the dead people by their willingness to hide/shield among them. GC's recognize that..the MSM won't |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-15 19:09 |
| #21 Think you need stricter ROE's Injun? Intel goes out the window when the lions of islam hide behind the ladies and shoot at you. But excessive force isn't excessive in a hot retreat. Badanov #13 nails it. |
| Posted by: One Eyed Shuper7586 2007-04-15 18:29 |
| #20 there was small arms fire only and they destroyed everything within 10 miles. Ima love a happy ending. SF yawls. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-04-15 18:26 |
| #19 Also law is what elected represntatives have voted. No represntation no law I am ready to accept. For resolutions voted by that organism who was headed by a person complice in the Rwandan genocide and who represents pêople as despicable as mad man Kim Il Sung, Mugabe, the "King" of Arabia, tedrrorist Assad, the Mad Mllahs, Chirac, Zapatero, chief genocider of Sudan, a couple decades ago canibal Idi Amin Dada well such resolutions are not law, are not binding and I will not tell what they can do with them because there are ladies who read this blog. Dissolve the UN now! |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-04-15 18:01 |
| #18 I am sorry IS9349, but it is a warzone and if I was there and somebody started shooting at me, I am letting go with everything I got. I will not die because someone wants to play a pc f*cking war. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-04-15 17:57 |
| #17 I'm glad they made it out of alive but good training and good intel would have avoided this. And addressing the deficits in those areas go straight to the top. |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-04-15 17:54 |
| #16 If the President negotiates a treaty with a foreign and 2/3 the Senate ratifies it, that's international law. unlike the "Kyoto treaty" - which doesn't comply, but the Global Warming/Climate Change advocates pretends didn't suffer a CRUSHING defeat when actually voted on... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-15 17:48 |
| #15 2x4: If the President negotiates a treaty with a foreign and 2/3 the Senate ratifies it, that's international law. Nothing else is, no matter what they claim. So yes, we could commit war crimes, but as JFM noted, it was the "brave patriots and minutemen" who were the criminals. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-04-15 16:39 |
| #14 I'm glad they made it out of alive but good training and good intel would have avoided this. The Marines SF are a new group and excellent in tactics where you can do this kind of stuff in enemy terrority during expeditionary mission during an ambush. But now someone's 18 yr old bride, 1 yr old kid, and multiple over 90 yr old grandfathers are all over the highway. Of course they destroyed the journelists photographs because they would of been trouble. A face saving move. Like I said, proper training and intel next time for ANY special forces brance will avoid this. |
| Posted by: Injun Slating9349 2007-04-15 16:34 |
| #13 but there was small arms fire only and they destroyed everything within 10 miles. If they were innocent, you'll hear there story, otherwise this doesn't look good for these guys Guess you either have a hard time reading or you didn't get the memo. Black letter law: The enemy chose the time and place to attack, and the Marines covered their withdrawal with small arms fire. The enemy is responsible for the civilian deaths. I am more concerned for our people in the field than I will ever be for our armed and hostile enemy. |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-04-15 16:24 |
| #12 i agree 2x4 |
| Posted by: sinse 2007-04-15 16:14 |
| #11 WTF is "international law"? |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-04-15 15:24 |
| #10 I've read a more detailed report. I respect our armed forces but these spec ops marines shot at everything in sight. That is why the whole group is pulled out of afghansitan and only those individials involved are remaining for a hearing. They shot up everyone who was cutting grass around the river and quite a few civilians driving down the road. I have no problem if they were ambushed and returned fire, but there was small arms fire only and they destroyed everything within 10 miles. If they were innocent, you'll hear there story, otherwise this doesn't look good for these guys. |
| Posted by: Injun Slating9349 2007-04-15 15:21 |
| #9 So does you'res. |
| Posted by: Omoluling McCoy4091 2007-04-15 14:57 |
| #8 Man, JFM, your typing goes to hell when your pissed off. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-04-15 14:21 |
| #7 Or were the complainers even there? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-04-15 11:28 |
| #6 Oh no! Not the super duper "international humanitarian" law |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-04-15 11:27 |
| #5 Missed a few, there should be no one left to complain. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-04-15 11:19 |
| #4 not too mention your attackers dress like the locals and ever fuckin one in that country 2 years of age and over carry an AK-47 |
| Posted by: sinse 2007-04-15 11:06 |
| #3 But if the Talibunnies are going to hide amongst the civvies, we have a tough choice to make, and we can't second guess the men making those decisions. Whole article is a lie. Internaytional law 'ie Geneva Convetions) is quite clear: if you hide between civilians you arte a war criminal and enemy may execute you. Also you not ennemy are guilty of victims caused by ennemy's retaliatory fire. And it tells nothing about enemy fighting with an arm tied behind his back (self imposed retrictions becaise those populations are own or ally thta is not international law). The people who made Geneva Conventions knew well that if violating tghem broughtt a benefit they would never be enforced and thuis would fail to reach their goal, that is why they provided for them not protecting those who cheat so if you do it you only made thibngs more unpleasant for everyone but get no benefit. Article should be retitled: "Taliban broke international law, journalists helped them". |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-04-15 11:05 |
| #2 My understanding was the Marine unit sprung an ambush, and then laid down covering fire as they withdrew. SOP. These guys have their asses on the line, so it sucks to be an Afghani when an armed, hostile enemy chooses the place of battle. The Marines followed the rules which are in fact black letter international law. I just hope the Marine that did get hit recovers fully. |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-04-15 10:12 |
| #1 broke international humanitarian law a.k.a. "we're making this up, but your traitorous MSM will never check". |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-04-15 09:19 |