FURTHER "BALANCED REPORTING"

There is still no word from the BBC television that I have seen, on the A.P. report of the disemboweled woman U.S. forces found on Sunday in the street in Fallujah.

I DO SEE, however, that it is indeed on the web. (Marc from USS Neverdock left a comment at this earlier post, stating that there seems to have been "stealth editing".) I either missed it yesterday, or, per their normal practice, they have indeed updated the page without telling us. Anyway, however they got there, as of 0125, 15 November, buried in mid-article, we now have this, one sentence:

. . . The marines report that they have found the mutilated body of a Western woman in the city. . .

Whoa. Let's not get carried away now, folks.

However, on the story of the U.S. Marine now under military investigation for possibly conducting an unlawful killing of an "insurgent", the reverberation of the moral indignation and outright horror emanating from the BBC "Breakfast" TV report just after 0630 was of such a magnitude that I only narrowly regained control of my coffee cup, preventing it from suddenly being blasted out of my hand and clear across the room. As I struggled to keep standing, I thought, well, if NBC's Kevin Sites (UPDATE: I had read the BBC online story, before seeing "Breakfast") had been around, maybe that "Western woman's" last moments in Fallujah would have been broadcast similarly dramatically on the Beeb:

The US military has announced it is looking into whether an American marine in Falluja shot dead a severely wounded Iraqi insurgent at point-blank range.

Television footage shows US soldiers entering a building as injured prisoners lie on the floor.

The soldier, who has not been identified, has been removed from the field and faces possible charges. . .

On "Breakfast", the "field reporter" noted as almost an afterthought essentially what CNN reports here:

. . . The Marine who shot the Iraqi man had reportedly been returned to duty after suffering a minor facial wound Friday.

About a block away, a Marine was killed and five others wounded by a booby-trapped body they found in a house after a shootout with insurgents. . .

Now, please stay with me for a moment. There is a point to the following.

Although the BBC info site on the Battle of Waterloo says nothing about this, it is well-documented that the night after the battle and for several days after the rival armies had moved on, the wounded remained on the battlefield, and deserters were all around.

Plunderers from all sides stole from the dead, and even killed the living helpless, taking everything from watches to swords to food. Prussian soldiers were witnessed having killed British wounded (and the Prussians and British were allies, by the way) and stripped them of whatever they could steal. All around were small groups of soldiers, (British, French, Prussian) lost, without any idea of where to go, huddled together, protecting each other, protecting wounded, terrified to go out of sight of their small circles of comrades.

And I've mentioned this before. It is worth noting again. More recently, during the Second World War:

. . . During the campaign seventy-three Italian prisoners were murdered by soldiers in the 45th Division. General Omar Bradley ordered two men to face a general court-martial for premeditated murder. The men's main defence was that they were obeying orders issued by Patton in a speech he made to his soldiers on 27th June. Several soldiers said they were willing to give evidence that Patton had told then to take no prisoners. One officer claimed that Patton had said: "The more prisoners we took, the more we'd have to feed, and not to fool with prisoners." In order to protect Patton from the charge of war crimes, Bradley decided to drop the investigation into the murder of the Italian soldiers. . .

I bring the above up because I just don't like the "reporting" tone on this story, and because media perspective -- unsurprisingly -- is once again going completely out the window.

War includes killing. And this is a war with an enemy who slices the heads off non-combatant captives and places the video on the internet, blows himself up, fires from mosques and mutilates non-combatant women. That the shooting of an enemy "insurgent" (allegedly wounded), who moments before was himself involved in close combat with that same U.S. Marine and his unit, should be claimed by some outside observers to be "shocking" is actually what is perhaps the most "shocking" issue of all. (UPDATE: CLARIFICATION: that the "insurgent" was involved is now at best unclear. But that the mosque itself was being used for combat a short while before the Marine allegedly killed the man appears not to be a matter for debate.)

However, also consider this. Everyone grants that media and "international organizations" should be free to jump on the U.S. military for such a killing (whether or not the worst case scenario is the absolute truth, which remains to be seen as of yet) or killings. But they would hardly know what were going on, if the BBC and others were unable to report U.S. forces' actions to nearly the "enth" decimal point.

On the other hand, this enemy murders with impunity outside international law, but gets "cautioned" only insofar as to when they are now and then included in a gentle reminder that everyone needs to fight "nicely". ("All violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law must be investigated and those responsible for unlawful attacks, including deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, and the killing of injured persons must be brought to justice," [Amnesty International] said in a statement issued Thursday.)

Well, we know that long ago the media and "international organizations" granted this enemy a pass to behave like barbarians. But in their doing so, we may actually be witnessing a perhaps unwitting endorsement of U.S. civility. For by holding U.S. forces to more than a lip service standard of behavior under fire that such media does not wish to hold the enemy to, that media is therefore concluding that U.S. soldiers are better, and more law-abiding, than that enemy.

And that U.S. forces are better and more law-abiding than the enemy is true, of course. But somehow, one doesn't really believe that media that reports in that way honestly hopes their reporting will be interpreted in that manner.

UPDATE: The U.S. military's official statement on the matter is here:

The First Marine Division is investigating an allegation of the unlawful use of force in the death of an enemy combatant. The incident occurred in Fallujah, Iraq, during combat operations on Saturday, November 13.

This investigation commenced immediately when allegations were brought forward and is continuing. The purpose of this investigation is to determine whether the Marine acted in self-defense, violated military law or failed to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict. The Marine has been withdrawn from the battlefield pending the results of the investigation.

Based upon the investigation, the convening authority will determine the appropriate course of action. . .

Meanwhile, the mutilated woman and all those who have had their heads sliced off, await the outcome(s) of the investigation(s) sure to be held by "insurgent law enforcement", to determine "whether the 'insurgent(s)' who killed them acted in self-defense, violated military law or failed to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict."

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: From the A.P.:

. . . Charles Heyman, a British infantry veteran and senior defense analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in London, defended the Marine shown shooting the wounded Iraqi in a mosque in Fallujah.

"In a combat infantry soldier's training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely injured," Heyman said. There is the danger that the wounded enemy may be determined to "take one with you," with a hidden firearm or grenade.

If the man makes even the slightest move, Heyman added, "in my estimation they would be justified in shooting him". . .

  ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 16, 2004