The Fall Guy of Fallujah

Been thinking more about the case of the US Marine caught on tape shooting an Iraqi solider. Shooting a wounded unarmed solider is a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 holds that "persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of combat) by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely".

There is certainly a case for the Marine to be charged, but why is no one talking about the culpability of his commanders and superiors? According to the press release issued by the US Central Command the purpose of this investigation is to "determine whether the Marine acted in self-defence, violated military law or failed to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict". But there are other obvious questions. Why did senior commanders allow a Marine with facial injuries who had recently seen one of his buddies being killed head straight back into combat?

I can see parallels with the case of Lynley England already. Despite clear indications the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was sanctioned, even encouraged by those further up the chain of command, so far only low level soldiers have been charged over the scandal. While Lynley England was involved in some appalling and degrading treatment of prisoners it occurs to me that she was also a scapegoat for the appalling actions and decisions of others. Seymour Hersch alleges that Rumsfeld authorized the use of questionable interrogation tactics to facilitate the accumulation of actionable intelligence. For there to be justice all must be held to account.

Is this pattern going to repeat itself in the case of the Marine? Will he become the public face, the fall guy of Fallujah?

When a Pentagon spokesperson, Lt Colonel Barry Venable commented on media coverage of this case in comparison to other alleged homicides involving soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Division, he said "Not to diminish the severity of the incident, but the difference is that there was a camera present for this one." (Press, 18 Nov) So in the case of the Marine and Lynley England, was the camera the crime?

As well as the Geneva Conventions I also had a look at the US Army's own Law of Land Warfare. It states;

501. Responsibility for Acts of Subordinates
In some cases, military commanders may be responsible for war crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces, or other persons subject to their control. Thus, for instance, when troops commit massacres and atrocities against the civilian population of occupied territory or against prisoners of war, the responsibility may rest not only with the actual perpetrators but also with the commander. Such a responsibility arises directly when the acts in question have been committed in pursuance of an order of the commander concerned. The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof....

So based on Bush being 'Commander in Chief' there could be a case to put Bush and Rummy on trial for war crimes based on the events of Fallujah and Abu Ghraib.

It is becoming pretty clear that US senior commanders are out of control in Iraq. There have been several other possible violations of the Geneva Conventions during the reinvasion. Since my last post, the International committee of the Red Cross has condemned the "utter contempt for humanity" shown by all sides in the fighting in Iraq. Complying with international humanitarian law was "an obligation, not an option."