Talk:Haditha killings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.


This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives

/Archive 1 - Up to June 2007

Contents

[edit] Bias

This article is very bias and the person who made this page has clearly drawn their own conclusion due to political beliefs. No one has been sent to prison for these "crimes" (and no one will). You failed to mention the Spy Plane video that shows numerous air strikes and that the marines called airstrikes on buildings that insurgence were shooting from that had civilians inside. ANY moving person in a warzone is considered a threat, and you only have a split second to deal with thatg threat. Maybe 24 civilians had to die so those marines could live. It would do you good to stop letting your politocs to get in the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.176.232 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds this comment to be very funny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk)
Nope. I'm sure al Qaeda, which apparently has too many supporters, is also laughing yet again.
-- Randy2063 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Get off your soap box please. The op derides bias when their's is clear. If anything the article is too American-centric, especially for incidents that originally occurred outside of the U.S. First the liberal media promotes Iraqi accounts of these incidents without question. The other side has their turn and the Iraqi's are all branded as liars. They are never going to appear at any trial or pre-trial in the US. More space should be given to Iraqi accounts and analysis. They are as relevant as anything that comes out of the US. If nobody steps up I'll re-register and take a stab at it later in the week.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk)
The Iraqi POV, as expressed by the so-called "Hammurabi Human Rights Group" and the McGirk stories were all this article had to go by when it first started. The Iraqi witnesses may not have testified in person but their statements entered into the record, and are summarized in inspecting officer's report (which is now available online).
It's not all of the Iraqis who are branded as liars. After all, SSgt Wuterich will probably be tried for negligent homicide. It's Congressman Murtha and all of his supporters who are the liars. They're the ones who had claimed this was a wild bloodthirsty hunt for revenge. If you read the IO's report (on page 22 of the PDF), you'll see that the prosecution provided no evidence to support this, and that it makes no sense in light of the chronology of events. It's only natural that there'd be a reaction after more facts came out.
I don't know what kind of Iraqi analysis could be useful here. Much of the analysis from Middle East news sources tends to be third-rate propaganda.
-- Randy2063 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
And many in the middle east say the same about American news sources. I'm sure something acceptable can be found that meets Wiki standards so the article is not sourced so completely from American and British news outlets and focused on American opinion and analysis..
I've read the circumstances of how that testimony was collected and presented. Imho it doesn't serve anybodies interest, victim or accused. Non-American contributions to this article are still under represented. By your declarative statement about Murtha it looks like you are presuming that the IO's report or any American military report is somehow a final or definitive word on what happened. Many would disagree and other relevant material should be included.
That is if it can be found to meet standards. I don't think anyone would argue with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk)
The IO report didn't claim to be the final word on the issue. It's really only one step in the process.
American news sources may be biased but there are many, and they're biased in many directions. They cater to a wide variety of POVs, many of which are hostile to the military. The Middle East doesn't have the comparable degree of openess to allow as much dissent from the prevailing POV. (Just ask Salman Rushdie.) That's even worse in Iraq, and worse still in Anbar. What could an Iraqi say that wouldn't put their own lives and families in danger?
I'll be interested in what you can find that doesn't sound like it's meant to appeal to the many paranoid fantasies of the legions of Rage Boys.
BTW: You can sign your posts by using four tildes ("~~~~").
-- Randy2063 00:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you believe that the IO report is not the final word on the issue then why are you recommending changes based on this reasoning "IMHO, the point on conditions at the camp was only relevant to prop up the scenario that Murtha was trying to push. Ware's report pretty much blew Murtha's lies out of the water. I think we should just remove that entire section." I'm not trying to bait or screw with you. Serious question. And ty for the tip on signing. It's been a while. 154.20.26.53 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There are still several possible ways this can all unfold. It could well be that one of the scenarios favoring the defense, such as this or this one (where even the number killed by the marines may be in question) may exonerate the marines completely. (The story we've been told could be wrong beyond our imaginations.)
Or it may be that, as following Ware's recommendation and then assuming a conviction, that the marines were right to pursue the insurgents but Wuterich shot the kids out of negligence (wilful or otherwise).
Finally, it may very well be that the trial proceeds, under whatever charges, and the process uncovers that intentional murder (as compared to negligent homicide) did take place. Regardless of whatever chance that has of occurring, it still falls well short of the insane rampage that Murtha depicted. That possibility went out the window when the facts came out in first hearing.
Whatever is revealed down the road, the conditions at the camp had nothing to do with what they did.
-- Randy2063 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Patience Pendragon39 04:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the news source Newsmax described as conservative while Salon has no description? The word conservative should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stowbilly (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] suggest moving of information

"On November 19, 2005 Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas was killed in a 7:15AM roadside bombing that precipitated the US Marine shooting and grenade attacks. Two other marines were wounded in that attack."

This above excerpt is from the "Killings and immediate aftermath" not the "background" section despite having taken place prior to the "Killings". Please bear in mind that in this article "Killings" is being used as a replacement term for "massacre" and as such refers to the 24 civilians who were massacred, not the people who just happen to have been killed in Haditha.

As one of the excuses offered for the massacre is the death of Terrazas upsetting the marines so much they just had to go shoot something, It's obviously very important that it retains a place in the article. But that place just isn't in the section describing the massacre itself. Elmo 10:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the website I listed with information supporting it being a hoax? It listed reasonable evidence, and the sources of that evidence. If i did it incorrectly, please fix it, or tell me how to. I'm new at this, and fully expect to be dreadful right out of the gate. But to completely ignore the possibility that it might be a hoax is less than impartial. To not even acknowledge that it is being proposed is rather ostrich in the sand.````WynniFitz

I see that somebody removed it without comment. It was probably done because it wasn't considered sufficiently "encyclopedic" to be used here. I do agree with you that Haditha appears to be a hoax, and I see a valid purpose to the link you used.
First, you must remember that this is meant to be like an encyclopedia. It's not like a blog comment where you can direct people to a link. References are supposed to support what you say, but it should never be mandatory that people go there to understand what you're talking about.
Second, references to blogs are rarely considered valid. Most blogs cite references, and when you find something in a blog, you should verify those references and then cite them.
I do think this particular blog you cited is important in understanding where we were when it was written. While I wouldn't cite it now, I do think it might be worth linking to after this is all over. Some will disagree, and they don't even think NewsMax is sufficient. But it'll be important in the end, hoax or not, as we'll need to explain why not everyone supported the fascists' version of the story.
As for this being a hoax, I think this article does show that possibility. It's just being drowned out right now by the tides of anti-Americanism. This article needs work.
BTW: You need to end a post in the talk section with "++++" if you want to get the timestamp.
-- Randy2063 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Did everyone support the fascists version? seemed to me that most public opinion/news sources condemned the massacre rather than buying the USMC's first story. Elmo 14:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes the fascists' version of a story can be true. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt.
The same should have applied here. At this point, Tatum and Wuterich may still be convicted, and if so, it's still possible that their crimes were horrendous. That doesn't mean it's okay to support fascism. And that's why I say these opinions should be recorded.
-- Randy2063 22:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, I'm a little confused here. Are you saying the victims were the facists or the USMC?
It depends on how we define "victim". Whether Tatum and Wuterich are guilty or innocent, the fascists deserve at least part of the blame for operating near civilians. It was not the Marines who fired the first shot.
LCPL Sharratt was probably a victim of the system, and of the Iraqis who wrongfully fingered him. The other two are either likewise victims or perpetrators. The children were almost certainly victims, as were any innocent Iraqis.
-- Randy2063 00:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that some people may not understand who I mean by "fascist". By that I mean the enemy.
-- Randy2063 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
who's your enemy? the iraqi civilians?? Elmo 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
"who's your enemy? the iraqi civilians?? " How about the enemies are the people who attacked the marines, then lied to say the marines massacred people without provocation? The truth is now coming out, and that truth is that insurgents attacked the marines. When the marines returned fire, they killed many insurgents, and insurgent supporters behind whom the insurgents were hiding. Insurgent supporters then made up a story, and anti-Americans accepted that story as the truth. Those marines would not have fired if they had not been attacked. When the attacks stop, then marines and other US forces will leave Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.5.58 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence that any insurgents were ever hiding behind any civilians. Just the opposite. According to the defendants own accounts, including the big drawings they displayed, the insurgents were well out of the way when the civilians were shot. Is there any evidence that id's any of the Iraqi dead in the houses as insurgent supporters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk)
Actually, there is testimony that the eight of the dead were insurgents. As for "insurgent supporters," this was a Sunni neighborhood in Anbar province. It's very unlikely that they'd all be otherwise.
Even if we were to stipulate that all the dead were innocent civilians, it's still fairly clear that insurgents had been in those houses. They may not have been "hiding behind" civilians, but they were operating around them, and they're the ones who picked that location to start the fight.
-- Randy2063 03:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"it's still fairly clear that insurgents had been in those houses. " In which houses? I can find no evidence to suggest insurgents were ever in houses 1 or 2 except for Wuterich's guess that some gunshots must have come from house 1 despite the fact that he didn't actually see any fire coming from that house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of what we really have is testimony. One of the few exceptions may be that the photos appeared to examiners as consistent with a fight and not an execution.
The marines judged at the time that the fire could only have been coming from house 1. Once there, they heard guns being racked, someone inside did have a gun, and someone had been reported to be escaping. Could marines have been wrong about the direction of fire? Maybe, but they're not "guilty-until-proved-innocent." Again, this is in an area where every able-bodied man is expected by their peers to be part of the insurgency.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wuterich says in his opinion the fire could only have been coming from house 1. The Marines say they heard a gun being racked in the next room. Nobody was 'reported to have been escaping' afaik. Wuterich says that was his guess. There was no 'fight' in or at house 1 or 2 again according to Wuterich; just Marines assaulting and facing no resistance apart from the shots heard prior to the order to assault. ?? And it is not our job to judge guilty or innocent. Simply repeating just and misrepresenting others (by more than one party here) select aspects of the Marines story about houses 1 and 2 is not the way to go here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If we're only talking about houses 1 and 2, then yes, I don't recall weapons being found. But it still doesn't mean very much.
Wuterich did say in his CBS interview "that was the only logical place that the fire could come through seeing the environment there." The fact that he didn't see muzzle flashes doesn't in any way mean there was no gunfire from there -- especially from some distance away. Your edits implied this wasn't serious. It wasn't just Wuterich anyway. Lt. Kallop had said it was both he and Wuterich who concluded the fire was coming from there. They had fired at the house at that time, even before approaching.
In this interview, Wuterich also says "he assumed the gunman fled next door." In the actual hearings and/or depositions, all four marines remember one of them shout they had "a runner". They don't remember who said it, but they all remember that it was said.
I reverted your edit after seeing phrases like "an imagined enemy" and "saw to be an unarmed man". That's clearly a POV phrase, and a cynical one at that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Then let's keep it exact and corect. The unsigned comment I responded to above ('How about the enemies are the people who attacked the marines,,,') is wrong on too many counts. Operating around them sounds accurate. The insurgent supporters bit is fluff. Something I have not been able to pin down to my satisfaction, were any weapons, explosives or explosive related material found on any of the dead and if so on who? I've heard many conflicting stories. I'd like a quality link on that point if anyone has one please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Most residents of Haditha did support the insurgents. Anbar province may be on its way to being pacified now, but it was considered hopeless until just recently. As Juan Cole once said about Fallujah: "The US military seems strangely unaware of the realities of insurgencies. It seems to think there are a limited number of 'bad guys,' who can all be killed or captured. The possibility that virtually all able-bodied men in Fallujah supported the insurgency, and that many are weekend warriors, does not seem to occur to them."
The only weapons I'm aware of that they collected were the AK-47s described in Sharratt's testimony. (While that source may not be up to WP's standards, it seems to be a good comprehensive resource for the defense.) For that matter, the Jordanian passports weren't mentioned in this WP article either.
-- Randy2063 18:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The Jordanian passports were found "in a home near the shooting scenes." If the passports and cash had anything to do with the actions that day (and they could have been insurgent material or a criminal enterprise or someone running a business, we don't know) the material was still not in any of the houses in question. The idea that it was relevant to the actions but the insurgents brought it to the area and then left it behind is odd. It's either irrelevant or suggests the Marines targeted the wrong houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. In a way, what was found in other homes is less relevant when insurgents were everywhere anyway. That still doesn't mean the story would have worked out very differently had they initially gone to the house with the passports.
If Monday Morning Quarterbacking could demonstrate that they weren't qualified to figure out what direction fire was coming from then I think it would come out in the trial.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously insurgents were not 'everywhere.' And it did come out in the trial. They specifically went over Wuterich (this was the first time he had ever been in combat) and a few others lack of combat experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not the same thing as saying they weren't qualified to judge where the fire was coming from. It was not Wuterich alone who thought it was coming from that direction.
If you're aware of testimony suggesting they were wrong then please point it out.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is the same thing. It is exactly the same thing and it was the prosecutions point in bringing it up. There's nothing to suggest they were right except for the claim of some of the marines to have heard an AK being racked in the next room. That's it. Everything else is their guess work and imagination. Wuterich himself has said now "We went through that house much the same, prepping the room with grenades, going in there, and eliminating the threat and engaging the targets…There probably wasn’t [a threat], now that I look back on it. But there, in that time, yes, I believed there was a threat." Meaning simply they guessed wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That could be interpreted several different ways.
When did the prosecution bring it up? The trial hasn't started yet, and I didn't see it in Wuterich's Art.32 investigating officer's report, nor in Gen. Bargewell's report.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Lt Col Sullivan said on the USMC site, commenting to a list of what they were going to cover, we are going to look at their experience. This article including at least 2 others on Haditha are now gone. I do not know if that is normal practice for their site. 2 articles on Haditha are also now gone from mil net. Maybe because now there is a trial.
The prosecution can't make much of attacking their lack of combat experience because it invites suggestions then that their training was not adequate. For his own sake Wuterich should shut up and his web site should stop promoting that interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that I had said, "as were any innocent Iraqis," you should be able to figure out the difference.
-- Randy2063 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean to upset you, I was just trying to err on the side of caution as your definition of 'innocent' might be different to mine, as your use of 'facists', 'massacre' and 'victim' etc. have already proven to be. Elmo 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think our differences are are less in definitions and more in who we choose to give the benefit of the doubt.
-- Randy2063 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WorldNetDaily and Hammurabi Human Rights Group

A recent revert remark said WorldNetDaily was a blog, which it's not. It's definitely conservative, but it's widely read and has a paid staff.

This is more than a bit funny because the original source for McGirk's story was a couple of fascists pretending to be a human rights group. Had he not first tried to pass them off as affiliated with HRW, it might not have made it past the editor's desk. -- Randy2063 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is emphatically not a reliable source. It's the web version of a trashy supermarket tabloid, and should be avoided for sourcing. -- ChrisO 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds more like a matter of class consciousness than reliability. Other than WND's blue-collar taint not appealing to the hoidy-toidy crowd, what's the difference from Sidney Blumenthal of Salon and Al Jazeera?
And in what way was the "Hammurabi Human Rights Group" a reliable source?
-- Randy2063 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of the "Hammurabi Human Rights Group" before, so I can't comment on that, but WND has come up in discussions before on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and elsewhere; the prevailing view is that it's hopelessly partisan and shouldn't be relied upon as a single source for an assertion. From my own personal experience, it seems to have real problems with fact-checking (the notorious "Soy turns you gay" story is a case in point). -- ChrisO 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That page on weird soy theories is not a good example. WND identifies it as "commentary" whereas the one you reverted appears to be a news page.
More importantly, it's based on actual interviews with people involved in the case. The only opinions would be that of those identified individuals, and I don't see any anonymous sources (unlike other magazines). I think that makes it relevant even if the site is slanted.
The "Hammurabi Human Rights Group" are those two Iraqi thugs who gave Time magazine's McGirk the pictures that started all this while pretending to be affiliated with HRW.
-- Randy2063 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
funny i thought it was the killing of 24 non-combatants that started all this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.196.78 (talk)
Yeah, that "non-combatants" line had a lot of people fooled. -- Randy2063 16:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
So the 4 year old kid was really a member of alqaeda? Pokeraddict 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That's one who wasn't, and you can add a lot more, but the total won't reach 24.
-- Randy2063 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Dinsmore there is no 'concrete evidence' id'ing any of the 24 as insurgents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its hilarious that anyone actually believes the reports of small arms fire coming from said houses. Get REAL.... Quit being ignorant... Put your self in the shoes of a Alqaeda or anyone in iraq...... you do not fire pot shots at the us military... You know there armed with .50 cal turrets m16s and grenades and you know the procedure of the us military....kill anything that may be a threat.....You ignorant so called adults.....Imagine this in your city in your house....Grow up.....help end this war.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.125.160 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions

Why is there a reactions section? We are quoting the opinion sections of newspapers? That is against Wikipedia procedures. Barney Gumble 22:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose some people prefer to showcase their sensibilities.
Do you have a cite on those procedures?
-- Randy2063 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incentive for lying, and an update

Hey guys, there seems to be a possibility that the witness’s where lying so that they could get a pay out from the US Government. Apparently, it's well known that victims, or their families, will get a $2,500 payout [1][2][3][4][5].

Also, it seems that the evidence is getting weaker [6][7]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.39.24 (talk)

True, but I think that's already been factored into the article, although the incentive for lying part should be more clear, and those payout numbers may not be in there yet.
Keep in mind that the first one was probably their weakest case. The other two face different charges.
We're already beyond the point where the "My Lai" comparison appears ridiculous and naive, but that doesn't mean what happened was not seriously bad.
-- Randy2063 18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that none of the sources posted by the anon actually make the accusation the the victims may have lied for the compensation money, it appears to be original research on his part. Bleh999 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It's an accusation I've seen before.
LtCol. Ware's Article 32 report for LCpl. Sharrat mentions this possibility. The best summary I've seen (with a PDF link to the report itself) is here. That link also gives another example of this phenomenon. They're not so different from American lawyers in some ways. If John Edwards can do this to American doctors, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Iraqi lawyers would do it to U.S. Marines.
-- Randy2063 14:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW: I see that you've cited an article from The Nation by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian (sister of the deported extremist Sami Al-Arian). I'm sympathetic to the view that it's important to cite reactions from such defenders of fascism (and that is what they are, in spite of the title of one of Hedges's books pretending to be on the other side), but given that NewsMax and WorldNetDaily receive some complaints here, I'll use this as a sign that the range of permissible views is widening.
In any case, I do think that such a source should be explained better in the article. Readers should not be given the impression that theirs is a mainstream POV.
-- Randy2063 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The quote from the Nation was meant to be neutral, there are worse things in that article, but I thought that one was relevant it's a referring to an interview and direct quotes from US military members, and I found the article to be a fascinating read, I don't think that can be compared to a POV editorial, using the term defenders of fascism to refer to your opponents seems like empty political soapboxing at best. Did the survivors of My Lai (if there were any) get any compensation, I notice you made the comparison between that and Haditha, perhaps you could shed some light on this, because if they did I'm sure the same accusation could be leveled against them. Lt Calley was ordered released by Richard Nixon, but I'm not sure if that means he was really innocent of murder, the opinion of some military lawyers doesn't absolve the guilt IMHO, most of the participants in that act didn't even receive any punishment, so according to your opinion they are really innocent and the My Lai Massacre article is actually slandering them by falsely accusing them of participating in a massacre (and should be renamed), since no one was really convicted of murder. Bleh999 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hedges and Al-Arian are cherry picking based on their POV (to say nothing of that of The Nation). Someone might try to dress up Hedges as a "reporter" but not Al-Arian. It's possible to find soldiers from any war who opposed it. Quoting members of the British Free Corps may be interesting but it wouldn't necessarily mean very much. I don't think WND or NewsMax found much support here even when using direct quotes by Marines or their lawyers.
I think you've misread my point about My Lai. I only said that the comparison doesn't apply. As I understand it, My Lai was an unambiguous atrocity on a large scale in broad daylight by soldiers who could see what they were doing. Even if everything the Iraqis say is true about Haditha, this is far smaller. The charge against two Marines would be murder from what has come out at this point, but that's giving the Iraqis some benefit of the doubt not given to the accused.
My Lai was very different from that. You could try to draw them closer, but then you'd need to make My Lai into something smaller. Calley's defenders might have done that. I don't think you would.
-- Randy2063 18:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
British Free Corps only existed on a paper with maybe a dozen members, I fail to see the relevance to this especially since they never saw any combat, but I don't think it's fair to suggest its traitorous to oppose a war you fought in, after all those who served earned the right to criticize the war. The basic premise between My Lai and Haditha is the same, if some soldiers go and kill unarmed men women and children, and are never convicted of murder would you describe the events as a massacre? Those who suggest Haditha was justifiable must also believe the My Lai 'Massacre' was a justifiable killing, after all most Vietnamese indeed supported attacks on US soldiers in that village and according to the involved soldiers they supported vietcong insurgents (most of the men of military age were away). The similarities are great between the two incidents, really only the scale of the killing is different, in fact the only reason My Lai ever came to prominent attention is the fact that much of the slaughter was caught on camera by Ronald L. Haeberle, it was kind of hard to argue with photographs of blown out brains of women and children. I'm pretty sure that not many countries like to prosecute their military members even if they commit atrocities, but we shouldn't solely rely on whether they are convicted or not to judge whether the incident was wrong or right. Bleh999 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
As an individual, no, I don't think anyone should rely solely on the decisions of a court to decide if something is 'right or wrong.' As Wiki editors we should stick to the facts; report the basic facts, relevant judgements by the courts, the opinions of involved parties maybe and popular opinion (noted as such) in effected areas if such opinions are especially noteworthy. 142.179.94.211 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Haditha differs from My Lai in that each house was expected to have armed insurgents inside it. It wasn't one leader ordering the rest to kill everyone. If one or two did decide to kill civilians it was on their own. That's what the Marines are being charged with.
I never said it's traitorous to oppose a war. There are many respectable avenues one could take to do so. It's just that consorting with Laila Al-Arian isn't one of them.
My only reference to the British Free Corps was that they also opposed a war, and that they were members of the military. That there weren't many, or that they didn't fight against the Allies isn't material in this respect. It was only one example anyway. There were probably many British soldiers who opposed WWII in its early stages, as it was still controversial at that time. If we broaden this to veterans opposing U.S. entry into WWII, there was Smedley Butler. Broadening further, there's the veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, as odd as that was, although they'd change their minds when the winds changed.
-- Randy2063 01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


It seems the marines might also have an incentive for lying. Pokeraddict 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but they had little incentive to kill innocent civilians in the first place. The residents did have incentive to allow insurgents to use their homes, and when that went wrong, they had plenty of incentive to lie about it.
Unfortunately, worms like McGirk then had incentive to act as though they believe the lies.
-- Randy2063 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course they didn't have a motive to kill civilians "in cold blood", the opposite is true. I'm not sure what the official story is at this point but it seems the civilians were killed while the marines were clearing the building in a hostile environment, with similar results as calling in an airstrike. Of course that might be the wrong interpretation. Perhaps the surviving residents had an incentive to lie, perhaps they had an incentive to tell the truth. Maybe they were supporting the terrorists, maybe they were threatened, maybe they weren't involved at all. It would seem, based on the subsequent events, that they also would have had an incentive not to cooperate with the insurgents. Pokeraddict 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The insurgents knew where they lived. Their brutality provides ample reason to lie.
-- Randy2063 21:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV "Mainstream" and Time Magazine

There are several holes in the Time story. The "journalism" student happened to live 100 yards from the incident and recorded the matter with videocamera. He claimed to be a part of Human Rights Watch but that turned out to be a lie that Tim McGirk himself later corrected.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was already in the article. IAC, much of this article will need to be reformatted. Information from the new Nat Helms article also needs to be considered.
-- Randy2063 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News 9 Aug 2007 -- LCpl Sharratt and Capt. Stone charges withdrawn

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809174227.xs57kf1r&show_article=1

"... Murder charges against a US Marine accused of killing three Iraqi civilians during an alleged massacre in Haditha two years ago have been dropped, the military said on Thursday.

A statement released by the Marines at their Camp Pendleton base in southern California revealed that three charges of unpremeditated murder against Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt had been withdrawn.

The decision was announced in a written ruling from the commander Lieutenant General James Mattis and followed a recommendation from an investigator last month that the charges should be dropped.

"An independent Article 32 investigating officer has considered all the facts and determined that the evidence does not support a referral to court-martial for Lance Corporal Sharratt," Mattis wrote.

"Based on my review of all the evidence in this case and considering the recommendation of the Article 32 officer, I have dismissed the charges." ..."

This will, I assume, eventually move on the AP. htom 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reuters -- http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0921973920070809?feedType=RSS

"LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A U.S. Marine general dropped all charges on Thursday against two Marines in the shooting deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, scene of what Iraqi witnesses said was a massacre by American troops.

The dismissal of charges means neither Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt nor Capt. Randy Stone will face a court-martial in connection with the events at Haditha, which have brought international condemnation of U.S. troops.

Five Marines still face charges in the November 19, 2005, shooting of two dozen unarmed men, women and children in Haditha, which prosecutors say came in retaliation for the death of a beloved comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, who was cut in half by a roadside bomb.

Sharratt, 22, had been charged with three counts of premeditated murder and Stone, 35, with dereliction of duty for failing to properly report the civilian deaths.

..." htom 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent testimony

[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.76.87 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image caption

I didn't edit the caption, as I was unsure of the direction to take. The caption of the image makes a definitive statement that this is a picture of the location. If you look at the image page itself it says:

It purportedly shows the scene in one of the hous

Should this information either A) Be sourced or B) Reflected in the caption? Pgrote 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing

I'm doing some reorganizing to make it a little more sequential.

  • the Charges dropped section should be after the Pre-trial hearings section
  • also, I'm combining all of the dropped charges into the Charges dropped section
  • the Evidence for the killing section belongs partly in the Events section and partly in the Investigations section

Sbowers3 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of uncited material

If these "facts" haven't been verified in 5 months, they're not facts.

Some reports also show that the video used to accuse Marines may have been highly edited.[citation needed] One intelligence officer in the military has revealed a partial video of the Haditha incident filmed from a drone aircraft, as well as other exculpatory evidence in defense of the Haditha Marines. The intelligence officer accuses the NCIS of exaggerating and covering up evidence, such as a polygraph test one marine passed.[citation needed]

JakeZ 08:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When I first read your comment above, I mistakenly thought that the main paragraph was part of your comment. Now I realize that it is a copy of the text that you edited out of the article. I hope you don't object that I added <blockquote></blockquote> around the paragraph to try to clarify the point for other readers. Sbowers3 11:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
As to the edit itself, there are two possibilities: 1) nobody bothered to find citations for actual facts; or 2) they aren't facts at all. Which do you believe is the case? I don't have enough information to have an opinion on that point so I'd just like to hear your opinion. Sbowers3 11:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have seen some suggestions that the UAV Video was edited by NCIS to the disadvantage of the soldiers, but mostly at conservative websites (and conservative newspaper Newsmax News Max article). Adding the accusation at this time may not be justified, but I think the article should mention that the UAV video exists and from CNN reports suggests that the Marines were involved in an all day fire fight, which might support the Marines case. CNN Story of UAV Hardnfast 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If the UAV video is mentioned it should also be noted that the video does not show the actual incidents. The drone making the recording arrived 30 minutes after the killings in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.26.53 (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, if the CNN article is correct, the video provides proof that there was fighting going on in the area, which the defense is sure to use to bolster its case. Conversely the prosecution will point out that it doesn't show anything about the incident itself. Hardnfast 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
NewsMax is retracting that claim. I must have missed it when it first appeared, and I'm glad I did, as it never made much sense.
-- Randy2063 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Huge Factual Errors

The "present living conditions" at Haditha are completely wrong. I'm currently at Haditha where there are showers. The showers are KBR trailers and they've been there for well over a year, possibly two.

Haditha Dam also has an internet cafe, a coffee house and probably one of the better MWR I've seen on a base here in Iraq. The article is riddled with not only inaccuracies, but relies to heavily on the "opinions" of papers like the BBC and Time that are not known for "advocate journalism".

Matt Sanchez 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

On June 20, 2006, the BBC ran an article alleging that conditions in the Kilo company headquarters were "feral." The four hundred men were based at a dam three miles from Haditha. The camp was described as a "decaying rabbit-warren." As a result, unofficial shacks had been set up outside the building to house Marines. Oliver Poole, a reporter who visited the camp, called the conditions filthy and disgusting. He said: The fact that the officers had let conditions deteriorate to the level in which where people living [sic] in such basic environment, that says something," he said. "Where were the officers keeping the standards that the US military keeps in the field?" [62] Conditions in Haditha itself were known to have been deteriorating under militant rule, and attacks on U.S. troops as well as executions of suspected informants were common.[63] Even today, conditions on the Marine Forward Operating Base still have not improved. The base located near Haditha Dam is regarded by Marines as one of the worst places to be stationed due to living conditions. There is no running water, so Marines who need a shower are required to use a water bottle as a "field shower."[citation needed]

Matt Sanchez 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the point on conditions at the camp was only relevant to prop up the scenario that Murtha was trying to push. Ware's report pretty much blew Murtha's lies out of the water. I think we should just remove that entire section.
-- Randy2063 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section for several reasons.
First, as Matt said, the "even today" part is no longer correct. There were no references for that, and that paragraph should have been removed anyway.
Second, as I had said, the conditions at the camp are irrelevant now. I often favor leaving in some anti-American agit-prop for the sake of not letting anyone forget who said it, but I don't think that purpose is served here either.
Third, I just checked out the reference used for this section. It's an article by John Simpson, who also happens to have selectively interpreted (and that's putting it kindly) the Denbeaux study which was sleazy enough to begin with. (If you've ever been fooled into thinking that 80% of GTMO detainees were captured by bounty hunters for a $5,000 reward, it may be because whoever told you that fell for Simpson's article on the subject.)
I remained tempted to leave it as it was, but this article is too big and confusing to begin with. Then the use of John Simpson as a sole reference for that section's main point sealed it.
There was one paragraph on conditions in Haditha itself. I've kept it and moved it to another section.
-- Randy2063 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Simpson's article, at least the one cited in the Denbeaux study page, makes no mention of $5000. Where does that come from? I've seen it in a few places. Matt Sanchez is no source. Comments from a user visiting the site a year and a half later are not a proper source. The line about current conditions should have simply been deleted for alck of citation. Simpson's articles coming from a CBE BAFTA and Emmy winning journo who is the World Affairs Editor for BBC News or other ones commenting on the specific issue, conditions the soldiers lived under, their morale and mindset, are a proper source for use in the Wikipedia. If it's to be refuted it should be by a legitimate source. As it stands the section on conditions was noteworthy, unusual and relevant except for the uncited material. Ware's report is not a definitive statement and should not serve as the sole shaper of this article. Oliver Poole's original article can be found here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/01/wbush101.xml . The real dig against using Simpson is he is really only citing Poole. We should just stick to Poole, the original source.142.179.94.211 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've heard that Poole's article might be contradicted by a CNN reporter who was embedded with the 3/1. If anyone could find info on that I would appreciate it. I'll make no edits till I do some more research. 142.179.94.211 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right that Simpson doesn't mention the $5000. The Denbeaux article must have mixed up that source with another one. Simpson only says "big financial bounties" and he's clever enough to say "it looks as though" when summarizing the Denbeauxs' lawyerly contribution to the neverending stream of propaganda.
The Denbeauxs never say in their report that it was always $5000. They give one example of a bounty, and it was Bin Laden's driver for whom the bounty hunters were indeed paid that much. Nor do they say all of the 440 relevant detainees were turned over for bounties. They just phrase it in a way that allowed the sympathetic columnists to believe it was true. There is no source that says anything close to 440.
Matt Sanchez isn't just another editor here. He's a military writer, and he's been to Iraq. IAC, his statements here aren't being used as a source to put something in. They're being used to reevaluate what was included and should be taken out.
You're right that Poole is more authoritative but I don't think his source is worth much either. It's just one military contractor who may have rubbed some marines the wrong way. Besides that, marines have a great deal of training in primitive conditions. To suggest that they can't handle life away from hot showers doesn't pass the laugh test.
This may be the CNN article you're looking for.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where to mention this. The comments about some of the Iraqi dead being insurgents should not be included and I've removed them. One cites Hyatt's testimony. Hyatt was repeating what the Marines involved had reported to him and that information contained gross inaccuracies like that some were suicide bombers. The cited source qualifies Hyatt's claim as being 'unverified.' The next source cited a defence attorney who claims to be referencing unreleased secret documents. Neither is a worthwhile source. I have not been able to find a better source for these claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Dinsmore and other Marines initially said eight of the 24 Iraqis killed were insurgents, a claim that was repeated up and down the chain of command and in a press release the day after the attack. But under cross examination from Sullivan, Dinsmore conceded he had no solid evidence to support the claim and said it was possible that all 24 of the Iraqi dead were innocent civilians. " http://www.talkshowamerica.com/2007/06/haditah-marine-case-politically.html I can find no basis for the assertion that the 8 were insurgents other than the seriously flawed initial reports from Marines on the scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I've left in Dinsmore's claim that the drone footage proves insurgents were in the houses in question but added the caveat that the drone did not arrive until after the killings. I've seen drone stills on web sites favorable to the charged Marines and they show people who appear to be insurgents in the general area (mainly fleeing to a palm grove) but not at or near the houses in question. More of Dinsmore's exact testimony would help. Anyone know where to find transcripts?

[edit] Removal of the combat infobox

I have removed the combat infobox a few times by now, but there is always someone putting it back without explaining why.

I can explain why I feel that it's inappropriate.

Primarily because putting it there is to take some of the US soldiers version of the event for a fact (those who claim that some of the civilians were armed and were shooting at them) even though it conflicts with other versions.

Secondly, even if we found out that some kind of combat between some of the civilians and the US soldiers had taken place (which seems to be quite unlikely, as there is no support for the claim that some of the Iraqis were even armed[9]), describing this event primarily as a military conflict is just extremely inappropriate.

So, now I'm removing the combat infobox again, and I hope it stays that way. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reinstalling it, again, because the event began as combat. It's not just American soldiers saying this, it's the dead body of Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. It is more complicated than some forms of combat, but combat it is. htom (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That argument doesn't make any sense. This article is not about the death of the US soldier, but of the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians. This is pointed out in the introduction of the article:
"The Haditha killings (also called the Haditha incident or the Haditha massacre) refers to the incident where 24 Iraqis were killed on November 19, 2005 in Haditha, a city in the western Iraq province of Al Anbar."
Even if the death of the US soldier would be included in what's referred to as the Haditha killings, a combat infobox would not be suitable, because an attack with a IED devices doesn't constitute much combat.
Combat infobox removed again. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Merat,
The article is about the entire incident, which began and ended in combat. The fact that it's being employed by propagandists only makes it more about combat. I'm reverting.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll put up a RfC here later and we'll get this dispute sorted out in a nice way. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Should a combat infobox be included?

Should a combat infobox be included in the Haditha killings article or not?

See discussion above.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.183.224.40 (talk) --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Combat was involved. The testimony shows this, and those were the findings in the hearings.
Although the case is still to be decided in trial, one thing already decided is that some of those killed were accidents of war. Read the transcripts and you'll see that requires combat.
Furthermore, if you've been paying attention elsewhere on Wikipedia, every detainee in GTMO is being thought of as "innocent until proved guilty" in these articles -- even when they don't deserve it. If such care can be given to the fascists locked up in GTMO, we can do it for Marines.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean that the US soldiers are innocent because they say so under oath? --82.183.224.40 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. I mean that the findings of military hearings are the results of a legitimate process, and that they have some value even if you don't personally agree with them. The opponents don't have anything like that. They believe the Marines are guilty only because they hate the Marines.
Even if those Marines who have yet to be tried are ultimately convicted, what has already been resolved earlier in the process is enough to say that some combat has occurred.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like it if any of you showed me some neutral sources stating that there was combat. This[10] BBC article is not a week old, and it seems to imply the opposite - that all of the killed civilians were unarmed. We also have the testimony from one of the marines. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong: The BBC story calls it "alleged". They're not reporting new facts about the incident itself. For that, all we have are the two competing storylines, and you have nothing authoritative. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If you read the text more carefully you'll see. The article states that the US soldiers did in fact kill 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, and that Wuterich is alleged to have been leading the massacre. Quoted from the text: "The alleged leader of US troops who killed 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in 2005 in Haditha will not face murder charges". Although, this could possibly be a mistake by the journalist.
Anyway, I still want you to provide neutral sources stating that it is an established fact that combat occurred. The burden of proof is on you on this issue, so if you cannot do that then there's no doubt that the combat infobox should be removed. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you're wrong there. Few skirmishes of this size have had as much evidence as this one has. That said, Video from that day shows "intense fighting" in that area. And as I said before, forensic evidence showed that it happened differently than was told by the Iraqis.
User:Merat, if you're going to push your POV, why don't you just "unquit" and sign in again?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I read both of the articles and none of them support your claims (neither that it is an established fact that combat did occur, nor that there is actual proof that combat did occur). The CNN article only says that there were fighting in the area on that day (which we already knew), not specifically in this event. The second article has no relevance to this discussion.
Concering the account, I felt uncomfortable with it, so I decided to disable it and go by my IP only instead. Does it bother you? --82.183.224.40 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The two articles indicate combat. You're asking us to believe there was combat in that area except for this magic perimeter where there was no combat.
Besides that, the ongoing legal process has so far accepted that there was some combat. You've got nothing but the propaganda released in the beginning.
And yes, I do think you should resume the use of your account, particularly since you've been editing this very article before under your old ID.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
An indication of combat is not a fact, period.
I can not and I do not want to resume the use of my account, because having an account makes it more difficult to quit this madness. I've changed the password to something completely random that I don't remember. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The legal process has acknowledged that there was combat. Get used to it.
You can get them to send you your password. If not logging in is an attempt to convince yourself to stop coming here then it's obviously not working.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Include There was combat. That the cost appears to have fallen on the bodies of innocents as well as the reputations of those responding to an attack doesn't make it not combat. htom (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned in the discussion above, the Haditha killings does not refer to the death of the US Marine but to the death of the 24 Iraqi civilians. And a single explosion is not considered much combat anyway. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This presumes than none of the 24 were illegal combatants, and that the Marine wasn't killed. Perhaps the article should be changed to "25 deaths in Haditha" (I thought it said that at one time.) htom (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't really follow your reasoning. Including a combat infobox is to present it as a fact that there was combat (a claim which has very little support of evidence). Not including an infobox does neither present it as a fact that there was combat, nor that there was no combat. Which of course is the most neutral way to present this event. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No Not Include' Boxes are only good for black and white issues. The article itself can deal perfectly well with grey/gray issues - summary boxes cannot. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not include I've given my reasons in the topic above. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Include The insurgents were shooting, and that was a major factor in the incident. The parts played by two of the marines may not be "black and white" but the rest is. This wasn't just one bombing, with every other Iraqi being innocent, despite what the insurgents and their supporters may say. Analysis of the bloody pictures themselves actually revealed misrepresentations in the Iraqis' stories. That's the very reason why a couple of the marines were exonerated in their hearings. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No Combat Infobox: This whole discussion stinks of OR, there's people talking about whether somebody is guilty or not! We are meant to document the facts, not interpret them! Combat boxes do little to improve an article's quality (people here are focusing over what it's name and presence implies) or legitimacy of said event, so the fact it's causing this level of debate means we should omit it all together. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming the article, Haditha massacre

While I'm at it, I'd also like to propose changing the name of this article to Haditha massacre. Some have felt that we should wait for convictions before doing this, but I think that it is unnecessary. Whatever the outcome of the trial, it will still be impossible to describe the killings of elders, women and children, shot with accuracy from short distance, as anything else than a massacre. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more NPOV to say "killing". That you feel it was a massacre is, well, POV. htom (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but Wikipedia has a large number of articles of events named as massacres. I can give you a few examples[11][12][13][14][15] just to point out that the word "massacre" is clearly not being avoided in other articles. Rather the opposite actually, it seems like it is used whenever it is applicable. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The trials may still be going on but the hearings have already determined that this won't be called a massacre.
The most serious charges now are for negligent homicide.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering how US war criminals have been treated in the past[16], I'd not be suprised if there were no convictions in this case at all. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand. It was not speculation that there won't be a murder charge. The charges have already been made, and they don't include murder. Despite what some people may wish to believe, this was completely different than what happened at My Lai.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand. The idea to use internal US military investigation as a yardstick for truth is... bizarre. Your point to base Wikipedia title or content on such investigation is thusly plain ol' POV. --193.254.155.48 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's you who misunderstands. The U.S. military investigation is the only one based on the rule of law. It's the only one where the participants would face credible penalties for perjury or falsification of evidence. It's also the only one where both views are getting scrutiny.
The critics and/or defenders of fascism don't have any of that. They can make up anything they like with no fear of consequences.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow Randy2063, you like your soapbox. But I guess that's what the discussion boards are for, sort of. ;) The facts are that the defence, the prosecutors and investigating officers have all commented on the shortcomings of the US militaries investigation and judicial process in regards to this incident. The people who want the soldiers to not be convicted of anything have dumped on the US military investigation and trials when they thought it might not work out in their favour. When they suspect the results will be more favorable to their side suddenly the US military investigation is great and should be viewed as the final word. The facts spell out the US military investigations shortcoming and there is no reason to accept it as absolute judgement. Quite the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk)
There probably won't be a final word on this for decades. It's just that this is the best we have right now.
There were certainly some American crimes in WWII, but that doesn't mean we could have regarded Nazi propaganda as a reliable source for any of that.
If you look around, you'll see that some of the worst GTMO detainees are treated gingerly on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:BLP. We should expect no less for those who are fighting fascism.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should be judging the title based on anything other than how the incident is popularly referred to unless I'm missing a Wiki rule or guideline? From the Boston Tea Party to the aforementioned My Lai Massacre the title for an article is more to serve as an easy reference for the user then a kind of judgement by the editors. If the event ends up being commonly referred to as the Haditha Massacre then we go with massacre. If not, we go with whatever the popular reference is. As it stands now with the event still being defined and playing out in the courts, killings is fine with the alternate titles in the intro. I've seen killings, massacre, incident and more in the press. As a useful reference, killings is good. Massacre is a close second imho. If there's convictions even for involuntary manslaughter then massacre would likely become a better choice, again depending on popular useage. 142.179.94.211 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


The soldier said the building was cleared by "fragging". The picture of the interior of the house - if it is a real photo - doesn't even closely resemble a room that had just been fragged. Such a bad lie desires at least a reprimand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just come from the boston massacre section and have read how using the term 'massacre' is not POV, yet here other US editors suggest however that using the word 'massacre' here is POV. You cannot have it both ways, please decide.Twobells (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting comparison but it shows why it should not be called a massacre here at this time. Both are similar in that both incidents were used for propaganda in order to rally one side for war (colonists then, and insurgents now).
That's also why it should not be used here now. It's been over 200 years since the Boston massacre. The colonists won, and they've controlled the terms used to describe events.
The Haditha incident hasn't even finished going through the legal process yet. It is still being used to rally jihadists to war. But what we call this hasn't yet been cemented in history.
In this case, even if the trials determine it wasn't a massacre, it might still be called one if the propagandists win.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frontline

The USA public television network PBS aired an episode of "Frontline" on 19 Feb 2008 about this, entitled "Rules of Engagement". The episode can be viewed online, and there is additional infomation, at the episode webpage. There is commentary on the episode and the happenings here; good for learning about and understanding the military view of the events, although probably not usable as a citation. htom (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah they did. They being the world's premiere documentary unit with access no other source here had. And this Wikipedia page has that Frontline analysis properly listed as an "external link" rather than in the sources list. As not a single fact from it appears in this article.

"And then my own squad got into a firefight, which about 9 out of 12 people got injured that day from grenades or from being shot at, I mean, and saying that there was no firefight, it's just-I mean, it's-I mean, it's a straight slap in the face."

This inaccurate assessment which introduces undeniable and irreconcilable bias is repeated here, with inclusion of statements that there was no firefight, no suggestion to the contrary, no mention of the injuries to US troops and no explanation for why if there was no firefight it took several hours to clear these houses of civilians.
And if you want a measure of how piss-poor this is, understand that there is no fact in war more easily verified than whether a US soldier was injured in a particular incident or not. We do it for politicians 40 years after the fact. And not a single media source listed here has done so other than Frontline. Take a minute to realise what that makes this article. It's WP:BS. Attriti0n (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Who were the American soldiers injured in a firefight after the explosion of the IED? The US military communiques of that day make no mention of them but we already know those contained some lies or mistakes. Specifically who amongst the Americans was wounded after the bombing and during the action in question? Do you have any definite links on this subject besides the comments in the Frontline piece? I can find no mention of it anywhere else. Sorry, I haven't seen it and my computer will not run it. Ty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The events in question took place over an extended period; the shootings of the men in the white car and the first 2 houses happened pretty much immdediately after the IED exploded. The slaying of the brothers happened later. The comment cited above refers to people injured 'that day.' There is no indication Americans were wounded after the IED and prior to or during the killings in the first two houses. The Frontline piece is really good. Just imho but it sounds like the military may be on the right track now; Wuterich has hinted he saw the dead women and children in the first house. The charges are focused on the killings in the second house. Be interesting to see how it plays out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This article suffers from having been started back when most of the sources were tied to fascist propaganda. As with most of the politically-charged anti-U.S. articles here, this one needs a major overhaul.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats an interesting perspective. I presume U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell is enamored with fascism, and thus his report, indicating a callous disregard for civilian life bordering on the criminal, is similarly fascist agit-prop. In fact, the military is so stuffed with fascists that they've all agreed that no-one died from an IED, as intially reported, that the people were shot intentionally. Whether these actions were criminal is up to the military tribunals to decide; there is no argument, however, that they HAPPENED. SiberioS (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the marines were angels -- only that the story has been slanted in the beginning. At this point it appears that Wuterich and his men may have been crude and even reckless, but it's doubtful that it happened anything like the way we were first told.
Regardless how the rest of the story works out, the insurgents did influence how it was told to the media, and people did run with it too eagerly without caring in the slightest about the consequences.
Obviously, Gen. Bargewell did exactly what needed to be done.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Crude and reckless is another man's intent. Either way, as far as I can see in this article, its fairly balanced. It does after all, highlight the fact that most of the men have had charges dropped etc. It does not advocate, one way or the other, how that judgment should be seen (other than including the opinions of other third party's). Including facts that people my independently consider "bad" (or in "good" if that is the case) does not make the article based on "Fascist propoganda". Which by the way, fascist isn't a catchall word; it refers to a very specific type of government and political position, none of which could be ascribed I presume, to Islamic fundamentalists (who represent rather, a theocratic feudalism). SiberioS (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, crude and reckless is very bad -- and actionable -- but it's completely different than how it was first reported. This isn't My Lai.
I'll concede that the article isn't so bad now, particularly compared with the way it started.
The word "fascist" has been used broadly beyond its original meaning since the 1930s. Tom Wolfe said it was because communists didn't like using the phrase "national socialism" to refer to Nazis. It's a little late to try to rein it in now.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is pretty solid right now too. However, just imho, after reading what I think is absolutely everything out there on this subject, from news stories (many of which are pretty poor) to editorials to reproductions of original documents, I think the truth is pretty close to Murtha's original allegations. It's obviously closer to that than the story initially reported by the marines in their first press release. But that's my opinion and of course I could be wrong. As for what is known and verified, the article is ok. One thing i can't find any trace of is the Iraqi government investigation. Be interesting to see results of that. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.29.22 (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we know by now that Murtha's characterization of the marines cracking under the pressure was wrong (to put it kindly). It's also a pretty safe bet that the local "human rights" group was anything but that. This cuts deep into the original McGirk story.
The first press release was a sloppy mistake. The Bargewell report faulted it for making assumptions, and notes it was a point where the issue should have been flagged for investigation. But it didn't find anything malicious in the initial reporting errors made the first day. IIRC, the only evidence of actual cover-up it found was from Dela Cruz's statements, which was later determined unreliable.
If there was an Iraqi government investigation, I can't see that it would be for any other reason than to advantage the faction that writes it. Keep in mind that, while Haditha was a major incident for us, those deaths were a minor bump on the road for Iraq -- other than as yet another opportunity for propaganda. The insurgents do far worse every day.
By the time the war is fully over, the computers of that day will be able to go through all the reports and rank all the atrocities. Neither Haditha nor Abu Ghraib will make the top thousand. The Iraqi government has its hands full as it is.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The only real evidence that disputes Murtha's claim is the judgement regarding the events in house 4 and the competing narratives offered in regards to the killings at the taxi and in houses 1 and 2. The physical evidence seems hopelessly tainted. The entry is correct at the start when it says it's an issue of who is to be believed. Amongst the people who were there the Iraqi's support Murtha's claims. Some of the Marines do as well. Wuterich comments support some parts of Murtha's statements like according to Wuterich now there was probably no threat in the houses. In regards to the killings at the taxi and houses 1 and 2 there is evidence to support Murtha's claims. In regards to the allegations of a cover up there is also evidence to support that contention. The fact remains that when you compare the version initially reported by the marines and Murtha's version, Murtha's is the more correct. Wholesale dismissal of Murtha's comments by the right wing is very fashionable right now but as usual the issue is more complicated than any flip analysis suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.94.211 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if someone carried out that statistical exercise, and it came out as you suggest, it would still be an atrocity. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Atrocity or not is beside the point. I said that in the context of why we haven't found an investigation report from the Iraqi national government.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Sorry to interrupt the discussion with what may seem to be trivial, but I have to assess the language of the article. I cannot interpret this sentence: "The first investigation, under U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell 2006, The Times published the result of its investigations and interviews with eye witnesses." I would correct it myself, but I do not know if the sentence refers to one or two investigations. PKKloeppel (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The Bargewell report was actually the second investigation. It was dated June 15, 2006. I don't see anything in this article on Col. Gregory A. Watt's investigation dated March 3, 2006.
The PDFs are both posted here. It may take some digging to find news articles about it. I'll put it on my do-list.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)