What is the price of treachery?

[Killjoy2]

How much did Kevin Sites get for his video of the Marine killing a wounded terrorist in Falluja?

Was he upset because this was happening every where they went?  NO.

Could he have sent a copy to a commanding officer for review and punishment if indicated?  YES.

In stead he sold the video to whoever paid because it was sensational.  One Marine out of 15,000 kills an unarmed Iraqi and he knows he'll make a bundle.

He sold out the Marines who protected his bellybutton in combat so he can make a buck.  He sold out his country, by making this "incident" the focus of Falluja instead of the showing how these Marines have defeated a Terroist Enemy who has no rules other than terror.  He even sold out the Iraqi nation by making it that much harder to build trust in their own government.

Kevin Sites will be paid a lot of money.  But if I ever find him, I'll point out to everyone I can that he's a traitor to his best friends and his country.
 
Pardon me, but this has pushed me over the edge.  Our media is a 5th column against America.  All they care about is ratings and money.  They are incapable of observing America as patriots or even good Americans.  All they look for sensatinalism so they can make a buck.

[Maniac]

Heres your answers :

The broadcast last week of footage showing a US marine shooting an injured Iraqi fighter in Falluja caused an international outcry. Yesterday the cameraman, Kevin Sites, published on his website this open letter to the marines with whom he had been embedded.
Since the shooting in the mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well.

As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a "gotcha" reporter - hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.

This week I've been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read my dispatches on the web is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to to play it straight down the middle - not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right. But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.

It's time for you to have the facts, in my own words, about what I saw, without imposing on that marine guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds. Here it goes.

It's Saturday morning and we're still at our strong point from the night before, a clearing between a set of buildings on the southern edge of the city. The advance has been swift, but pockets of resistance still exist. In fact, we're taking sniper fire from both the front and the rear.

Weapons Company uses its 81's (mortars) where they spot muzzle flashes. The tanks do some blasting of their own. By mid-morning, we're told we're moving north again. We'll be back clearing some of the area we passed yesterday. There are also reports that the mosque, where 10 insurgents were killed and five wounded on Friday, may have been re-occupied overnight.

I decide to leave you guys and pick up with one of the infantry squads as they move house-to-house back toward the mosque. Many of the structures are empty of people - but full of weapons. Outside one residence, a member of the squad lobs a frag grenade over the wall. Everyone piles in, including me.

While the marines go into the house, I follow the flames caused by the grenade into the courtyard. When the smoke clears, I can see through my viewfinder that the fire is burning beside a large pile of anti-aircraft rounds.

I yell to the lieutenant that we need to move. Almost immediately after clearing out of the house, small explosions begin as the rounds cook off in the fire.

At that point, we hear the tanks firing their 240-machine guns into the mosque. There's radio chatter that insurgents inside could be shooting back. The tanks cease fire and we file through a breach in the outer wall.

We hear gunshots that seem to becoming from inside the mosque. A marine from my squad yells, "Are there marines in here?"

When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.

The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"

One of the marines raises his hand signaling five.

"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?

"Roger that, sir, " the same marine responds.

"Were they armed?" The marine just shrugs and we all move inside.

Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds.

The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.

"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.

I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap - as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.

While I continue to tape, a marine walks up to the other two bodies about 15 feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.

Then I hear him say this about one of the men:

"He's ****ing faking he's dead - he's faking he's ****ing dead."

Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.

However, the marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another marine searches for weapons.

Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.

"Well he's dead now," says another marine in the background.

I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket.

He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man - though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.

But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.

For a moment, I'm paralysed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the marines again, what I had told the lieutenant - that this man - all of these wounded men - were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.

At that point the marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir - I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.

The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic.

He says, "Yesterday I was shot ... please ... yesterday I was shot over there - and talked to all of you on camera - I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information."

(This man has since reportedly been located by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service which is handling the case.)

In the aftermath, the first question that came to mind was why had these wounded men been left in the mosque?

It was answered by staff judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Bob Miller - who interviewed the marines involved following the incident. After being treated for their wounds on Friday by a navy corpsman (I personally saw their bandages) the insurgents were going to be transported to the rear when time and circumstances allowed.

The area, however, was still hot. And there were American casualties to be moved first.

Also, the squad that entered the mosque on Saturday was different than the one that had led the attack on Friday.

It's reasonable to presume they may not have known that these insurgents had already been engaged and subdued a day earlier.

Yet when this new squad engaged the wounded insurgents on Saturday, perhaps really believing they had been fighting or somehow posed a threat - those marines inside knew from their training to check the insurgents for weapons and explosives after disabling them, instead of leaving them where they were and waiting outside the mosque for the squad I was following to arrive.

During the course of these events, there were plenty of mitigating circumstances like the ones just mentioned and which I reported in my story. The marine who fired the shot had reportedly been shot in the face himself the day before.

I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.

[Maniac]

No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone, would deny that a soldier or marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.

In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat - the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.

I can't know what was in the mind of that marine. He is the only one who does.

But observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances - it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. According to Lt Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.

Making sure you know the basis for my choices after the incident is as important to me as knowing how the incident went down.

I did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.

We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation - providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.

For those who don't practise journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all - especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behaviour or character of an organisation as a whole.

The answer is not an easy one.


In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both - though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting.

But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective, will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonising struggle - the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.

When NBC aired the story 48 hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible.

Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world.

I interviewed your commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time - something that now seems prophetic. It was this:

"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here - because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating.

"That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor - and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground." I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera - the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
I pray for your soon and safe return.

[Maniac]

 
Pardon me, but this has pushed me over the edge.  Our media is a 5th column against America.  All they care about is ratings and money.  They are incapable of observing America as patriots or even good Americans.  All they look for sensatinalism so they can make a buck. [/B]

I didnt see any Americans complaining when we saw the invasion of Iraq take place live on TV... Cnn, BBC, FOX you name it... riding along the Tanks etc etc etc etc.

Everyone was watching war live on TV, and not a word of complaining. Everyone were glued to the TV sets. It was sick!

But no one complained then, and now, when something bad happens, you complain?

[Pongo]

Just imagine. Without the film you would be denying it as muslim propoganda. Saying things like.."if its true its very important..but of course its not true"
So your hate of the person that denied you that refuge is undertstandable.

[Maniac]

By the way, exactly why aint there no more live coverage of what happens in Iraq?

[EN4CER]

Good Post KILLJOY2.  I agree 100%.  It s a damn shame that Loyalty has been outpriced by sheer Greed.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by EN4CER
Good Post KILLJOY2.  I agree 100%.  It s a damn shame that Loyalty has been outpriced by sheer Greed.

Ignorance is bliss, aint it?

[vorticon]

Originally posted by EN4CER
Good Post KILLJOY2.  I agree 100%.  It s a damn shame that Loyalty has been outpriced by sheer Greed.

so its being disloyal to report news that could put america or its soldiers in a bad light? as for greed, well, the entire system is based on greed, so stop acting so suprised.

[Killjoy2]

1) It looks to me that a Marine killed an unarmed terrorist.

2) Sites knew the video would aid the Terrorist cause.  

"We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region."

3) He also knew it was not "typical" Marine behavior.  

4) He could have used the video to pursue justice within the military.  It did not have to be reported to the world.  

5) Sites had the option.  He chose to cash in.  He knew it would damage the Marines, he knew it was not typical, but it must be reported.  It didn't have to be reported. Notice he never mentions how much he got paid.  He can talk about his journalistic imperitives but leaves out how the money influences his decision.

The money influenced his decision.

[Maniac]

The money influenced his decision.

Welcome to the real world. What did you think the Iraq war was about? WMD´s? Liberating people?

[EN4CER]

Originally posted by Maniac
Ignorance is bliss, aint it?

Sorry bouncy balls but I believe the word here is INTEGRITY.  Something Kevin Sites knows nothing about.  Do you know anything about it?  Have you ever trained with a Military or Tactical team and bonded with them.  Its like a tight knit family - I know - I run one.  None of my team members would have done this - None of them - thats why they are on the team.  Mr. Sites made his decision and he will have to live with it.  I don't see his choice in the same light as others.  When terrorists attack your country and you lose a friend cause some muslim ******** runs a plane into the building where they work at you might feel differently.

[Killjoy2]

So its being disloyal to report news that could put america or its soldiers in a bad light?

If this is typical behavior by the Marines it needs to be reported.  

It was reported because it is sensational and because he knew he would make big bucks.  

How much was he paid?  It was a BIG factor in his decision.

 

as for greed, well, the entire system is based on greed, so stop acting so suprised.

I am not suprised.  This story is about the greed of the media.  Who holds the media to a standard?  We do, or I should say we don't.  We reward them for selling out our country and giving aid to our Terrorist enemies.

During WWII all media voluntarily didn't report the existance or effect of Japanese terror weapons used against the US mainland because it would give information to Japan about how effective they were. But in WWII we had loyal and patriotic press.  

WE don't now.  We have a greedy press.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by EN4CER
Sorry bouncy balls but I believe the word here is INTEGRITY.  Something Kevin Sites knows nothing about.  Do you know anything about it?  Have you ever trained with a Military or Tactical team and bonded with them.  Its like a tight knit family - I know - I run one.  None of my team members would have done this - None of them - thats why they are on the team.  Mr. Sites made his decision and he will have to live with it.  I don't see his choice in the same light as others.  When terrorists attack your country and you lose a friend cause some muslim ******** runs a plane into the building where they work at you might feel differently.

And the Marine made his decision, he have to live with it too i guess.

Its funny, you say no one of your team would have done what Sites did. But would they have done the same thing as the Marine did?

Kill a uncouncious man? (sp?)

[EN4CER]

Originally posted by vorticon
so its being disloyal to report news that could put america or its soldiers in a bad light? as for greed, well, the entire system is based on greed, so stop acting so suprised.

I'm not surprised at all - unfortunately I expect from these Generation X piss ants - To me its a shame that’s all - Sorry, I was brought up under different value system.  I will be the first to admit it is not easy to be Loyal.  I have stuck my head out plenty of times and had my neck cut - no regrets by the way.