Massacre in Haditha: Eight Marines Charged With Killing 24 Iraqis

rkzenrage • Dec 25, 2006 3:01 pm
[CENTER]Massacre in Haditha: Eight Marines Charged With Killing 24 Iraqis[/CENTER]

(Go to site to get these)
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

The victims were asleep the night of November 20th, 2005 when Marines burst into their homes and shot them dead. The military initially claimed 15 civilians had died in a roadside blast caused by insurgents. Human rights activists have described the killings in Haditha as perhaps the worst case of deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by US service members since the war began. [includes rush transcript]

Eight Marines have been charged in connection with the killing of twenty-four Iraqis in the town of Haditha last year. The victims were asleep the night of November 20th, 2005 when marines burst into their homes and shot them dead. The military initially claimed fifteen civilians had died in a roadside blast caused by insurgents. Human rights activists have described the killings in Haditha as perhaps the worst case of deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by US service members since the war began.
Soon after the incident, the mayor of Haditha led an angry delegation up to a nearby Marine camp to seek redress. Their protests were ignored and the US military stood by its original contention, that the civilians were killed by a roadside bomb. The story would have ended there had it not been taken up by Time magazine.

Time obtained a videotape shot in Haditha by an Iraqi journalism student one day after the incident. The tape shows that many of the victims, especially the women and children, were still in their nightclothes when they died. The scenes from inside the houses show that the walls and ceilings are pockmarked with shrapnel, bullet holes and blood.

In January, Time presented a copy of the video along with witness testimony to US military command in Baghdad. A preliminary military investigation was launched. It established that the men, women and children were indeed killed by the marines, though it described the deaths as "collateral damage."

Earlier this year Aparisim Ghosh, the chief international correspondent for Time magazine, joined us on Democracy Now! to talk about Haditha. [Listen/watch/read full interview from March 2006]

Aparisim Ghosh, the chief international correspondent for Time magazine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this year Aparisim Ghosh, the chief international correspondent for Time magazine, joined us on Democracy Now! to talk about Haditha.

APARISIM GHOSH: In addition to the 15. We looked into this case, and the more we dug, the more we thought that something didn't quite add up. And when we finally got our hands on this videotape, it became very clear to us that these people could not have been killed outdoors by an explosive device. They were killed in their homes in their night clothes. The night clothes are significant, because Iraqi women and children, especially, are very, very unlikely to go outdoors wearing their night clothes. It is a very conservative society.

When we first approached the Marines with this evidence, they responded in quite a hostile fashion. They accused us of buying into enemy propaganda. That aroused our suspicions even further, because it seemed to be excessively hostile on their part. And we dug even more. We spoke to witnesses. We spoke to survivors of this incident. And then we became quite convinced that these people were killed by the Marines. What is left to be seen is whether they were killed in the course of the Marine operation as collateral damage or by accident, or whether the Marines went on a rampage after one of their own had been killed and killed these people in revenge.

AMY GOODMAN: You are very graphic in the piece, “One Morning in Haditha.” Describe what the survivors say happened when the US military went into the nearby houses around where the roadside bomb had exploded.

APARISIM GHOSH: Well, the survivors claim -- let me back up a little bit. The Marines claim that they received small-arms fire from nearby homes and that they responded to this fire, they shot back, and then they went into the homes to try and flush out the bad guys, the terrorists who were in there. It’s clear from the video that those homes don't have any bullet marks outside, which would suggest that there was very little, if any, shooting by the Marines at the facades of these homes. But there are lots of signs of bullets inside.

The victims told us that the Marines came in and they killed everybody inside. In one house they threw a grenade into a kitchen. That set off a propane tank and nearly destroyed the kitchen and killed several people in that home. The scenes that were described by the survivors and the witnesses were incredibly bloody and very graphic. But they are, unfortunately, very commonplace in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: Inside, you talked to -- you have the description of a nine-year-old girl.

APARISIM GHOSH: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about her and her family and what she says happened.

APARISIM GHOSH: Well, she was indoors with her family when the explosion took place. The explosion was loud enough to wake everybody up in the neighborhood.

AMY GOODMAN: The bomb that killed the Marine.

APARISIM GHOSH: The first explosion, yes. And she says when she heard gunshots -- of course, she's a child, she was frightened. When the Marines stormed towards their home, her grandfather slipped into the next room, as is, apparently, was his custom to pray, to reach out for the family Koran and pray to God that this crisis would pass. On this occasion, the Marines came into the home. They entered the room where the grandfather was, and other members of the family, and killed him.

AMY GOODMAN: And she was left alive.

APARISIM GHOSH: She survived, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And her little brother.

APARISIM GHOSH: And her brother was injured by a piece of -- either by a bullet or a piece of shrapnel, we're not sure.

AMY GOODMAN: But her parents, her mother, her father, her grandparents --

APARISIM GHOSH: Her parents, her grandparents, I believe her uncle, were also killed.

AMY GOODMAN: And then, another house.

APARISIM GHOSH: Four houses in all, involving a total of -- indoors, total of 19 people, and four people outside.

AMY GOODMAN: Aparisim Ghosh, the chief international correspondent for Time magazine. He joined us in our studio last March.
piercehawkeye45 • Dec 25, 2006 4:12 pm
Woo America!

Sadly, these type of events are common within any war, especially the kind where their is no offical enemy. These marines are obviously very frustrated with what happened but what they did was overkill, and they deserve a severe punishment.
rkzenrage • Dec 25, 2006 5:10 pm
What all of the Marines, and everyone else, deserves, is to be the hell out of there.
piercehawkeye45 • Dec 25, 2006 5:39 pm
Letting Iraq into a civil war won't help the cause either.

I honestly can't make a good decision on this subject because I have no idea what it is like over there and I don't think anyone that hasn't been over there has a good idea either with the propaganda both ways.

If America hasn't done anything and the Iraqi people want them out then by all means send them home.

If there is progress then America can't let everything go in vain and make Iraq a worse place.

I have no doubts that Iraq is in worse shape now then before America attacked and America used horrible tatics to get the Iraqis on their side, but unless we know the full story, it is impossible to make an unbias decision.

Remember, how America deals with Iraq now will heavily determine how they will be in twenty years. If America makes it worse for them they will grow up hating the western world even more than they do now. If America at least changes strategy and tries to make Iraq a better place to live, all of their hatred will be pushed aside, if not forgotten.
Ibby • Dec 25, 2006 5:55 pm
I blame the soldiers for a misjudgement and an overreaction more than for murder. Its not their fault they were there in the first place... And I believe them when they say that they thought, at the time, they were doing what they should have. They SHOULDN'T have done it, but I think that they thought they were doing the proper thing at the time... and got a little trigger-happy and carried away...
tw • Dec 26, 2006 10:58 am
When leadership lies; when troops are deployed without a strategic objective; then these massacres occur often. Haditha is not the only one. Routine is for a patrol to empty boxes of 50 cal ammunition into cars and buildings. Are they under attack? Of course not. Anyone comes too close, then 50 cal rounds are routinely expended. 50 cal is a massive round. Americans have been that vicious in Iraq for that long. Free use of firepower has been considered acceptable behavior for years now. Just another reason why so many Iraqi civilians are victims.

Combine lies by the leadership with daily (routine) use of weapons and a population where everyone is the enemy; this is Vietnam where shooting someone only because he was a gook. Such violence was then and is now common. Of course. Reasons for so much killing - including daily emptying of 50 cal ammo boxes - means *accidental* death is daily.

It all starts and will occur often because the leadership has lied repeatedly. That does not justify a massacre. That just reminds us that Haditha, Abu Ghriad, etc were not and will not be the only such events. Another lesson of Vietnam. Many other such events will remain unknown and not prosecuted. Even Haditha was ignored for months until those crime scene photographs could no longer be ignored. This is what happens when soldiers are put in such positions where they cannotwin; where the people they are ordered to protect are also the enemy. When soldiers are deployed to do what is not possible.
Phil • Dec 26, 2006 1:21 pm
doesnt the "intense training" iclude discipline and restraint? jeez!
get the allied troops out of there, they should never have been sent to do a maniacs bidding for more wealth in the first place. yet another country fucked up by the west.
Aliantha • Dec 26, 2006 7:05 pm
I think Iraq was pretty fucked up before the US invaded. On the other hand, I don't think it's any less fucked up now.
rkzenrage • Jan 1, 2007 5:55 pm
The troops were not trained for a "police action" much less the FUBAR we are now in...
yesman065 • Jan 1, 2007 11:17 pm
The only way anyone will be able to judge this situation is to see what happens to the mideast in 5 or 10 years. Whether Iraq is more effed up right now really isn't relevant to the long term outcome.
Phil • Jan 2, 2007 7:45 am
yesman065 wrote:
The only way anyone will be able to judge this situation is to see what happens to the mideast in 5 or 10 years. Whether Iraq is more effed up right now really isn't relevant to the long term outcome.



spoken like a true politician. :rolleyes:
yesman065 • Jan 2, 2007 8:24 am
C'mon Phil, seriously. Did you expect 100's and 100's of years of repression and tyranny to just go away in a year or two?
Phil • Jan 2, 2007 1:05 pm
yesman065 wrote:
C'mon Phil, seriously. Did you expect 100's and 100's of years of repression and tyranny to just go away in a year or two?


of course not, but i tend to think of the civilians who have lost their lives and the relatives left to mourn, and the repercussions of the invasion; not the possibility of the almighty dollar taking precedence over people.
i actually agree with what you say - the world will have to wait many years to witness the result of an enormous fuck up by America and the allied trrops. there were other ways to deal with Saddam Hussein.
xoxoxoBruce • Jan 2, 2007 1:42 pm
The problem of comparing, what was done vs the result, to what could have been done is that result of the second is speculation. :confused:
Phil • Jan 2, 2007 1:46 pm
xoxoxoBruce wrote:
The problem of comparing, what was done vs the result, to what could have been done is that result of the second is speculation. :confused:



so what should be done now, after the damage has been caused and the world has been made even less safe and governments are eroding civil liberties in the name of security?
yesman065 • Jan 2, 2007 2:10 pm
Phil wrote:
the world will have to wait many years to witness the result of an enormous fuck up by America and the allied trrops.

Not sure of that just yet - again we cannot know if it was actually a good thing to happen or the worst. I fear the latter, but hold hope of something vaguely resembling the former.
Phil wrote:
there were other ways to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Yeah, George Sr. Should have NOT listened to the cowtowing liberal BS and finished the job the first time.
Phil wrote:
so what should be done now, after the damage has been caused and the world has been made even less safe and governments are eroding civil liberties in the name of security?

Whether "the World" is less safe or not is another issue for debate. It takes time, a lot of time for a culture, society and its peoples attitudes to come around. Oh and how were the Iraqi civil liberties eroded? They have'nt had any under Saddam!
Happy Monkey • Jan 2, 2007 2:43 pm
yesman065 wrote:
Yeah, George Sr. Should have NOT listened to the cowtowing liberal BS and finished the job the first time.
The catch 22 is that the intelligence that Bush 1 might have brought in to the invasion is what kept him from becoming an occupation force in the first place.
yesman065 • Jan 2, 2007 2:48 pm
Happy Monkey wrote:
The catch 22 is that the intelligence that Bush 1 might have brought in to the invasion is what kept him from becoming an occupation force in the first place.

Intelligence as in smarts - if so I disagree, however if you mean information - I think our entire nation & the coalition forces got caught up in the wonderment of kickin Iraqs ass so easily that we lost sight of the poor civilians we left behind to fend for themselves.
Happy Monkey • Jan 2, 2007 3:09 pm
I mean smarts. The reasons he gave for pulling out were shown to be pretty compelling once his son ignored them.

If there was some good way he could have supported the civilian uprising without it turning into a US occupation, he probably should have. I'm saying he's smarter than his son, not that he's perfect.
xoxoxoBruce • Jan 2, 2007 3:31 pm
Better advisors, less God given mandate?:D
yesman065 • Jan 2, 2007 11:18 pm
A better politician and he definitely had better advisors!
Phil • Jan 3, 2007 6:18 am
yesman065;303569 wrote:
Not sure of that just yet - again we cannot know if it was actually a good thing to happen or the worst. I fear the latter, but hold hope of something vaguely resembling the former.

Yeah, George Sr. Should have NOT listened to the cowtowing liberal BS and finished the job the first time.

Whether "the World" is less safe or not is another issue for debate. It takes time, a lot of time for a culture, society and its peoples attitudes to come around. Oh and how were the Iraqi civil liberties eroded? They have'nt had any under Saddam!


no no, i mean American and British civil liberties.
DanaC • Jan 3, 2007 7:35 am
The problem of comparing, what was done vs the result, to what could have been done is that result of the second is speculation


Perhaps a little speculation and, dare I say it, foresight, might have prevented rather a lot of bloodshed.....oh sorry, there was speculation and an attempt at foresight, but it was ignored by the American and allied governments in their headlong rush into a 'desirable' war.

How many people predicted exactly this? How many intelligence and military experts argued that this was a mistake? How much intelligence was found to have been erroneous, and worse still, known to be erroneous?
xoxoxoBruce • Jan 3, 2007 11:52 am
Actually quite a few, but they were shouted down. No, not shouted down. Pressured down? Threatened down? Squashed. :(
tw • Jan 3, 2007 11:58 am
DanaC wrote:
How many people predicted exactly this? How many intelligence and military experts argued that this was a mistake?
Many. From my experience, the numbers probably are most. But remember, these guys are not allowed to talk publicly. My 2002 opposition to "Mission Accomplished" did not come from speculation.
How much intelligence was found to have been erroneous, and worse still, known to be erroneous?
All intelligence is erroneous if it cannot be placed into perspective. Cheney is so mistrustful of intelligence analysts that he reads only raw intelligence. IOW he finds what he wants to find because intelligence MUST be put into perspective.

To blame the intelligence as erroneous are how those without perspective now blame others. The intelligence was correct. People such as Chalabi were known to be scam artists. Curveball was the ONLY source for Iraq's mobile biological labs, was never interviewed by any Americans, and was a known alcoholic. As David Kay noted after reading the massive file on aluminum tubes, his own comment was, "Is that all there is?"

The intelligence was correct. But the administration read it for a political agenda rather than to be a patriotic American.

There was very good reason why my 2002 opposition to "Mission Accomplished" was so adamant and so accurate. Even the intelligence did not say Saddam had WMDs. Many (and rightly so) suspected he might. But not one intelligence source could define a single WMD after 1996 - for obvious reasons. They did not exist.

Next, you should be answering why those administration people had a political agenda. The answer has been provided often, but somehow I suspect many never grasped the significance.
DanaC • Jan 3, 2007 12:41 pm
The 'erroneous' intelligence I was refering to was stuff like the 'dossier' on WMD which formed such a large part of the British government's argument and was found to be a graduate's thesis they'd swiped from online, and then 'sexed up'.

Actual intelligence was generally telling them a story they didn't want to hear, so they started making it up. I absolutely do not believe that Tony Blair was unaware of the status of the 'intelligence' he was drawing from.
xoxoxoBruce • Jan 3, 2007 6:38 pm
Do you think the CEO of British Petroleum knows the attendant at the BP station is scratching your paint when he fills your tank? He may know how much that station is selling, if he digs deep enough into the reports, but he'll never know the truth like the man on the scene. That's why he relys of the slant, of the reports from the field.:cool: