On November 19, 2005, a group of Marines was attacked in Haditha, Iraq by a roadside bomb that killed one soldier. The squad leader, Sgt. Wuterich, started shooting at Iraqis fleeing the scene. His team followed suit. By the end of the episode, 24 Iraqi civilians - including women and children - were dead. Wuterich later claimed that he believed his squad was in danger and does not regret shooting at the Iraqis.
The "Haditha massacre" became a humiliating blotch for the U.S. military during the Iraq War. But five years and a long court process later, it may not amount to much of anything. A military judge tomorrow may clear Wuterich - the only defendant left - of the charges against him.
Let me just simplify how this ruling speaks to me: the U.S. is willing to try terrorist suspects in military tribunals, and are willing to allow them to undergo torture and the death penalty for possible ties to Al Qaeda, but are not willing to apply the rule of justice to cases of U.S. soldiers unfairly killing Iraqi civilians.
Is this because American civilians are more valuable than Iraqi civilians? In a war, unjustified killings of civilians on either side is considered a crime. Not only is Iraq in war, but the U.S. is as well. Sadly ironic is that while Iraqis get the battleground, Americans get to maneuver the "rules of war," which apparently allows them to kill Iraqi civilians, and illegally imprison suspects for years.
I've heard the argument that in a war, there is no justice. I find it weak, and frankly disgusting. If the U.S. plans on ending this war soon, it needs to return back to a state of normalcy, which requires that criminals be held accountable for their actions. U.S. troops are already leaving Iraq, but where is the rule of law?
No comments:
Post a Comment