A Response To: "War and the Media"

By Bill O'Reilly

Editorial Link Here

Unedited Video Here

Hannity's Vile Rationalization Here

Bill,

I am an Army Reserve Major with a year tour in Afghanistan under my belt and I am truly and honestly disturbed by your analysis of what took place on that video. Your analysis makes several leaps of logic and glosses over a great deal of information regarding what took place before that marine shot the wounded insurgent. Your outright claim of innocence on behalf of this soldier is more damaging than any reporting and investigation on this subject.

First, the information currently available states that the wounded insurgents in that room were given first aid treatment by the men who originally engaged them or found them. This means they were searched for weapons and booby traps before the other team arrived. This also means that they were left behind because the first team believed they were no longer a danger or able to reenter the fight.

Second, the man made NO sudden moves and had no weapons. Period. The man was laying on the ground, in his own blood.

Third, shooting a man who is booby trapped, will not disengage the booby-trap. And, he would have had to have been booby trapped between the time the first team assaulted the position, cleared the room, treated the wounded, and left them as combat ineffective and the time the second team arrived.

Now let's take a look at your "analysis".

"On the tape, the Marine is clearly heard saying, "He's faking he's dead. He's faking he's dead." He said that right before he shot the insurgent. That statement shows the Marine thought the man was a danger."

This is irrelevant as it is his judgment that will be on trial. Simply stating a threat does not make it so.

"And he might have been. The day before, the same Marine unit lost one soldier because an insurgent corpse was booby trapped. Wounded men and even the dead in Iraq can kill you."

Again, irrelevant - see point number three above. Yes, the wounded can kill you, but a man lying in his own blood who does NOT make a move, at all, is not a threat and is not capable of triggering a booby-trap. As I said, and as it is stated in your own quote, a dead man can be just as deadly, but killing him in cold blood does not change that. Therefore, such actions have NOT reduced the threat and again are unwarranted.

"The Marine policy of engagement authorizes the use of force when a soldier is presented with a hostile act and -- this is key -- hostile intent. A sudden move by a prone man in a war zone must be taken seriously. One grenade would have killed every Marine in that room and the cameraman as well"

One cannot engage an enemy that is neither firing or moving with intent to fire -OR- cannot engage someone in a room that has been cleared simply because they are in the room. You cannot engage on hypothetical actions. Your statement presupposes that the man COULD have made a move, therefore he has the INTENT to be a threat. THAT is an incredible leap of logic and one that is ridiculous on its face.

"Clearly, the Marine did not come upon the prone insurgents with the intent to harm them. If so, he would have opened up when he entered the room."

You make an intellectual slight of hand here that is disingenuous and dangerous to objective viewing of the video. The men were NOT prone as in a position of getting ready to fight or shoot. They were simply lying on the ground due to their wounds or unwillingness to fight. Talk about ridiculous items.

"This Marine is innocent of any and all wrongdoing, and the videotape proves it."

You are simply wrong. This marine broke the law of land warfare AND the UCMJ and will be punished under the UCMJ. He will be spending many years in military prison.

That videotape clearly shows a man, under stress, who made a very bad decision to take justice into his own hands. All infantry soldiers are drilled in the procedures for securing prisoners and wounded enemy; none of the drills involve summary execution for breathing while wounded, lying on the ground, with your eyes closed.

Your "analysis" of this video smacks of ignorance with respect to the Law of Land Warfare, the UCMJ and the conduct of American professional soldiers in time of war. Your claim of innocence for this man is based on your idea of justice, which I suspect means that they should all be killed for merely fighting against us. Deserving to die and being summarily executed without acute cause or trial are simply two different things and NOT how the American professional military soldier does business. This "analysis" is myopic at best and unconscionable at worst.

I ask you this: If that was an Al Jazeera video of insurgents coming upon a wounded US soldier and the same thing occurred, what would you be saying about that insurgent's innocence?

You have crossed the line with this one Bill and you have exposed yourself as a man who holds no value for anything other than your personal ideology of how life should be. I am disappointed and saddened by your lack of respect for the laws of this nation, the world and the mititary and I am truly shocked at your lack of moral justice.