Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Marine Urinates on Dead Iraqi

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Marine Says Urinated on Dead Iraqi at Haditha By Marty Graham http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17674.htm Reuters -- - CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. -
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 5, 2007
      Marine Says Urinated on Dead Iraqi at Haditha
      By Marty Graham

      "Reuters" -- - CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - Angered that a beloved member
      of his squad had been killed in an explosion, a U.S. Marine urinated
      on one of the 24 dead Iraqi civilians killed by his unit in Haditha,
      the Marine testified on Wednesday.

      Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, who has immunity from prosecution after murder
      charges against him were dismissed, also said he watched his squad
      leader shoot down five Iraqi civilians who were trying to surrender.

      In dramatic testimony in a pretrial hearing for one of the seven
      Marines charged in the Nov. 2005 Haditha killings and alleged
      cover-up, Dela Cruz described his bitterness after a roadside bomb
      ripped Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, known as T.J., into two bloody pieces.

      "I know it was a bad thing what I've done, but I done it because I was
      angry T.J. was dead and I pissed on one Iraqi's head," said an
      unemotional Dela Cruz in a military courtroom in Camp Pendleton, north
      of San Diego, California.

      Dela Cruz also said he watched squad leader Sgt. Frank Wuterich shoot
      five men whose hands were tied up near a car. Dela Cruz said he also
      shot the five men as they laid on the ground.

      Wuterich "walked to me and told me that if anybody asked, they were
      running away and the Iraqi Army shot them," Dela Cruz testified.

      Three Marines have been charged with murder, and four officers have
      been charged with dereliction of duty and obstructing the investigation.

      Prosecutors contend the killings were revenge for Terrazas' death,
      while the Marines charged say it was a clearing operation, conducted
      under lawful orders, that had disastrous results.

      Squad leader Wuterich's lawyer later called Dela Cruz's testimony false.

      "It's about the fourth or fifth version of events we've heard from
      Sgt. Dela Cruz. It's false, of course," Neal Puckett said in an
      e-mail. "It's just so sad that he is being required to testify against
      his fellow Marine NCO in order to guarantee his freedom. He's a
      victim, too."


      The Marine Corps initially reported the deaths as a result of the
      bombing and a firefight with insurgents. Reporting by Time magazine in
      January 2006 later prompted the Marine Corps to investigate the killings.

      Dela Cruz said he was asked four times to lie about what happened in
      Haditha, although no one asked him about the killings for a time.

      A Chicago native, Dela Cruz saw intense action in his first Iraq tour
      of duty in 2004. A Marine Corps News article once featured him as one
      of the unsung heroes of the Iraq war.

      Wednesday's hearing focused on Capt. Randy Stone, who served as the
      legal advisor for the Kilo Company. Stone, 34, is charged with
      violating an order and two counts of dereliction of duty in connection
      with the killings.

      On Nov. 19, a convoy of Marines from the Kilo Company was traveling
      through the town of Haditha when a roadside bomb detonated, killing
      Terrazas and injuring two others. Surviving Marines stopped a car and
      shot its five occupants, then swept through two houses, killing the
      people inside.

      According to testimony, the five men in the vehicle were the first of
      the 24 victims. Dela Cruz said that after he helped Wuterich shoot the
      men, he went in one direction with Iraqi soldiers while Wuterich went
      in another direction.

      Another Marine, Sgt. Albert Espinosa, testified on Wednesday that he
      pressed for an investigation of the killings almost immediately after
      it occurred in November 2005.

      He testified Wednesday that he was frustrated by the apparent
      indifference of his commanding officers. "We deserve an answer to what
      happened and wasn't happy with the answers I was getting," 1st Sgt.
      Albert Espinosa testified.


      From an Angry Soldier

      I'm having the worst damn week of my whole damn life so I'm going to
      write this while I'm pissed off enough to do it right.

      I am SICK of all this bullshit people are writing about the Iraq war.
      I am abso-fucking-lutely sick to death of it. What the fuck do most of
      you know about it? You watch it on TV and read the commentaries in the
      newspaper or Newsweek or whatever god damn yuppie news rag you
      subscribe to and think you're all such fucking experts that you can
      scream at each other like five year old about whether you're right or
      not. Let me tell you something: unless you've been there, you don't
      know a god damn thing about it. It you haven't been shot at in that
      fucking hell hole, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

      How do I dare say this to you moronic war supporters who are
      "Supporting our Troops" and waving the flag and all that happy horse
      shit? I'll tell you why. I'm a Marine and I served my tour in Iraq. My
      husband, also a Marine, served several. I left the service six months
      ago because I got pregnant while he was home on leave and three days
      ago I get a visit from two men in uniform who hand me a letter and
      tell me my husband died in that fucking festering sand-pit. He should
      have been home a month ago but they extended his tour and now he's
      coming home in a box.

      You fuckers and that god-damn lying sack of shit they call a president
      are the reason my husband will never see his baby and my kid will
      never meet his dad.

      And you know what the most fucked up thing about this Iraq shit is?
      They don't want us there. They're not happy we came and they want us
      out NOW. We fucked up their lives even worse than they already were
      and they're pissed off. We didn't help them and we're not helping them
      now. That's what our soldiers are dying for.

      Oh while I'm good and worked up, the government doesn't even have the
      decency to help out the soldiers whose lives they ruined. If you
      really believe the military and the government had no idea the
      veterans' hospitals were so fucked up, you are a god-damn retard. They
      don't care about us. We're disposable. We're numbers on a page and
      they'd rather forget we exist so they don't have to be reminded about
      the families and lives they ruined while they're sipping their
      cocktails at another fund raiser dinner.

      If they were really concerned about supporting the troops, they'd
      bring them home so their families wouldn't have to cry at a graveside
      and explain to their children why mommy or daddy isn't coming home.
      Because you can't explain it. We're not fighting for our country,
      we're not fighting for the good of Iraq's people, we're fighting for
      Bush's personal agenda. Patriotism my ass. You know what? My dad
      served in Vietnam and NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

      So I'm pissed. I'm beyond pissed. And I'm going to go to my husband
      funeral and receive that flag and hang it up on the wall for my baby
      to see when he's older. But I'm not going to tell him that his father
      died for the stupidity of the American government. I'm going to tell
      him that his father was a hero and the best man I ever met and that he
      loved his country enough to die for it, because that's all true and
      nothing will be solved by telling my son that his father was sent to
      die by people who didn't care about him at all.

      Fuck you, war supporters, George W. Bush, and all the god damn mother
      fuckers who made the war possible. I hope you burn in hell.


      We're All Responsible for Iraq
      By James Reston
      USA Today

      It's not enough to merely criticize the president or say you voted for
      another candidate. Every American citizen has a political and moral
      duty to do what's right for our troops, and for our country.
      By James Reston Jr.

      Between those who manage the war in Washington and those who fight it
      in Iraq, the American people enjoy a safe middle ground. The country
      is both at war and not at war. The war machine in Washington hums
      along as it did in other great international conflicts. U.S. troops
      fight as vicious a war abroad as they have ever fought. But at home,
      there is no sacrifice, no serious deprivations, no mobilization of
      youth. Life goes on pretty much as normal.

      In what sense then can the average American be held accountable for
      the chaos of Iraq? If the citizen did not participate in any decision
      that led to unprovoked warfare, did not mislead anyone about weapons
      of mass destruction, did not engage in torture or kill any innocent
      civilians, does that American bear any responsibility for the mayhem
      that Iraq has become?

      The philosophers tell us that there are four types of responsibility
      for which an individual and a society can be held to account for
      aggressive or unprovoked war. Criminal guilt applies to the power
      structure that drags a country into an abyss against its will or upon
      false pretenses, or the individuals who engage in crime on the
      battlefield. After Iraq, there will be no grandiose trials in which
      our leaders are asked to account for their deeds. There will be only a
      few military trials for low-level criminal soldiers. Criminal
      responsibility for decision-makers will be left to the opprobrium of
      history and to Nixonian exile.

      There will, however, be a long period of collective introspection
      after the war. It will, hopefully, be a period of reconciliation and
      regeneration. The central task of the president we elect in 2008 will
      be to bind up the nation's wounds and to rediscover the country's
      fundamental bearings. Recognizing the breadth of responsibility for
      the Iraq disaster, down to the level of the individual citizen, must
      be part of that process.

      When guilt applies

      Metaphysical guilt means that every human being is responsible for
      injustices committed anywhere in the world, but especially crimes that
      are committed in our presence and with our knowledge. Does this apply
      to us? The legitimization of torture is one instance that seems to
      fit. It has been done in our presence, with our knowledge. Or the
      scrapping of the Geneva Conventions. When both a nation and an
      American citizen acquiesce in the dissolution of accepted moral norms,
      metaphysical guilt applies.

      The two other categories, moral and political guilt, are most
      pointedly relevant at this stage of the Iraq conflict. It is not
      enough to complain about President Bush, or to mock him. To mock the
      president does not relieve one from responsibility for the war being
      fought in the name of every American. Bush's disaster has become the
      country's disaster. Every American is now connected to it politically
      and morally. We cannot be indifferent to the scorn for all things
      American that characterizes the worldview of us. We must pay
      attention. It should move us.

      In our safe zone, the hypocrisy toward our troops is another instance
      of moral and political guilt. When a person flaunts his patriotism and
      then tolerates the exploitation of soldiers, then that citizen is
      morally culpable for that outrage and a participant in it. Even during
      the Vietnam War, when I was a soldier for three years, no soldier was
      sent back to the jungle against his will for second and third tours.

      Pact with our troops

      There existed then, in that "immoral war," a solemn pact between the
      soldier and his country that was honored by the military and accepted
      by the soldier, even as the war was winding down toward humiliation.
      That pact was especially important in the years of 1969-75, when it
      was clear that the Vietnam War was lost, and that young men were being
      asked to die simply to extricate politicians from their blunders.

      And so it is now. No one talks of a noble cause any longer, especially
      our troops. Young men are recruited merely with appeals to their
      testosterone. When the highest military officers now warn that this
      conflict is breaking the military system, it is because this honorable
      bond between the country and the soldier at risk is being broken. The
      general populace, despite the horrifying spectacle of severed limbs
      and wasted minds, seems indifferent. Didn't these boys and girls sign
      up for this? Such a question conveniently separates the citizen from
      the soldier.

      As for political guilt, all citizens bear the responsibility for the
      way their country is governed. They are, therefore, liable
      collectively for the political decisions of those leaders they have
      elected, regardless of whether one voted for the winner. In the
      elections of 2002 and 2004, the Democrats might have halted the rush
      to war, but they deliberately avoided the subject. This lack of
      resistance permitted this war to be fought and funded as it was. The
      Democrats of 2002 and 2004 must share in the political and moral guilt
      for the calamity.

      The 2006 elections was the first time the political and moral aspect
      of the Iraq debacle was joined. In the next election, that connection
      will be even more pivotal. If there is no collective grief about what
      has happened in Iraq, and no collective determination to change
      course, if the hollow drumbeat for victory and continuing war wins out
      over withdrawal, then that, at the very least, will define what and
      who we have become, as a nation, as a people, and as individuals.

      James Reston Jr.'s new book, The Conviction of Richard Nixon: The
      Untold Story of the Frost-Nixon Interviews, will be published June 19.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.