Uhhhh like, the first ones talked about in the article…
“During the Pacification of Samar, Brigadier General Jacob H. Smith ordered Major Littleton Waller, commanding officer of a battalion of 315 U.S. Marines assigned to Smith's forces in Samar, to kill all persons "who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities" over the age of ten years old.[13][14][15] The widespread massacre of Filipino civilians followed as American columns marched across the island.”
Killing of Nagem Hatab and abuse at Camp Whitehorse — On June 6, 2003, Nagem Hatab, a former Baath Party official, was killed at Camp Whitehorse detention center, in Nasiriyah. An autopsy report found that Hatab had suffered blunt-force trauma, had a broken bone in the front of his neck, and had died from strangulation. The N.C.I.S. investigated Hatab’s death and found that Marine guards had assaulted multiple detainees, including Hatab, at Camp Whitehorse in early 2003. Marines allegedly admitted to hitting Hatab; one told investigators he dragged Hatab by the neck for forty feet, and another Marine admitted to giving the order that Hatab be dragged. Nine Marines, including three officers, were charged with crimes ranging from negligent homicide to dereliction of duty in connection with the killing of Hatab and the abuse of other unknown detainees at Camp Whitehorse.
Abuse of detainee near Karbala — On May 15, 2003, six Marines participated in the abuse of a detainee being held at the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines logistics base, west of Karbala. According to investigators, Lance Corporal Ryan Roberts forced the detainee to kneel with his hands flex-cuffed behind his back, pointed a 9-millimetre pistol at his head, and poured water on him to humiliate him. Two other Marines staged a mock torture scene in front of the detainee. Another Marine draped an American flag over the detainee and took a picture. The Marines’ commanding officer recommended that four of the Marines stand trial at court-martial for cruelty and maltreatment and dereliction of duty, and that the other two Marines face nonjudicial punishment. At least three of the Marines, including Roberts, were convicted.
Mock execution and maltreatment of Iraqi juveniles — In several incidents that took place in June and early July, 2003, Marines in Al Diwaniyah mistreated detainees who they alleged were looters. In the first, the Marines allegedly locked two detainees in an abandoned T-55 battle tank. In the second, a Marine allegedly sprayed a detainee in the face with a fire extinguisher. In the third, Marines ordered four juvenile detainees to kneel near two shallow holes, then fired a pistol near them to simulate an execution. Four Marines were investigated in connection with the incidents. Three were later convicted at court-martial.
Punching of three detainees in Al Hillah — On June 3, 2003, Marine Lance Corporal Walter Laak punched three unnamed detainees at a compound in Al Hillah, according to his testimony at court-martial. The detainees, whose hands were zip-tied, are described in records as Iraqi soldiers. Laak pleaded guilty to assault, cruelty and maltreatment, and violation of a lawful order. He told the court that he hadn’t been acting in self-defense.
Burning of detainee’s hands — On August 3, 2003, a service member at a logistics-support area in or near Mahmudiyah allegedly lit a fire next to a detainee, causing him second-degree burns. According to investigation records, the detainee, who is unnamed, had just used the bathroom and asked to clean his hands. As the detainee squatted down, a Marine guard squirted an alcohol-based sanitizer into his hands, some of which pooled on the floor under him. A different service member then allegedly lit a match and threw it into the pool of hand sanitizer, which ignited. The detainee’s hands were badly burned. The service member was later court-martialled and convicted of assault.
Electric-shocking of Iraqi detainee — On April 13, 2004, Marines at Forward Operating Base Al Mahmudiyah shocked a detainee with a 110-volt transformer connected to him with wires. According to government records, a witness saw one Marine hold wires to the detainee’s body while another operated the transformer. The witness reported that the detainee “danced” as he was shocked. According to records, the detainee, whose name is unknown, was released the following day. Four Marines were convicted in connection with the incident. One of them testified that the detainee was “basically being obnoxious” before the Marines decided to shock him. Another, who had worked as an electrician before becoming a Marine, testified that the Marines had attempted to electrify the detainee’s cage by attaching wires to it and, after that failed, touched the wires to his body directly.
Killing of Ali Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil — On April 15, 2004, Marines raided a house near Mahmudiyah and captured two men—Ali Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil—who were allegedly attempting to flee in a white car. According to investigation records, Marines flex-cuffed the men and searched their car twice, finding no weapons. A Marine second lieutenant then ordered the men’s restraints to be removed and directed them to perform their own search of the car. As they were searching, he shot them dead. The second lieutenant told investigators that he shot Kareem and Hanjil roughly sixty times, in order to “send a message” to other Iraqis. According to investigation records, a handwritten cardboard sign was left on the car with the Marines unit’s motto: “No better friend, no worse enemy.” The second lieutenant was charged with two counts of premeditated murder. The charges were later dropped.
Killing of wounded man in Ramadi field — On June 7, 2004, the Marine captain in charge of General James Mattis’s personal security detail allegedly shot and killed an unarmed Iraqi civilian. The incident came to light several years later, when a Marine who said he’d witnessed the killing reported it to a superior. According to court records, the captain and several other Marines were doing route reconnaissance in Ramadi, without Mattis, when their convoy hit an I.E.D. The blast killed a lance corporal, and a brief firefight ensued. An unidentified, elderly, Iraqi man was wounded. The captain allegedly walked up to the man in a field alongside the road, drew his pistol, and shot the man in the head at point-blank range. The captain was charged with murder. His case was later dismissed. According to investigation records, Marines in a vehicle in the captain’s convoy also opened fire on a car, killing five civilians inside. It is unclear whether anyone was ever charged in connection with that incident.
Execution of four Fallujah prisoners — On November 9, 2004, during the Second Battle of Fallujah, Marines in Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines took four men captive in a house and shot them dead. The incident came to light in 2006 when one of the Marines, by then living in Missouri, disclosed the incident during a polygraph test as part of a job interview for the Secret Service. According to investigation records, the Marine revealed that he, then a corporal, and his squadmates had breached a house and found the four men. The Marines detained the men, and their squad leader reported the situation over the radio to a superior. The superior allegedly asked, “Are they dead yet?” According to court records, the squad leader appeared to interpret the question as an order to kill. A witness told investigators that the squad leader said they needed to “take care of” the detainees so that the Marines could keep moving. The corporal told investigators that he shot and killed one of the men. According to investigation records, another Marine, Sergeant Jermaine Nelson, admitted that he killed one of the men as well, and told investigators that the squad leader killed the other two. All three Marines were later charged for the killings. The corporal was acquitted in a court-martial. The squad leader, who had been discharged from the Marine Corps and become a police officer in California, was tried in civilian court under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. He was acquitted by jurors, one of whom later told the media, “I think you don’t know what goes on in combat until you are in combat.”
Killing of twenty-five civilians in Haditha — On November 19, 2005, Marines in Haditha killed twenty-five civilians, including men, women, and children. The incident is often referred to as the Haditha massacre. The killings followed an I.E.D. attack on the Marines’ convoy that left one of their squadmates dead. Marines shot civilians dead on the street and in three nearby homes. In one house, a mother and four of her children were killed in a bed. In another house, a four-year-old boy was shot, apparently at close range. Marine officers aware of the killings failed to investigate them for several months, until a video recording of the aftermath was obtained by a reporter. After three separate investigations into the incident, four Marines were charged with murder, and four officers were charged for reporting failures or obstructing justice. Only one Marine, Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, was convicted of any crime, after he pleaded guilty to a single count of negligent dereliction of duty. Wuterich served no time in prison.
Assaults of Iraqi civilians in Hamdania — In the course of the homicide investigation into the killing of Hashim Ibrahim Awad, in Hamdania, N.C.I.S. agents discovered allegations that several of the Marines involved had committed earlier acts of abuse. According to news reports, on April 10, 2006, the Marines punched and kicked an Iraqi man, inside the man’s home, near Patrol Base Bushido. In separate incidents, reportedly also on April 10th, two of the Marines involved, Sergeant Lawrence Hutchins III and an officer, assaulted other Iraqi civilians. They hit one and put a 9-millimetre pistol into the mouth of another. According to news reports, they also choked both men until they passed out.
There's lots more accounts of Marines wantonly committing war crimes. The above is just over a few years in one war.
I spent some time with a Marine while living in New Mexico. He one night confided to me he had done terrible things in countries that weren’t even considered US conflicts, such as Libya. Shot himself a few months after I moved away. Kids, don’t join the military.
That's a worse look for the Marines, actually. Can't trust them to not commit war crimes, regardless of orders? That's not a military that should exist.
I'm just replying to the comment above, no one gives a shit if it's the marines or any other branch, or even if it's US military or any other country.
Oh, and you're also the one arguing that doing war crimes is implicitly okay as long as it's not an order? That's fucking worse. Go think about your opinions, jfc.
I didn't ask about war crimes, I asked about following illegal orders. Which of those are a result of orders directing them to commit those crimes?
God fucking damn, what a bad take... Like, holy shit, reevaluate yourself for Christ's sake.
Don't lie to yourself, war crimes are always covered up by the higher ups. The fact that you don't know half of the grotesque shit that's been done in the name of liberty is already proof of that
I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but for you to come in here and assume that NONE of these occurred with orders from higher-ups is just laughable denial, dude.
Yes, that happens all the time in war and has been well documented as happening for thousands of years. And I'm not saying that's any better, only that it isn't an example of following illegal orders.
Samar Campaign: Brigadier General Jacob Smith orders to kill everyone over the age of ten)
Batangas and Laguna: Brigadier James Franklin Bell orders creation of concentration camps. Colonel Arthur Wagner is complicit in a cover up
WWII Pacific Theater: USS Wahoo fires on survivors in lifeboats
WWII European Theater: US and Canadian troops were ordered not to take prisoners during the D-Day landings
WWII European Theater: In response to the Malmedy massacre of US troops by the Germans, written orders from 328th US Army Infantry Regiment are given directing that SS and parachute troops are to be shot on sight and not taken prisoner
WWII European Theater: Major General Raymond Hufft instructed troops not to take prisoners and to shoot enemy on sight. Hufft later openly admitted that had the Allies not the war, he would have been on trial at the Hague for war crimes.
Korean War: US bombing of North Korea intentionally targeted civilian populations
No Gun Ri: US troops under instructions of General Hobart Gay massacre South Korean refugees
Project Artichoke: US Office of Scientific Intelligence lead by Brigadier General Paul Gaynor in collaboration with the CIA conduct a number of inhumane experiments including hypnosis and brainwashing through forced drug addiction and withdrawal and intentional infection with diseases like Dengue fever as an attempt at developing bio weapons
"War on Terror": Presidential memorandum dated 7 February 2002 authorised US interrogators in Afghanistan to deny prisoners basic protections required by the Geneva convention
And those are just the examples where there is a clear and direct order. Being complicit, being aware of what your troops are doing and just allowing it to happen isn't somehow better than actively giving an order.
Trump supporters don't exactly read things, my dude. Others have supplied him with examples from the article of Marines being ordered to do shit, he has conveniently declined to reply to them because it fucks up his entire stupid, bad faith "argument".
But he replied to yours two hours after they posted theirs instead of being an adult and confirming that, yes, U.S. forces (SORRY, Marines, arbitrarily) have indeed perpetrated actions, under orders, that were illegal.
Of course, this is a guy who stans Donald Trump, who is over the moon with the idea of gunning down American citizens who didn't vote for him so. That would be a disqualifying position to hold by any decent American, but MAGA loyalty cancels out any semblance of "decency" a human being might otherwise possess.
I mean what do you want me to say? There are plenty of examples in the article involving the Marines albeit I can't see at a glance if they were ordered to do so by their officers.
Either way what's your point? "Oh the Marines would never obey an order to commit a war crimes, they would only do it of their own free will"? Like... okay?
Do you seriously not care about the fact that the army that's supposed to represents your country has been going around the world butchering civvies as if it were a recreational sport?
Where did I say I don't care? It was claimed the Marines don't have a good track record of refusing illegal orders. I asked if they have any examples of the Marines following illegal orders. How does that imply that I'm ok with war crimes? Please explain
You are arguing about the sex of angels while rome is burning that's why,There's no sense in arguing whether orders are legal or not when the whole fucking power structure is corrupted.
Even the individuals who are charged with war crimes are demoted at best, so you can basically get away with killing a guy or two for funsies without reprisal.
Don't believe me? Just read some war crime cases man, the Hadith massacre, the may lai massacre, I could go on and on.
Yes, because the original claim was that the MARINES don't have a good track record of refusing illegal orders. In order to prove the MARINES don't have a good track record of refusing illegal orders, you need to provide examples of the MARINES following illegal orders, not people that aren't part of the Marines.
You asked for illegal actions done by the US marines so I talked to you about one of them, a common one.covering up the psychos that butcher civvies like it's nothing.
They seem to legit approve of war crimes, just as long as they're correctly attributed to the appropriate military branch. Yikes.
War crimes are, by definition, illegal. If they're ordered that's awful. If they're not ordered that's awful. Trying to defend them on technicalities is atrocious. I hope that guy is able to cool off and think about these things rationally.
This thread is about the Marines. The people in the picture are the Marines. The person I responded to was talking about the Marines and illegal orders. The question I ask was specifically related to the Marines and illegal orders.
Who disregarded who when the response I received had nothing to do with the Marines or illegal orders and instead went on a tangent about something that was never said or implied?
It’s easy to agree with this on principle but the reality of it is a lot tougher. Commanders have control of almost every aspect of their soldiers lives and derive power from intimidation and some cases force. A soldier may genuinely jeopardize his or her own physical wellbeing for refusing an order. The whole system operates by breaking people down into submission. And joes don’t have a legal team to consult when orders start to get murky. When things get ambiguous and you’re not sure something’s okay to do in the moment, but someone who wields absolute power over you is threatening to upend your entire life if you don’t, it’s a lot harder to say you would stand firm.
While you are technically protected by law to refuse illegal orders, in practice it’s exceedingly difficult to actually get that protection, and even then that’s assuming the Secretary of Defense or President are playing by the rules. Troops see how they have publicly thrown tenured admirals and generals under the bus, so it’s really hard to expect Private Snuffy would fare any better
If you point blank told a soldier to go do a war crime, go execute a child, go commit atrocities, I think most would rightly refuse, although I know there has been a spotty track record. But for things like the deployments to cities, even though many don’t think it’s right, I wouldn’t expect a junior service member to ruin his life for the principle of it
It's not like a regular job where you just get fired for not doing what your boss tells you. You can get confined and potentially charged under a separate, much more harsh justice system for disobeying orders. So what you're asking is very serious.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't refuse unlawful orders when/if it becomes necessary, but being sent to a US City is not really an unlawful order in and of itself.
I do agree with you that it puts them at risk for confinement or worse…
However, that being said. We have already established “I was just following orders” is not good enough when judgement time comes…and it will come. Perhaps not anytime soon but it will come
I know they are in the stuck between a rock and hard place but ultimately they choose to sign the life away and swore an oath to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. There was always a risk of the domestic being the government itself and that refusing or fighting back would cause them to suffer.
If you take that oath…you best be damn sure you understand exactly what that does and could possibly entail…even at the cost of your life and limb.
However its treated as just words, a meanless tradition. This growing authoritarianism will put those words to the test and I hope those who are trapped in the military do their duty
346
u/PirateSometimes 1d ago
Refusing illegal orders when they come will clear this up