War Really is Hell

They're calling it a case of "not enough" evidence. Hmmm...

It was a striking -- some said chilling -- moment in the battle for Iraq, captured on videotape: a wounded, un-armed Iraqi, shot to death by a U.S. Marine.

CBS News has learned that military investigators conclude there is not enough evidence to formally charge that Marine.

For the record, I'm not necessarily in favor of prosecuting the soldier who did this--war is an ugly business (which is one reason why you DON'T GO TO WAR UNLESS YOU HAVE TO). However, some soldiers have been prosecuted--and convicted--of offenses ranging from abuse of detainees to manslaughter to murder. Prosecuting some but not others isn't exactly fair. And the REAL criminals--the ones who sent them off on the snipe hunt--haven't so much as been admonished, much less sent to the dock to stand tall before the man.

But the thing that really gets me is the "not enough evidence" garbage. This was captured on videotape, for chrissakes. Saying there's "not enough evidence" insults the intelligence of a houseplant. The soldier shot someone who was wounded and unarmed. Yes, it's war--and I'll bet shit like that happens more often than anyone wants to admit--nerves are frayed, people are frightened, a noise can mean absolutely nothing or it could be the very last thing someone hears before being killed.

Oh, and for the record: the Geneva Conventions are VERY clear in regards to treatment of wounded, be they enemy soldiers, militia, volunteers, or resisitance fighters. In other words, under the international agreement the US is party to, the soldier in question committed a serious offense. Whether or not the stress of combat drove him to commit such an act is...well, normally something that would be determined at trial (and, again for the record, I'd be inclined to view such a defense favorably).

What the US government is saying, in this case, is that apparently the Geneva Accords are to be enforced selectively. That's setting a dangerous precedent.