Talk:US marines may face death penalty for "massacre" of civilians in Iraq

is this grammaticly correct?
"Civilians, including women and children was killed inside two, or more, homes and five men standing near a taxi at a checkpoint." Shouldn´t it be "were killed", instead of "was killed"?

Gumboyaya 19:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --vonbergm 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * TA! --Gumboyaya 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

cleanup actions needed

 * attribute "carried out extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians". The killings were "methodical in nature."
 * "US Marines is from Camp Pendleton". replace "is" with "are"
 * copyedit "when Marines firing on unarmed Iraqi civilians", if this is this a contested claim, it needs to be reported as such.
 * copyedit: "attacked a convoy with blast of a roadside bomb"
 * think these ar fixed, tell if unsatisfactory done or edit it diferent.international 19:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

related news
how is American War Hero congressman wants U.S. troops out of Iraq soon related? Doldrums 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I had the same question, removing it for now. --vonbergm 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry a cut and past from earlier wikinews article international 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * no harm done. :) Doldrums 18:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

title change
it's massacre of, not on. suggest using killing instead of "massacre". Doldrums 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think 'massacre' should remain. It may sound sensationalistic but it is the right word imho.international 18:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * spelling fix also needed: "penality" shld be "penalty". Doldrums 18:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fix the spelling in title, If the word massacre should be changed also I leave to concensus to change (whish I respect). international 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Massacre" is a term that has been used in almost every press description I've seen. If it is in quotes, it is referential, and thus appropriate. The allegations do describe an "instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly," and whether or not they are accurate you can't denounce accurate diction. 68.33.32.246 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Most serious war crime reported"
According to the article Human Rights Watch says “the Haditha incident is likely the most serious war crime that has been reported in Iraq since the beginning of the war" (hopefully they meant on the coalition's side). Without trying to start an argument or trivialize the seriousness of the incident, if that is so, it some what underscores the US forces compliance thus far with the law of land warfare, while various insurgent forces have repeatedly killed over a hundred a day in targeted attacks on civilians. --Mitrebox 22:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right they should hav said 'coalition's side', but that dont change things imho. international 22:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Although there is the subtle point that insurgents according to US reading (and the media including wikinews supports this point of view) are not recognized as an "army" so they cannot committ "war crimes" but only "terrorist acts". You could argue that that is in effect the same thing, but try calling artrocities committed by US soldiers "terrorist acts". In some way this is just semantics, and I am not sure what the right way to deal with this is. I tend to believe that we should characterize insurgent attacks as "terrorist" (even when committed against US soldiers???) and deliberate killings of civilians by US soldiers as "war crimes". Semantics can be a can of worms... --vonbergm 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)