< Return to MilitaryGear.com
Information News July 16 2007
 — By Marcus

You folks have gone into quiet mode again so how about this to bring out the discussion?

CAMP PENDLETON, California — A Marine corporal said Marines in his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after officers ordered them to “crank up the violence level,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

“We were told to crank up the violence level,” the newspaper quoted Lopezromo as saying in testimony for the defense.

When a juror asked for further explanation, Lopezromo said: “We beat people, sir.”

Lopezromo said the man was known to his neighbors as the “prince of jihad,” and had been arrested several times and later released by the Iraqi legal system.

Unable to find him, the Marines and corpsman dragged another man from his house, fatally shot him, and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle near the body to make it appear he had been killed in a shootout, according to court testimony.

Lopezromo, who was not part of the squad on its late-night mission, said he saw nothing wrong with what Thomas did.

“I don’t see it as an execution, sir,” he told the judge, according to the newspaper. “I see it as killing the enemy.”

He said Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency.

“Because of the way they live, the clans, they’re all in it together,” he said.

Prosecution witnesses testified that Thomas shot the 52-year-old man at point-blank range after he had already been shot by other Marines and was lying on the ground.

Lopezromo said a procedure called “dead-checking” was routine. If Marines entered a house where a man was wounded, instead of checking to see whether he needed medical aid, they shot him to make sure he was dead, he testified.

“If somebody is worth shooting once, they’re worth shooting twice,” he said.

Only thing I’m going to add is not all Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency. Keep that in mind when discussing.

(8) Readers Comments

  1. Once again, another piece of journalism which attempts to paint the actions of a “few” to make people think that all our Troops do things like that. It couldn’t be further from the truth. I covered a similar story today, at ASM as well. Nothing angers me more than people stereotyping an entire group based on the actions of a few.

  2. Dead-checking? I never heard that one before, I am sure noone else in the service has too.

  3. When military actions progress well, military personnel expect smears. It doesn’t help when military personnel themselves provide the smear fodder.
    Continual judicial release of persons involved in criminal behavior increases an attitude of “The law won’t deal with this felon? Then, *I* will.” And thus is born smear fodder.

    Lopezromo’s defense for Thomas, “Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the ‘insurgency.” indicates a cop-out mentality with intent to justify improper action.

    Who are the officers who ordered ‘crank up the violence level’? Were the orders clear and specific? More important, were orders actually given for such action?

    Seeing the remains of a tortured and beheaded comrad-in-arms justifies rising emotion, but a trained warrior utilizes his brain as well as his armament.

    Today’s journalistic attitude? “When military actions progress well, search for a fault and build a headline-worthy smear.“

  4. The only thing I worry about is that these Marines and in other cases of Marines and Army personnel. The Prosecution is relying on statements from unrelible Iraqis. No, there are bad soliders and they sould be punished. I dislike the MSM of BLOWING IT UP to the size of Mt Everest.

    Dead Checking? Didn’t call it that way but it has happened for a long time. We also used recon by fire.

    ALLONS

  5. Well all I can say is that war is not pretty. Thank God that all Marines don’t consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency. I think our troops are better than that.

  6. A couple of thoughts came to mind. First, this story and another (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3383389&page=1; A Violent, ‘Normal’ Day in Baghdad) are getting much attention. With pressure on right now to end the surge prematurely, it seems that the spin is that the soldiers are battle fatigued. They have to come home by a date certain because they don’t know their mission anymore or are breaking mentally so that they commit crimes in the name of the mission.

    I myself have been concerned about the issue of fatigue. The service men and women keep giving and giving, maybe past the point where they should, even if they want to keep on. I say this with deep respect for who they are and what they do. Does the MSM have that same regard? In my opinion, no, but I can’t judge individuals. I have a hard time believing that Bush doesn’t realize that requiring multiple tours has to come to a stop at some point. Did the marine who made the statement about all Iraqi men being part of the insurgency serve multiple tours? I am not making excuses for what allegedly happened and until there is a conviction, I assume innocence, particularly after Haditha. Did the lawyer plant the whole idea of that defense?

  7. Without a doubt, we need to rebuild our military. And kick that darn anti-war croud out of power.

  8. Dead Checking is not something New. I’m from the Nam Era and Dead Checking was common. Not sure we called it Dead Checking though. The reason behind it is simple. The Enemy would lay within the Dead , maybe wounded him or her self and Booby trap themselves so that they could kill another American before they died. After a Battle it was Common for a soldier to assess the battle Ground then send in a poor soul to do nothing more than to put a bullet in the head of all of the dead (So called dead). Then the rest of the squad would collect the cloths , shoes and what ever were on the dead for intel.

    11th ACR

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>