Haditha - Who Broke the Rules?

John Bambenek at BlogCritics points out the devious double-standard - when there is even an accusation that U.S. Marines may have broken some of the rules of engagement, the whole world gathers 'round while the foreign press ties knots in the rope. The terrorists, however, whose whole modus operendi revolves around the horror that results from the breaking of said rules, seem to enjoy limitless sympathy from the same media outlets and politcal commentators. Not to mention how hard it is to obey the rules when one side flouts their disregard for them:

...At each step, the terrorists (and they are terrorists) have not only violated the laws of war, but used those laws of war against us to further attacks on our soldiers...

The terrorists simply don't care about the civilian population. If the military mistakenly engages civilians or they hit civilian buildings after taking fire from them, the terrorists mark up another public relations victory because of the willingness of their allies on the American left to use these incidents for political gain. In this way, the terrorists are extremely intelligent… and incredibly evil.

So those who wish to sit in judgment over the Marines at Haditha (before the investigation is even completed, mind you) manage to put on the blinders and refuse to consider how the actions of the terrorists almost guarantee these events will happen. If these Marines did snap and break the laws of war, they will be tried and punished. It is a shame, however, that no one seems to stand up for the soldiers who have to put up with an enemy who consistently breaks those laws.

You would hope that the media would help us to understand these distinctions, but alas, that is not to be - Michelle Malkin tells us how the UK Times used this picture next to a headline entitled "Massacre Marines blinded by hate:"

The only problem is that the identical photo ran in Newsweek in May of 2005, months before the alleged massacre, with a caption reading:

Insurgents in Haditha executed 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen in a sports stadium.

So our friends in the foreign press, with no hard facts to back up these juicy allegations of Marine miscounduct, are forced to use photos of slaughters perpetuated by the insurgents in order to properly horrify their readers.

Malkin calls it slander - I call it enemy propoganda; and I believe the rules of law that the media is trumpeting so loudly here should apply to the UK Times as well.

What is the penalty for Treason these days in Great Britain?