Resisters.ca

File No: TA4-01429
Toronto: December 8, 2004
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
JEREMY DEAN HINZMAN
NGA NGUYEN
LIAM HINZMAN
CLAIMANTS
PRESIDING MEMBER: B. Goodman
J. House FOR THE CLAIMANTS
REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER:
MINISTER’S COUNSEL:
CASE OFFICER:
everyone. For those of you who are here for the first time,welcome. For those of you who are returning, welcome back. Forthose of you who are here for the first time, this is a resumptioninto the hearing of the claims of Jeremy Hinzman; his wife, NgaNguyen; and their son, Liam Hinzman, for Convention Refugee statusand refugee protection.
Following a pre-hearing conference, we have, just to recap, heardMr. Hinzman’s evidence and we began hearing yesterday Sergeant.
I’m sorry, I can’t remember your last name.
going to say Murphy and I knew it wasn’t Murphy. evidence, and that evidence was led by his counsel, or by counselfor Mr. Hinzman, Mr. House. For those of you who are here for thefirst time, counsel for Mr. Hinzman and his family is Mr. JeffryHouse, on my left. Counsel for the Minister is Ms. JanetChisholm, on my right.
and the Refugee Protection Officer, on my far right, is KristinaDragaitis, and my name is Brian Goodman, and I’m the Member of theRefugee Protection Division that has been assigned to hear thesecases.
the evidence today, barring any unforeseen circumstances. So, I’mgoing to ask Ms. Chisholm to begin her cross-examination,examination of the witness.
start off, first of all, because you spoke or you made referenceto the Geneva Convention several times yesterday, and I’mwondering if you can tell me what training you had received on theGeneva Convention.
training that I received on the Geneva Convention started day onethat I entered in boot camp. I was forced to stay up all nightand walk around the squad bay to memorize parts and articles ofthe Geneva Convention, and basically you were given a pop quiz thenext morning by the drill instructors.
that the Geneva Convention is a vast piece of law. I’m wonderingif you can tell me were there some things in particular that wereemphasized in your training that have remained with you till now? kill civilians. Marines do not shoot unarmed combatants that arewounded.
the purposes of just elucidating, what is the distinction in theGeneva Convention between a combatant and a non-combatant? depends on the SOP and whether or not it’s a free-fire zone. That’s kind of a broad question, Ma’am.
Outside do you know -- because the SOPs are specific Americandirectives, and the Geneva Convention, sort of, transcends that.
So, I’m wondering not how you treated them in different zones, butif you understand the common meaning of these words that theGeneva Convention gives them, not how they were applied.
an enemy combatant is anybody that is, or any person present onthe battlefield that is dressed in an uniform and has beendirected by the President of the United States as an enemycombatant, whether it be Iraqi, Russian. I’m just using that asan example, but it is an individual that is in a military uniformthat poses imminent threat or danger to the Marines or myself.
could also mean a wounded -- from what you said before, I justwanted to clarify -- it could mean a wounded soldier who no longerposes a threat? understand, are you saying that a combatant must be in a uniform? well, it’s kind of a broad comment. We typically are trained,meaning Marines, that an enemy combatant is an individual that isin a uniform. However, we have also trained, because of today’scombat and guerrilla-style warfare, that a lot of times enemycombatants do take off their uniform to do sabotage orassassination-type of missions so that they easily blend in withinthe civilian community.
enemy combatants that don’t even have uniforms? a point of taking off a uniform, but they commonly wear civilianclothes so that you couldn’t distinguish them from the civilianpopulation? understand you to say now that your understanding of thedefinition of combatant or the common meaning, as used in theGeneva Convention, doesn’t necessarily include, or isn’tnecessarily confined to persons in uniform? you received, as far as you know, is this training specific to theMarines? Geneva Conventions are for all American armed forces and countriesthat are acting within allied powers.
itself, would it be restricted to the Marines; do you know? sections of, like Army, Navy, Air Force, as far as you know,everyone would receive training such as this? trained -- were you given protocols as to what to do if civiliansor non-combatants were killed? have to break that down a little bit more.
your training, was it ever discussed what would happen if acivilian was killed? proper medical attention for or -- well, there is no actualprotocol. If a civilian is killed, then you notify the chain ofcommand of the incident, and the chain of command then conducts aninquiry into who, what, when, where, and why.
on the situation? For example, if a civilian was killed in abombing where it wasn’t specifically the civilian being targeted,but the civilian was killed as a result of aggression, is ittreated differently than a situation whereas a civilian isintentionally targeted? doesn’t matter. Anytime that a shooting involves a civilian,there has to be an investigation done.
I understand. Let’s take the case of someone who is not in auniform. That person is killed in combat. Is the investigationdone, as you described yesterday, to determine, if possible,whether the person was indeed just a civilian or was, in fact, acombatant? yes. The investigating officers, which is generally militarypolice, arrive on the scene and do an investigation from theirend. Also, Naval Investigative Service might be called in, NIS,which is a part of the department of the Navy, and that’s all thatthey specifically do, and it can involve all the way up to theCentral Intelligence Agency.
it that at the time the person is killed and an American soldiercomes upon that person, they are not certain if that person is orwas a civilian or a combatant? There is no way to tell whether or not that person.however, Iwould like to point out that in Iraq the military training beganquite early for, and they were forced into military training. When you go into the schools, such as Baghdad University, weoccupied Baghdad University for approximately a week. We used itas a staging ground for us to go out on our patrols, and I noticedthat part of their course curriculum was teaching the students howto fire AKs, and also military tactics and doctrines, but thesewere things that were imposed upon the head schoolmaster to teachwithin his course curriculum. It doesn’t mean that’s what hewanted to teach, because in conversation with the head master atthe Baghdad University, he was quite indifferent to teaching thattype of ideology to his students, but it was forced upon them.
beginning, as far as you know, did that begin at university or didit start before that? understanding, it started before that, because I’ve seen severalpictures of young children at the age of six and up performingsome sort of military training, or what we consider to be the BoyScouts. That might be their idea of Boy Scouts, because BoyScouts in America are taught firearms, which could eventuallyteach them to kill another person.
as far as speculating are they training everybody in Iraq to be apotential killer or terrorist, because Saddam, obviously being adictator, this is what he was imposing upon the people, but if youlook at the American culture, we impose that young men go intoorganizations like the Cub Scouts that teach these same things,the same tactics.
Brigade is a -- I don’t know the exact age group of when they gointo that organization, but it’s much like what we have in theStates as far as going to boys’ military academies, but it’s justa military or military training to put them on a faster track toeither going in -- enlisted into the Iraqi Army or becoming anofficer within the Iraqi Army. It’s just a head-start program foryoungsters that are usually forced into that type of environment,much like America.
to my earlier question and your testimony yesterday, Mr. Massey,and you described in detail incidents that occurred where carssped toward -- or maybe not sped. I think you said they weretravelling mostly 25 --- towards a security checkpoint that you had set up with yourcompany.
of men, and at the time that that car enters the Red Zone, are youable to tell whether the people in the car are civilians orcombatants? sit here and speculate, but at the time, after the first couple ofincidences, and I was seeing a trend and a pattern that they werenot, that they were panicking when they were coming into the area,I could literally look through the windshield and seeing thempanic at the fact of what was about to take place, because whenall of a sudden you see weapons levelled at your vehicle andMarines charging the weapon, I think they have an understandingthat they are about to get fired upon.
becomes a conflict between the individual Marine that is pullingthe trigger, is this person a civilian or is this a person anenemy combatant? We have to go by the intelligence reports thatare being given to us at that time that are painting the picture.
The Iraqis can’t paint the picture for us, because they are thesupposed enemy. So, we have to go by what our intelligence istelling us.
whether or not they are a civilian, we have to do what theintelligence reports tell us to do. So, my personal feeling,every time we pull the trigger, I felt that they were civilians.
However, I can’t react; I can’t say no, because then not only am Idisobeying a direct order, but I’m disobeying a direct order thatthe First Marine Division General, General Maddis (ph) is sayingis part of our doctrine and what we’re doing, or part of the SOP.
You will fire upon these vehicles and that’s it.
when you set up your checkpoint, were you aware of any incidentswhere cars sped through and either contained suicide bombers thathit checkpoints, or that contained combatants that fired oncheckpoints, or that bombed checkpoints? scuttlebutt rumour. I never knew if it was an actual, officialreport, but I heard from other Marines that, in fact, onecheckpoint was hit by a suicide bomber.
of that happening elsewhere in the world? talking about the distinction between combatant and civilian, andmy questions were designed to first determine whether it wasrestricted to people in uniforms, which it wasn’t and, secondly,how one distinguishes between a combatant and a civilian in someof the circumstances that were described yesterday, and whetherone can distinguish between a combatant and a civilian without aninvestigation in all cases.
an investigation in the situation where, as you suggestedyesterday, a downed soldier, enemy soldier was killed? He was ina non-combatant role at that point in time. Would that invoke aninvestigation? civilian was killed, you stated that there would be aninvestigation.
as well, when you haven’t ascertained whether or not it is acivilian? asking me if a person is in uniform, will we still conduct aninvestigation? had been in the process of -- yesterday, for example, you saidthey were in the process of surrendering, or in a situation wherethey were no longer in a combatant role; for example, they hadbeen injured and they were down.
person walks up to us, I don’t care if he’s got an AK3, 4, swungon his body, if he has his hands up, he is no longer a combatant.
It becomes my responsibility to disarm him or have my Marinesdisarm him.
then he becomes a combatant again and we fire.
situation where if someone walks up to you with their hands up,that individual was killed with their hands up indicating they’reno longer a combatant, would there be an investigation into theirdeath if they were subsequently killed? there should be an investigation done.
question is: In a situation where it’s clear that they can nolonger be considered a combatant; for example, they’re injured andon the ground and sprawled out, to me, from what you stated, that person would not be considered a combatant anymore, because theyare not a threat to you at that moment.
individual was killed -- an injured soldier in an enemy uniformsprawled on the ground is considered a non-combatant; correct? - and I just want to be clear if I understood you properly -- yousuggested that you had witnessed situations where Marines shotdowned soldiers who were not a threat imminently to the Marines.
Did I understand you correctly? that -- I can say that I honestly didn’t witness -- I witnessedthe aftermath of an attack that we had done to the north, or northof An Nasiriyah to where as we were driving by after the attack, Isaw enemy soldiers in uniform that had no weapons and they were onthe side of the highway, which was typically what the enemycombatants did, was they walked along the side of the highway witha white flag. So, I began to wonder how these enemy combatantswere killed when they had no weapons and there was white flags,but I did not personally witness. I was on the battlefield at thetime. I witnessed after.
other than your own situation where you shot on someone with theirhands up, have you ever witnessed, or did you, during the courseof your time in Iraq, witness individuals firing on someone whowas surrendering? Other than that incident, were there any other situations, such asthat one, where non-combatants, people who had identifiedthemselves as non-combatants were intentionally shot? as the one gentleman that clearly had his hands up, no.
understand the answer, “not as directly as”. Were you a witness,or did you participate in any other incident in which an unarmedman, who was determined not to be a threat, was shot? the one gentleman. It’s kind of hard for me, sir, because I knowin my heart that these vehicles, when they came up, I knew thatthey were civilians, but I had to act under orders that was givento me by the First Marine Division. So, it’s a struggle within myheart to, but there was only time that I can honestly say that,yes, he was clearly surrendering.
up to Ms. Chisholm’s question, if I could. Did you determine --you said that you suspected that enemy soldiers had been killedwhile surrendering because you saw them along the highway, lyingalong the highway and you saw white flags. Did you determinewhether those incidents were investigated or not? knowledge, I don’t know if they were investigated or not. not. They were part of a different company.
earlier that under normal circumstances, incidents like that wouldbe investigated; am I right? understand, you were part of the invasion force? you testified yesterday, your unit was the first to sustaincasualties? take you through yesterday’s testimony, and some of my questionsare going to come from yesterday’s testimony and some are going tocome from the interview that’s quoted in Counsel’s material.
similar to the one that you gave yesterday to a radio talk show;was it? Let me just refer to that directly.
to answer. He’s asking me which radio show. So, perhaps.
tab 142. You gave an interview to Amy Goodman? Volume 1 of Counsel’s disclosure. It’s an interview you gave withAmy Goodman with “Democracy Now”.
questions don’t sound like something you testified to yesterday.
They might emanate from this recording of that, just so you areaware.
record, when did you first come forward with your story? the American public when would you have first come forward? had replied to an article. Basically, we have a very smallnewspaper in our hometown. It comes out tri-weekly, that’s howsmall. They wanted opinions on how the locals in the area feltabout the Iraq War. My wife answered with the knowledge that Igave her upon my honourable discharge from the Marine Corps.
her and wanted to do an interview with me. I declined. When I wasdischarged from the Marine Corps, I had every -- my goals at thattime was to remain a private citizen and go about my life, andforget that I had ever spent 12 years in the Marine Corps.
that was published by the embedded reporters in my battalion, andI started to read the lies that were being printed and the cover-ups of the civilian casualties, I became concerned that theAmerican public was not getting an accurate betrayal of what washappening and is still happening in Iraq. Watching CNN furtherdisgusted me. So, I decided to do an interview, after severalharassing phone calls from the local newspaper, wanting me toexplain my story. So, I agreed to the interview and here I am.
Mountaineer”. The reporter’s name is Jeff Schmirker (ph).
when you would have given that interview? want to interrupt your train of thought and your questioning, butyou said that you decided to do this after reading the reports ofmedia that were embedded with your company, your battalion? Press, AP”. I had no quarrels with Ravay Nooseman (ph) with the“AP”, the “Associated Press”. The articles that he published wereright on the money. I did have, and I still have big heartburnwith what the “St. Louis Dispatch” -- and I’m drawing a blank, I’mtrying to remember his name, Ron Harris was his name with the “St.
Louis Dispatch”.
validation of being a reporter, because he was reporting onincidences that involved my platoon, and Mr. Harris wasn’t evenpresent. Mr. Harris never even was a part of my platoon at anytime during combat operations, but he was, in fact, reporting.
he was reporting like he was right there with us.
mentioned that your concern was that the American public was beinglied to --- was making it sound like -- he was being judge and jury. He wasmaking it sound like we were having tremendous amounts of firefights when the civilian vehicles would come into our checkpoint,which is untrue. He made it sound like we were constantly underattack at these checkpoints, which is not true.
make it look like we were fighting almost hand-to-hand combat withthese road terrorists and insurgents, and all of a suddeninnocently civilians were involved, and he does mention in hisarticles, or the article that he wrote about the Rashid (ph)Military Complex, he does mention about the civilian casualties. was quoted as saying, “It’s a shame that civilians are beingkilled; however, it’s better them than us.” That’s his directwords.
can do a Google search and pull it up, sir.
I wasn’t aware of the reasons that caused Mr. Massey to comeforward to the public in the United States, sir.
summarize, if I can, to see if I get this right.
just wanted to return to civilian life and put what happened inIraq behind you? reading articles or articles began to appear that you read, andreports on CNN that you became concerned with, because youbelieved that they were untruthful and were deceiving the Americanpublic? particular, there was an article about what happened at Rashid byRon Harris of the “St. Louis Dispatch”? article as if he were with your platoon when, in fact, he wasn’t? article suggested that the incidents that you described yesterdayarose from fire fights between the civilians, or the people in thevehicles, and you and your company? knew that not to be true, and it was at that point that youdecided that you would accept, and as a result of what you havedescribed the harassment from the local newspaper “TheMountaineer”, that you decided that you would do the interview? forward in January 2004. You didn’t know Mr. Hinzman at thatpoint in time? well, I can’t ask you if he knew you, but given that you hadn’tgiven a statement to the press before January 2004, is there anyway before January 2004 he might have known about you? unless Mr. Hinzman, you know, heard somehow through doing a Googlesearch or looking to see if other soldiers felt the same way thathe felt, but Mr. Hinzman contacted me through e-mail. My e-mailaddress is widely available, and asked if -- well, basically wekind of summarized to see if we felt the same way, and Iconcurred, he concurred, and he asked me if I would testify beforethe Canadians, and I agreed, and I had never met Jeremy before inmy life, other than through the Internet.
personal knowledge, what in a Google search would have broughtyour name up before January 2004? Were you on a chat site? computer illiterate. My wife has taught me how to surf the Net.
The only thing that would have pulled up was my new recruitingoffice being opened in Silva (ph), North Carolina.
to say that your information about your experiences in Iraq werenot widely available before January 2004? other than to the U.S. Marine Corps.
started speaking out when I was in Iraq.
that, you stated that you hadn’t actually witnessed any killing ofnon-combatants, for example, other than the one you were involvedin. The non-combatants being -- let me start again.
situation where you saw someone in the middle of surrendering whowas indicating they were non-combatant that was shot, other thanthe one that you were involved in? sure I’m understanding you. The only gentleman through all thekillings that I can say, the one with his hands up --- personally, and after my investigation, my thorough investigationon the battlefield, after all of the incidences with the civiliancasualties, there were no weapons or nothing to link them to beingsoldiers with the Iraq Army. There was nothing to link them toany type of insurgency or terrorist actions. That’s what led meto believe that these were, in fact, just regular, averagecivilians.
terms of individuals who were in the process of surrendering toyou, did you witness any killings of such individuals that were inthe process of surrendering? And would that have been a violation of the Geneva Convention tokill someone who was surrendering? psychiatrist that I went and saw in south of Karbala. At theFirst Marine Division Headquarters south of Karbala.
officer, Lieutenant Commander Wynn (ph), and Lieutenant Hong (ph),both of them medical personnel with the United States Navy.
notify medical personnel that you had violated the GenevaConvention? of all of my weapons. I had no way to defend myself. Even afterthe Division psychiatrist deemed that I was not a threat toMarines or to myself, my Captain, Captain Dan Schmidt, stripped meof all of my personal defence.
up, because I’m not clear how we got to this point. the shooting of this man who is in the process of surrendering,and then yesterday I understand that the Lima Squad (ph) Captain,who is --- Gunner Sergeant, immediately relieves you of command? the Battalion Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Belcher (ph) of thesituation and, after he gets off the horn, or the phone, he comesimmediately over to our pause and starts explaining to theLieutenant and I that we just shot an unarmed man that was tryingto surrender, but he put it in -- that was a nice way of puttingit.
point in time, were your weapons taken away? us what happened after you were informed you shot an unarmed man? relieved of command shortly after that, after a very long, verbalconfrontation with this Company Gunner Sergeant. The BattalionCommander, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Belcher arrived on thescene, pulled my Lieutenant, Lieutenant Kevin Shay, off to theside. They began to converse. The Colonel was very upset. Visually I could tell that he was very upset, and then afterwardsthe Lieutenant came to me and said, “Staff Sergeant, we areordered to fall back.” I said, “So, are you saying we arerelieved of command, sir?” Then he said, “Yes.” we were relieved of command and I was going around making surethat the boys had packed up all of their gear properly, thatnothing was left behind, was when the incident of the three females and the child, while my Lieutenant Colonel was present onthe scene when they murdered them.
Lima Company that had taken over that was involved in thatincident? relieved of command at that point by Lieutenant Colonel Belch(sic) and Lieutenant Shay? Now, you said the Colonel was upset. Which colonel was that? didn’t hear the conversation. I’m going by his expression on hisface and his body language.
were relieved of command, what were you told to do? fall back into the Rashid Military Complex and to stand down. Wewere basically ordered to rest.
been at that point that you had gone without sleep? allegation or any suggestion in the process of all of this --they’ve told you that you killed an unarmed man, and you acknowledge you killed an unarmed man. Was there any suggestionthat you had done so intentionally? came up to us, but -- well, yes, Ma’am, I’m sorry. The CompanyGunner directly came up to us and told us, “You shot an unarmedman.” relate to the Lima Company Gunner? Are you guys -- in terms ofcommand, chain of command? basically on the same level. We’re both staff non-commissionedofficers, as we’re colleagues and peers.
take us back another step. You said you were 48 hours withoutsleep. I just want to retrace what you were doing up until thatpoint, and I’m just going to review what I think you told meyesterday, and if I’m wrong, just let me know.
border and you establish a checkpoint north of An Nasiriyah? problem and that car is released without incident? car that there was a dying child in that car? child -- the body is returned to the father of the child? in time you receive a report that the Republican Guards aredressing as civilians? was after you established the first checkpoint, but before you get to the Rashid Military Complex or at the Rashid Military Complexthat you get this report about the Iraqi Military dressing ascivilians? to give you a better understanding, I will answer your question.
We were in pacification. We were -- basically from the Town ofSafan (ph) all the way up to Baghdad, on the outskirts of Baghdad,we were in pacification role. That’s what we were ordered to do.
Complex, it was a completely different ballgame. That is when westarted receiving the intelligence reports about the insurgentsand the Fedayeen and Republican Guard.
tell me what is at the Rashid Military Complex? of the compound that I was in, there was a motor transportcompany, and the left side, the left side where the concrete wallit was a -- they described it as an Iraqi energy military complex.
I have no idea what that means.
that if it fell into the hands of Iraqis, it could be used forharm? basically done what’s called Spray and Pray, where we dischargedrounds into the building. We discharged 40-millimetre grenadesinto the building to try to flush out any type of snipers, but westill had to – to reiterate, to backtrack, we still kept an eye onthe building because of fear that a sniper or a sapper (ph) withan RPG could enter this building and fire at us.
fairness, you weren’t quite sure what was contained in thebuilding; is that correct? have been chemical weapons; it could have been anything in thatbuilding. You had not assessed what was inside the building? it’s also fair to say, then, that in your mind this is somethingthat Iraqi soldiers might want to get back to? wanted to get back to it, then they would have put up more of afight than they did. There was no fight.
did think it could be a legitimate target in terms of somethingthat they would want to attack so it wouldn’t remain in yourhands? that they would want to get in there is to place a well-trainedsniper in that area to slowly pick us off one by one.
trying to understand why you would want to secure this facility.
to secure the facility so that we could continue to march north totake Baghdad. He who holds Baghdad, holds the key.
protect this compound, the Rashid compound, from what I understandyesterday, you established a number of safeguards in order -- youestablished a roadblock; correct? established that roadblock, you also established a number of whatI will refer to as safeguards in order to try to flush out who wasa combatant, or who was hostile and who was friendly, such as thesigns, such as the warning shot? I’ll go through it.
that time there were signs in Arabic which you thought wereordering people to stop at a certain point before they approachedyou? told -- that they were saying, “Stop where you are”? time, you thought that that was an universal symbol for havingpeople stop on their -- as a warning shot to tell them to stopwhere they are? believed that that would be -- that’s what you were taught wouldbe an effective way to communicate, “You’re not to come anyfurther”? voiced my command or I had voiced my opinion to my command Iwanted combat engineers to come in and to actually buildroadblocks, to dig up the parts of the concrete, to build abarrier, and I was denied.
was the function of the warning shot, then? the warning shot was an audible warning. Verbal, audible, thenfire.
until all of those things fail and the people keep coming intowhat is called from the Green Zone into the Red Zone, it’s not until all those things fail and they enter the Red Zone that youactually fire? mean, although after the fact you found out they were civilians,at that time were you fearful when they were coming towards youthat they were actually combatants? that I actually felt that my life was in danger when thesevehicles came at us was a semi-tractor. It didn’t have thetrailer on it. That is the only time I can honestly say that Ifelt it was a fog of war incident and that it was a legitimate,justified shooting, because it was a semi-tractor which could do asubstantial amount of damage. In fact, this tractor turned thecorner and didn’t even enter completely into our Red Zone, but myMarines open fired on it, anyway, and even after me yelling atthem to cease fire. It was kind of an instant panic when you seea tractor-trailer bearing down on you, but when the tractor-trailer started coming, it didn’t even reach our Green Zone yet,it turned the corner and we still continued to fire. The cab wasengulfed with flames. The driver of the tractor-trailer jumpedout and was on fire running down the road.
whether you were fearful when the first car came towards thisroadblock, checkpoint, whatever you want to call it, whether youwere fearful at all that there were combatants, non-civilians inthe car, and you said you weren’t fearful.
just by looking at them that they weren’t -- they were dressed intraditional, they were older style vehicles. It wasn’t -- themotor on the thing, you could hear the pistons banging against thecylinder walls. They could barely even creep past 35 miles anhour.
let’s see if I have this right -- that your visual observation ofthe occupants; is that right? What they were wearing? it was a Mercedes, I would have been worried. If it would havebeen a Pijero (ph) or a Mitsubishi, SUVs, that’s common overthere, I would have been worried, but these were older 1970 modelToyotas that could barely even run. You could hear the pistonsbanging against the cylinder walls half a block.
received any intelligence reports, or encountered to that point,any problems with older people in the kinds of civilian attirethat you described driving older 1970 Toyotas? your experience and lack of intelligence reports to the contrary,you were not fearful that these were combatants? average, almost poverty level individuals.
received intelligence, from what I understand, that there wereindividuals dressed as civilians committing suicide bombings? details of -- any descriptions of those individuals? any reason at the time to doubt the intelligence reports thatpeople were committing suicide bombings by dressing as civilians? doubting the validity of the actual bombings. I was doubting theintelligence reports that were causing paranoia among my troops,and the level of how they were deciphering these terrorist attacksthat was causing paranoia within my troops, and causing them tohave an even faster trigger finger than normal.
to talk first about the level, and then talk about the paranoia.
suicide bombings didn’t happen, and you don’t dispute that.
that you’re concerned that it raised the awareness of the troopsand made them frightened? whole purpose of this to warn people that civilians -- people weredressing as civilians in order to make them targets? the purpose of disseminating this information? disseminating the information was to give the knowledge to theMarines, but there are ways to disseminate knowledge that doesn’tcreate a panic or a paranoia, much like after 9/11. Americans, Idon’t know about Canadians, have been transfixed that every Arabicperson within the United States could be a potential terrorist. There’s a difference between disseminating information anddisseminating paranoia and hatred.
at the level of the intelligence reports, yes.
directing. It was saying that possible insurgents from Turkey,Syria, Iran were coming in and mounting these terrorist attacks,and that they had no uniforms, that they were blending in with theevery-day population, that they were mounting guerrilla andterrorist-style tactics against American and allied forces. Ifthat doesn’t cause paranoia to a 20 to 25-year-old on abattlefield, I don’t know what does.
what you’re saying, but are you saying that this wasn’t true thatthese people weren’t coming in? didn’t happen to me and to my platoon.
doesn’t -- you’re not suggesting that it didn’t happen anywhere? suggesting that it didn’t happen anywhere; I’m suggesting that itdidn’t happen to my platoon, and those intelligence reportsbrought about an increased paranoia within my platoon.
the reports generated in order to alert your group or your platoonthat these things were happening to others and it couldpotentially happen to you? heard, and to this day, anyone from Seventh Marines Regimentcoming under this type of attack.
many days had the invasion been going on at that point in time? tuned was the intelligence at that point in time? Do you have anyidea? intelligence was a faux pas from the very beginning, because therewere no weapons of mass destruction.
mean, the intelligence, in all fairness to them, might have sentthis out as a general warning, because they didn’t know where toexpect this to happen.
understand, you’re not saying that there weren’t insurgents fromother countries that have come to fight the Americans in Iraq? we were being told. I don’t know. I never physically saw or camein contact with anybody from Syria, Turkey, or Iran.
understand that, but you’ve read reports --- Mr. Chair, I don’t think it’s this Witness’ task to testify abouta report that he has read. I mean, the reports have theirvalidity, whatever it is, but for him to adopt a report, when hehas no independent evidence, in my submission, would have noweight.
evidence was that he had not personally come across any insurgentfrom another country, and my question is: Is he saying that thatdidn’t happen? know it by having read it, by having spoken to others.
is: Did you ever read that this was so, I think that’s a fairquestion, but to have him adopt a conclusion, I don’t see what weight that could be given to that, with respect.
will decide on the weight, but I’m not asking him to adopt aconclusion. I’m simply asking him whether he has read -- and Iwill ask you again -- whether you have read any reports ofinsurgents from countries other than Iraq that have beenapprehended or killed in Iraq who came to fight the Americans, orcame to fight on the side of the other Iraqi insurgents? the reason I can say that is because much like Canada, Iraq is a hodgepodge, it’s a melting pot of different ethical groups. Thatwould be like me saying I’m from Ireland, I’m Irish, Scots orIrish American, and that would be like a Scotch/Irish AmericanMarine fighting in Iraq. Iraq is a hodgepodge militant pot ofdifferent cultures. I even saw Africans.
myself clear, I’m talking about either citizens of anothercountry, or stateless persons, in the case of Palestinians, whocame to Iraq to fight against the Americans. Are you aware ofthat having happened through reading or through your conversationswith others? recently, just recently that there are these types of individualsthat are coming into Iraq now, not then. Now.
the distinction between then and now, is it your belief that thatwas not happening at the time that you were in Iraq? that those intelligence reports not only engendered paranoia, butwere untrue? feelings, yes. They were a tool that was utilized to create afear and paranoia within the Marines that allowed them toaccelerate the battle. We were always told that Baghdad was goingto be the key. It was basically a joyride from Safwan (ph) to theRashid. Once we got to Baghdad, we knew that it was time to puton our game faces, and it was true, because the intelligencereports changed, everything changed, the mentality, because he whoholds Baghdad, holds the key. You cannot successfully overthrowIraq without taking Baghdad.
you believed that the intelligence reports that were received,that there were foreigners, if I can put it that way, who werefighting on behalf of the insurgents in Iraq, that it waspropaganda, it was untrue propaganda, and it was meant to raisethe paranoia and the.if I can put it.the temperature of theenvironment? make one comment, Mr. Member? You asked whether these peoplemight be fighting on behalf of the insurgents, but I presume youmeant the Government of Iraq? trek up to Baghdad, we were in pacification mode.
mentioned that, and then I think you mentioned that everythingchanged when you got to the Rashid Military Complex.
intelligence reports, the mentality, everything changed.
confused and I’m sorry I’m repeating myself, but I think you havegiven two different answers, and I want -- my notes indicate thatand I want to make it clear.
these intelligence reports increased the paranoia level, you’vemade that clear, but you’ve also said at one point that youthought they were untrue.
would you know that -- well, let me go back, because before Iasked you --- that they were untrue. I think that they were heightened.
what was the basis of your belief at that time that they -- Imean, hindsight is 20/20. At that particular moment, how couldyou have possibly known that intelligence reports from other partsof the country were exaggerations or not? in the Marine Corps, if you’re going to fight a war and if you’regoing to be successful at fighting a war, you have to react assoon as the war kicks off. That would be like -- and I will giveyou an example, and I will have to put this in a violent way -- ifyou knew that I wanted to cause physical harm to you, what wouldyou do? If you knew that I was out there and I wanted to causephysical harm to you, what would you do? would tell you what I would do. I would first take pre-emptive steps. I would go down to the police department, file arestraining order. That’s the first means.
would do whatever I could to secure that area. Then I would havemy neighbours, maybe a half a city block or a block away, say,“Look, this guy drives a Red Dodge Intrepid. If you see this, canyou please let me know?” trying to explain to you, Ma’am, that type of precautionarymeasure is the same thing that you do in war. In order for you tofight a war, you fight from the very beginning, and I’m tellingyou from the very beginning we did not fight. We did not fightfor Iraq. The Iraqi people let us in that country under theunderstanding that we were there to overthrow Saddam, and then wewere going to raise or lift the U.N. sanctions so that we couldprovide medical and humanitarian support, which we did not do.
that we were going to provide all of this and get rid of SaddamHussain, let us in Iraq and we did a joyride all the way up toBaghdad, passing out candy along the way. We came under onedirect attack, we’ve already talked about that, and then once wegot into Baghdad, every Marine knew that the rules were going tochange, because he who holds Baghdad, holds the key. I thoughtthat we were going to be under constant fire from the verybeginning. The Iraqis did not have the military to fight us. Wedestroyed their military during the first Gulf War, and if we cantake it a step further, I found ammunition and tanks that wereAmerican ammunition and tanks, that were left over from theIran/Iraq War that they drove out to the battlefield just to makeit look like there was a tank there.
still doesn’t get to my question, which was, I mean --- saying that the basis of your belief is your experience, that thisis a propaganda tool in order to heighten paranoia, and I’msuggesting to you that --- can’t interrupt her. You have to wait until she finishes thequestion.
suggesting this was a paranoia tool and I’m putting to you analternative possibility, which was it may have been -- it may haveresulted in increased paranoia, but its allegation and its basis,the basis of the allegations were essentially true and they weredesigned to put people in a precautionary state of mind, and tomake sure that they recognized all of the legitimate threats theywere facing.
Ma’am. If I called you from a cellular phone two blocks away fromyour house and told you I’m coming to get you, how would that makeyou feel? I will tell you your heart would be beating out of yourchest and you would be absolutely out of your mind full ofparanoia and fear. So, no, Ma’am, I don’t agree with that.
Once again, you have to wait until she finishes the question. Shewon’t interrupt you, I’ll make sure of that.
true and have some foundation. Just because you didn’t have thesame experience as others doesn’t mean that you weren’t entitledto the same information that everyone else had before them.
you didn’t encounter any -- you call it a joyride from yourinvasion to Baghdad and you came under fire once.
legitimate to say that other people didn’t have it so easy; otherpeople did come under fire; other people were attacked by peopledressed as civilians; other people did have situations where theywere actively attacked while trying to come into Iraq? because I was the tip of the spear. I was --- front lines. You don’t get any closer than where I was at. Ma’am, I’m in the Infantry --- anti-armour team. I was a part of a reconnaissance that was 10 to15 miles in front of the rest of the battalions in enemy lines theentire time.
I only came under contact, direct fire one time. I am, we werethe tip of the spear.
that direction. Were there invasions from other areas? to get a witness form the Third I.D. You would have to get awitness from the Royal Marines. I can’t speak for them.
that, but what I’m saying is, is it the case that the intelligencewould vary from area to area, or would they give a general warningto everyone based on the experiences of a limited amount ofindividuals? that on the battlefield you have to give men a reason to fight. You have to give them a purpose and a cause to fight. It’s not anatural reaction to put a bullet in somebody’s head. Marinestrain for that, but you still have to be coaxed into doing it, andwhat better way than to over inflate propaganda or intelligencereports to ensure that this happens? These are the tactics thatwe’ve been using since Vietnam and that we use in countries, suchas Venezuela and in Third World countries, and, yes, that is astandard operating procedure in psychological warfare. You canlook that up in any military manual.
ever been part of intelligence or reconnaissance units? part of the intelligence that came forward that said the insurgent-- people were dressed as civilians? These were intelligence reports that we were receiving fromhigher.
where those reports would have come from? Headquarters Marine Corps in Washington, D.C., that wasn’t eventhere.
been filtered from other intelligence units? know, from Central Intelligence Agency.
you’re misunderstanding. A reconnaissance unit gathersinformation. You understand the definition of reconnaissance? reconnaissance units gather information and then report to higher.
Then they take that report and filter it up to a higher chain ofcommand. Once they have made a final determination, thatintelligence report that I gave them slowly trickles back down.
to 15 miles ahead into enemy territory, yes, Ma’am.
be able to take just a two-minute break for personal reasons rightnow. I don’t want to interrupt my friend to the extent possible.
take our morning break? I guess if we go till one, we shouldn’ttake it now, it’s too early.
needs a break now, I don’t have a problem with taking our morningbreak now.
prefer, Ms. Chisholm? You’re the one who is questioning now.
morning break. I just wanted to, once again, thank the members ofthe public who are here and the members of the media who are herefor the manner in which they have been conducting themselvesduring the course of the hearing. It has not been disruptive, Idon’t believe, to the parties, and I’m grateful for your beingrespectful of the process and of the parties.
is public doesn’t mean that I’m entitled to speak to any of you.
Much as some of you would like to speak to me, and I’m sure Iwould like to speak to you, that’s just not possible. So, pleasedon’t consider me rude if I indicate to you that I’m unable tospeak to you, but none of us would want to do anything to be anobstacle to ensure that Mr. Hinzman receives the fairest possiblehearing. of you who have cell phones, once again to turn your cell phonesoff, and we will proceed through probably till one p.m. So, ifthere are any of you here who need to leave before one p.m., Iwould ask you to do so now so that it’s not disruptive. Thank youvery much.
continue with her cross-examination.
when we left off, we were talking about the intelligence reports,and you thought they were exaggerated; correct? of that was to -- what was the purpose of over exaggeration? essence to fight. That’s a personal opinion.
personal opinion. In your personal opinion, was this overexaggeration designed so that soldiers would target civilians? was an over exaggeration to instil the will to fight.
the Army would ever, in your opinion, encourage soldiers to killcivilians? anything that led you to believe that as part of this policy ofover exaggeration, that they really wanted more civiliancasualties? that was the intent of the U.S. Government, no.
never any orders given by you or received by you to targetcivilians? please. Okay. I just want to go back to your discharge from --your relief from duty after the incident at the military compound.
where there was not -- like, someone who was surrendering who waskilled. I just want to go through the timeline.
say the actual, I didn’t bring it with me, but I want to say itwas around March 20 -- no, excuse me, March -- no. April 9th or10th. I’m sorry, I didn’t bring the actual report with me of thatday that Mr. Ron Harris wrote.
that point in time when you were relieved from command, you weretold to remove yourself from the scene and get some rest. That’sthe impression I got. Is that correct? moved out to the Baghdad Stadium. Near the Baghdad Stadium.
we arrived there around ten in the morning and we left to actuallyphysically go in the stadium around 18:00 that night.
backtrack, at this point in time, you haven’t reported anything toyour supervisors or to your superiors regarding your concerns about civilian losses, or about the actions that you took at the -- when you shot the person surrendering? at that time, had you vocalized your concerns to? you do that? Can you tell me what you said? on. It was actually before the incident with the gentleman withhis hands up. It was after a couple of the civilian casualtieshad already occurred.
wondering about is the incident that you were involved in whereyou shot the person surrendering. Did you ever report that toyour superiors? afterwards would that be? Like, in terms of hours, days, weeks? hours tops. I had to wait till I was physically in front of thecommanding officer, Captain Dan Schmidt, and that was when heasked me what was wrong and I told him that today was a very badday, we killed a lot of innocent civilians, and he looked at medead in my eyes and said, “No. Today is a good day.” And hewalked off. So, I figured that was the end of the discussion.
tell him, you know, what it was in particular that was disturbingyou? Like I mean -- what I’m trying to get at is: We’ve seen yousuggesting that you shot at civilians, and you have acknowledgedthat you thought they weren’t civilians, but they might well havebeen combatants. You would never be sure until -- sorry? that was the testimony. I think, as a matter of practice, myfriend is required to state the evidence clearly as part of herquestion, and I don’t think the evidence was that he thought theymight be combatants. I don’t think that has been his evidence.
you had fired on these vehicles, four vehicles in total; is thatcorrect? want, I can actually draw a diagram of all the vehicles. It’shard for me, I have to sit down with a pen and paper, thisvehicle, this vehicle. I can draw the actual Rashid MilitaryComplex with the vehicles. I mean field expedient, of course, and the Baghdad Stadium incident. We can count the vehicles and thebodies.
your offer to do that. I don’t believe it will be necessary forthe purposes of this hearing for you to do that, but I would likeyou to answer Ms. Chisholm’s question.
Member? I’m not sure his evidence has been that there were fourvehicles in all, and that’s what was in Ms. Chisholm’s question.
why I have asked him to answer the question. I’ve asked him toanswer -- she asked whether, in fact, he shot at four vehicles,and that’s what we were waiting for the answer to, and if you needto use paper and pencil yourself --- I have no problem with that, but I really don’t require it for thepurposes of this hearing. If it assists you, by all means.
make sure I give an accurate account.
So, the question was: We heard evidence -- did we hear evidencethat you shot at four vehicles? I guess the first question is:Was it four vehicles, or was it more or less? semi -- part of the semi that you testified turned before it hitthe Red Zone? will correct me if I’m wrong, but you thought the tractor-trailerwas an imminent danger and you fired upon it outside of the RedZone because you thought you were in imminent danger? So, what I’m trying to understand is, only one of those casesinvolved someone who had identified themselves clearly as a non-combatant by putting their hands up; correct? one more time. Just to make sure I understand.
those six, the one that strikes me, and maybe I’m -- the one thatstrikes me as the most obvious is the one where the individualidentified himself by putting his hands up and indicating he was anon-combatant. That individual was the one where he had clearly made a gesture to you, which is internationally accepted that hewas not participating, he’s a non-combatant? getting into -- and I will answer your question, but do you want apersonal or do you want a textbook? textbook is anybody that fails to stop that comes into the RedZone is considered a combatant.
but at the time he puts up his hands, he is indicating to you thatalthough he’s in the Red Zone, he’s not a combatant anymore.
one individual that if there’s any, sort of, fog of warallegation, he’s clearly not caught under that, because he’sclearly identified to you that he’s not a combatant? before you continue. Is this the one that you described who, infact, had been hit? He had been shot? came out, he had been shot, put his hands up, and he was the onethat was crying about his brother? knowledge, he had to have been shot at least once, with the firstburst of ammunition that we put into the vehicle, he had to havebeen hit, but he still had the capability for him to exit out ofthe vehicle. A five-five-six round, that’s the type of ammunitionthat we use in an M-16, basically it decompassitates (ph) unlessyou hit the heart directly or you hit the brain, of course, butit’s not -- because it’s a NATO-approved weapon, NATO-approvedweapons are designed to be humane.
that he was hit before he exited and put his hands up? the incidents that you are describing, this is the one wheresomeone is in the Red Zone, but has, in a sense, trying to takehimself out of the Red Zone by putting his hands up and sayinghe’s not hostile? – I mean so, this is clearly someone who is a non-combatant, andyourself and members of your company have fired on him; correct? to bring forward this violation to your superiors? repeat it again, but it’s what I told to my Lieutenant.
that’s asking him what he was doing. I’m asking what you broughtforward in terms of your own actions.
inform your superiors that you thought you had violated the GenevaConvention? first time. I wasn’t able to complete what I meant, because theCaptain, by every right, doesn’t even have to talk to a staffsergeant.
vocalize to your superiors, other than to ask him what the ‘f’ areyou doing? How did you vocalize you had concerns that you,personally, had violated the Geneva Convention in this instance? the Division psychiatrist. I explained to him the situation.
10th. Why did you not make an official report or allegation atthat point in time? you understand the chain of command, Ma’am, and how it works. I’ma Staff Sergeant. I have every right to question my men that arebelow me. If I go to another individual that is a higher rank,especially an officer, that individual doesn’t even have the --doesn’t even have to talk to me, if they don’t want to.
individuals who fired on this individual in the Red Zone whoindicated they are non-combatant, were any of those people yoursuperiors? incident with the guy with his hands up, were any of those peopleyour superiors that fired upon him? and some of the people who fired were lower than you in terms ofchain of command? lieutenant. So, did you indicate to the people lower on the chainof command to you that what they had done was wrong? worried about being tried as a mutineer.
by informing your men that they had violated the GenevaConvention, that you would be tried as a mutineer? When you’re on the battlefield there’s a time and place to bringthings up. Whenever you’re in a battlefield or a combatsituation, you don’t do the timeout and say, “Okay, listen, allbad guys go away. Let’s go ahead and sit down and discuss this.”And then once everything is done, then we go back to playing G.I.
Joe. It doesn’t work like that.
Have you at any time brought forward a written complaint or anallegation against the people below you for the actions theycommitted on that day? saw the Division psychiatrist. The Division psychiatrist took thenotes, and also on my medical discharge there was an officialmedical report that was written, and it says on the officialmedical report, “Patient states becoming very distressed overseeing numerous civilian casualties.” curious, because is it typical that you would bring forwardallegations of Geneva Convention violations to a medical officer? up to anybody. The Geneva Convention is within everybody’s right.
It just depends on whether that individual wants to hear you.
in terms of bringing it forward into a forum where individualswould be punished for what they did --- attempted to take action to ensure that they are punished forviolating the Geneva Convention? saying I’m going to press charges. Then I was told, “StaffSergeant, you’re not even worthy of being a Marine.” you told the medical officer and the lieutenant that you intendedto bring charges against the men for shooting the civilian? intending on bringing charges on me for being a conscientiousobjector. I told them that I intended on bringing charges againstthem for violating the Geneva Conventions.
you use the word “charges” for conscientious objector. Is thatsomething that you would face penalties for in the Army? sorry. I mean, judicially, not extrajudicially, but in a -- youuse the word “charges” as a legal term. Is there a legalpunishment for being a conscientious objector? I’m putting that out of context. There is no charges. However,there is a blackball system within the military that if you file apetition for C.O. status, that pretty much, you’re giving yourselfa death sentence. I’ve known Marines to have been beaten severelyeither by their peers, harassed, sexually harassed, raped.
what we’re talking about is that you told the medical officer, youtestified, and the lieutenant that you were going to lay chargesagainst the men for firing at this civilian.
medical officer, as well, as well as the Division psychiatrist,and the assistant medical officer, the executive officer.
testified that -- tell me if I’m right -- that it was in responseto them having said that they were going to lay charges againstyou for -- and you originally said for being a conscientiousobjector, and then you corrected that. Ms. Chisholm asked youwhether it was an offence or there was a penalty for being aconscientious objector and you said there wasn’t.
charges -- I’m sorry. The first charges that they implied was thedestruction of government property.
then later on they decided to add the conscientious objector, andI explained to them that if they wanted to try me or pushconscientious objector status upon me for not wanting to killinnocent civilians, then I will see them in court. After I saidthat, they dropped all charges or all punitive actions against me.
They decided to leave that one alone.
threatened to force you to claim conscientious objector status? they were wanting me to do. I told them -- to add more, I toldthem that I am not an assassin, I am not a mercenary. If I wantedto kill innocent civilians, I could have went down to SouthAmerica and already retired by now, and probably had three or fourmillion in the bank. I’m not an assassin. The Marine Corps thatI live in or that I worked for does not kill innocent civilians.
the first charges were the destruction of government property.
was an allegation or a suggestion that you were a conscientiousobjector? time, that’s when you said that you were intending to bringcharges? was medi-vac'd (ph) out, immediately out of Iraq. want to get the order of who said what. So, they tell you, youare going to be charged for destruction of government property andyou are a conscientious objector.
relation to your allegation that you were going to bring charges,did that happen before or after they brought those allegations? before. I started voicing my concern about the civiliancasualties before they brought up the charges.
terms of the charges specifically for that event of the killing ofthe gentleman in the Red Zone who had indicated he’s a non-combatant, when did you tell them you wanted to press charges onthat matter? after, while we were in the Baghdad Stadium.
did you make a written report at that time, or anything like that? told the First Sergeant, First Sergeant Humphries (ph), that Iwasn’t comfortable with killing innocent civilians, and Iexplained to him why.
want to stop you there, because I don’t want to talk about thegeneral complaint you had; I want to talk about the specificshooting of this civilian. I’m wondering if that was part of yourApril 9th and 10th discussion with the Sergeant? you tell me about that portion of the discussion? brief discussion. When you start talking about legalities withMarines, they start becoming very scared. I explained to him whatwas going on, what had happened, and he looked at me and said,“Staff Sergeant, you’re playing a very dangerous game.” At thattime I felt I better start growing eyes in the back of my head.
was in April, and then April 5th -- sorry, May 5th, that’s when theallegation that you are a conscientious objector, the destructionof government property comes forward? discussion with the psychiatrist and the lieutenant, when did thatoccur? discussion with the command group happened at the beginning of themonth, around May 2nd, and then after the discussion ended withthem, they weren’t going to take action. That’s when I requestedto go see the Division psychiatrist. So, that was around the 5thor 6th, request to see the Division psychiatrist. I let them know.
Also let the executive officer for our medical detachment aroundthat same time, I let them know, as well as the official battalionsergeant. So, all of that, but the first one was around May 2ndwith the First Sergeant, because you have to go through a seriesof chain of command. You just can’t go up to the commandingofficer and say, “Hey, sir, can I talk to you?” You have to gothrough a chain of command. My direct chain of command was theFirst Sergeant.
separate, in terms of your complaints, the various incidents, or were they lumped as a general concern you had about killing ofcivilians? incident with the guy with his hands up, did you put that in aseparate category, or was that all part of your -- was that allpart and parcel of your complaint or your allegations to yoursuperiors about your issues? That was, of course, the number one, but all of the civiliancasualties was a major concern.
Division psychiatrist, he immediately said, “I’m going torecommend that you are medi-vac’d out of the country.” I wentback to my commanding officer, I handed him a sealed envelope, heread it, he became very verbally abusive. Of course, as a Marine,you don’t say anything, you stand there at the position ofattention, and you let him speak until he is done. Then I wasordered stripped of all of my weapons and ammunition, and I wasthen taken to an abandoned schoolhouse where I waited there for aride back to Kuwait. approximately five or six days, and then I was told that once Iget back State side, I was to report in immediately to thebattalion or the Naval Hospital Psychiatric Department to undergoevaluation.
testified that, I believe that you testified, that you werediagnosed with severe depression and post-traumatic stresssyndrome? that after you saw the psychiatrist and before you were medi-vac’dout? In other words --- psychiatrist tell you what his diagnosis was? right there immediately he gave me a hundred-count bottle ofZoloft and sleeping medication.
mentioned that you gave a report in an envelope? copy -- were you given a copy of that report? envelope. I was ordered to hand it directly to the commandingofficer. I never read it, sir.
know that it was of dire straights by the look on the Captain’sface as he was reading it and as verbally abusive as he came aftercompleting reading it.
that -- was it your belief that the contents indicated that indeedhe had diagnosed you as being severely depressed and having post-traumatic stress syndrome, and that you should be sent back to theUnited States for evaluation in the Naval Hospital? reason why, because of the civilian casualties. You had to put areason why. The doctor just can’t say because the command has toknow why is this person going back State side. What happened,this Marine was given a clean bill of health in January for combatduty and now, a couple of months later, he’s diagnosed with majordepression and PTSD. So, what happened between point A and pointB.
after you were diagnosed -- sorry, let me start again.
the letter to -- I’m sorry -- and I handed the letter to theCaptain. After he got done with his verbal abuse, he then orderedme to hand over my weapons. The First Sergeant -- I’m sorry, theFirst Sergeant was also present, First Sergeant Humphries, and theFirst Sergeant told the Captain that he didn’t feel that it wasright for him to take my side arm, my pistol, but he stillinsisted, because it clearly -- the doctor, the psychiatriststated to me and asked me several times, “Staff Sergeant, are youa threat to yourself? Are you a threat to other Marines?” Isaid, “No, sir. I’ve done enough killing to last me a lifetime.” you those questions, did you think perhaps the psychiatristthought you were suicidal? to probe to find out if I was suicidal, or if I had any ambitionson shooting any of my platoon members.
medication that he prescribed you, I don’t know what Zoloft is. Do you know what it is? got back State side, I’m wondering if you reported as ordered? to report into Dr. Dexter (ph), and I told her the same thing thatI told you all here today. I went into the same -- well, more detail about the civilian casualties, and at the end of theconversation, she looked at me and she said, “I don’t deal withconscientious objectors. This is a matter that is going to haveto be brought up with the chaplain." And I looked at her and Isaid, “If you’re going to label me as a conscientious objector fornot wanting to kill innocent civilians, then I will see you incourt.” I got up and I excused myself. The next day I wasordered to report into the Regimental Sergeant Major, theRegimental Sergeant Major of 7th Marines, Sergeant Major Butts(ph), and he pulled me into the office and sat down and startedexplaining to me how I had seven more years to retire, why did Iwant to throw away my career, that I was a stellar Marine, neverbeen in any trouble before, never had court-martials, non-judicialpunishment. What is wrong with my brain housing group? And why amI taking this to the extent that I am? want his benefits, I didn’t want his money, I didn’t want hisretirement, that we killed innocent civilians, and that I plan ontelling anybody and everybody that will listen. He became veryangry. He stood up, slammed his fist on the desk and said, “Well,you do understand that there might be certain legal repercussionsthat come across for your actions?” to the store, I bought a copy of the “Marine Corps Times”. In theback of the copy of the “Marine Corps Time” there was a legaladvertisement. I contacted a lawyer by the name of Mr. Gary Myers(ph) out of Washington, D.C. Mr. Myers was also a defenceattorney at the May Lai Trials in Vietnam, and I explained to himwhat happened, what was going on. He contacted my psychologist,explained to them how I was feeling, what was happening. Hecontacted the Regimental Sergeant Major, explained to him, andafter that the Marine Corps was even nice enough to say, “You knowwhat, Staff Sergeant? You don’t even have to come into workanymore. All you have to do is report in at 07:30 to let us knowthat you are alive. I think it’s quite clear what your intent is,and that you were going to be medically discharged out of theMarine Corps. Thank you. Have a nice life.” that he contacted your psychologist, who are you referring to? Dr. Dexter or someone else? understand the motivation behind your saying, “If you’re going tosay that I’m a conscientious objector, then I’ll see you incourt”, “Because I killed civilians, I’ll see you in court”, letme just see if I understand what your thinking was, that you werenot a conscientious objector.
objected to was the killing of civilians? umbrage; you objected, if I could, to her saying that you are aconscientious objector? didn’t believe you were a conscientious objector.
quarrels about killing the enemy on the battlefield, yes, sir.
you encouraged to make an application by anyone for conscientiousobjector status? verbally advised, but not formally written. I was verballyadvised.
conscientious objector status, because you weren’t one.
returned State side, did you pursue any of the charges againstyour colleagues for what you viewed as killing of civilians? verbal. All the local Congressmen, I know the local Congressmen,personally, in my hometown area, they all know. They havedismissed it as being a fog of war. is: How is a six-year-old child with a bullet hole in its head afog of war? How can you label a six-year-old child as aninsurgent or a terrorist? allege that the killing of the individual, who had surrendered toyou, was a fog of war situation? you should have been charged in that incident? if you should have been charged or faced penalties for shootingsomeone who was raising their hands in the air and surrendering? mind, is there a difference between shooting someone who issurrendering because you’re tried and exhausted versus someone whois intentionally killing civilians? Marines are trained, sleep deprivation, mental torment, muscles sosore you will puke. Marines don’t sugarcoat anything. Thetraining that we go through, sometimes you’re up for longer than48 hours. That is something that is automatically instilled intoyou. Sleep deprivation to a Marine or to an Army Ranger isnothing. It’s part of the training.
mean, what I’m suggesting is there is gut reaction and impulsereaction to shoot someone who you think is imminently threateningyou versus deliberately gunning down people that are civilians.
gunned down people that were civilians.
I’m asking you is: Is there a difference between the motivationbehind that being fear and over reaction versus being ordereddirectly to do so and performing those orders? - you’re going to have to break that down a little bit more.
your mind, if someone has -- is frightened and is being told thatthere are insurgents dressed as civilians -- I mean, whether ornot these are true, the people are legitimately frightened. It’san excessive force situation, for example.
excessive force that is being applied to the individual Marines.
It is an excessive force on their psychological state of mind.
reaction, as well, is to use excessive force? that they are committing war crimes; it’s that they are usingexcessive force.
different than being ordered directly to kill people that theyknow are civilians? is there a difference between pushing someone to the brink or, youknow, Marines using excessive force versus what happened in MayLai where I’m deliberately gunning down women and children? honestly tell you that I became so concerned because I felt thatmy Marines were honestly enjoying it. You know, when you’re onthe battlefield, you can tell the true nature of a man. So whenyou’re on the battlefield, there’s a little mechanism inside yourbrain that switches it’s the flight and fight-type of mindset. You become -- there are two ways that you can either go. You caneither derive on your conscience while you’re on the battlefield,or you can become a psychopath, and I saw plenty of Marines becomepsychopaths. It was just in their nature, they enjoyed killing. Doesn’t mean --- that they are bad people; doesn’t mean that they are bad Marines.
It just means that they enjoy killing. Then there are someMarines that don’t enjoy killing. They let their conscience guidethem, but how do you turn a psychopath off once you get him in themotion? It’s hard.
once you get Marines on the battlefield, and my understanding wasthat you’re only under fire once on your way to Baghdad; is thatright? you believe that the soldiers that were under your command and theLieutenant who was above you, who shot at these vehicles, thatthey enjoyed shooting at these vehicles after it was determinedthat, according to your testimony, they posed no threat? that, sir. There are several members in my platoon that I feltwere a danger to Iraqi civilians.
talked to them, yes. At one point I even suspended one from beinga gunner. I pulled him off the lines for a 24-hour period.
others you believed, this one included, took some joy from havingkilled what you ultimately determined to be unarmed civilians? them. A few of them, but you want a psychopath in war. I thinkyou’re misunderstanding. It’s not human nature to kill. It’s notin our human -- it’s not in our mindset, it’s not in our psyche. It has to be something that’s instilled into you. That’s what theMarine Corps does. They instil that little switch inside yourbrain that allows you to kill. However, there are some peoplethat enjoy killing. They join the Marine Corps with a hope andthe intent that some day they will go on the battlefield and theywill be able to carry out what it is they enjoy doing, and they’redoing it in a legal way.
Marine Corps; I have dealt with them; and I’ve been in charge ofthem.
trying to understand is this: Was there any distinction in themindset of individuals who killed people who were ultimatelydetermined to be combatants and those who were ultimatelydetermined to be non-combatants? did they take greater joy when they found that the people who theykilled had, in fact, been armed, had explosives, et cetera, or wasit equal that whether they had arms or didn’t have arms, didn’tmatter, they took joy in killing people? they determined ultimately didn’t pose a threat to them? platoon have been interviewed by CNN. These allegations have beeninvestigated by news media in the United States. The CNN reportercalled me back and said, “Yes, Mr. Massey, we have contactedseveral members of your platoon, and one of them expressed to methat he did kill innocent civilians, and that if he was.” if Ican give you his exact quote, “.if he was going to fuckingapologize, it will be a snowball’s chance in hell.” why he said that? Did the CNN rep tell you why he said that? that it could be because at the time that he shot the individuals,that he didn’t know whether the person was a combatant or a non-combatant? any either, but I just want to do a quick check here.
you talked about in response to Ms. Chisholm’s questions, you sortof indicated that there is some sort of system for reporting ofcivilian casualties. Did I understand that correctly? materials, and I haven’t been able to find it, but I’m quite sureit’s in there, there’s a suggestion from the U.S. Government thatthey actually do not count Iraqi civilian casualties. Are thosetwo points not contradictory? understanding that each and every civilian casualty is counted bythe military? sir, because there is a formal investigation that takes placeright there on the spot.
person is determined to be a combatant as opposed to a civilian,is there any investigation which occurs in that case? that the investigation continued or started, actually, with respect to the incident that you described and that is describedin the materials that was caught on the video of the person whohad been a combatant and was shot in the head? longer a combatant, because he was unarmed. Now he goes under POWstatus.
sorry. What I meant by that was that he had been a combatant? I guess the investigation will determine whether he posed a threator not, et cetera, whether he would be considered a combatant ornot, I would take that.
it clear that what I meant was that he had been a combatant, notthat he was then a combatant.
the unknown, what exactly was his status, and what did the Marine who shot him perceive his status to be, and what are the standingorders for soldiers under those circumstances? for soldiers under that circumstance is to take that person intocustody and treat the wounds, protect for shock, and turn him overto medical personnel to --- testified yesterday that the procedure -- and I don’t know whetherit was a standing order -- the procedure is that you do a visualinspection; right? -- unless you can see that the person has, for example, youmentioned his hands clenched, so he may be holding a grenade, orunder the back, that there’s something under the back that couldbe a weapon, that you would then pat the person down.
that there were no problems, that the person would then be takeninto custody and be given immediate medical attention.
that’s the proper procedure of what you’re supposed to do.
is the procedure that you described yesterday and that I justsummarized, is that part of -- do you know if it’s a standingoperating procedure or a standing procedure? something that’s taught from day one at boot camp, sir.
handling of POWs is a class that’s taught at the School ofInfantry. It is taught from day one that you go into boot camphow to properly treat and handle POWs.
Safety is first and then treat the wounded.
asked you a question about whether you had ever brought up thespecific incident concerning the person who had raised his armsand surrendered, but who was, nonetheless, shot. I think youranswer was that you had talked about all of the incidents ingeneral; is that right? reason that you didn’t distinguish between the hands-up incidentand the other incidents? talked to my superiors about it, I threw all of them in together.
All of the civilian casualties were a concern with me. So, I putthem all into one nutshell as I was explaining my case to them.
that I think arose from my friend’s questioning, you indicatedthat after these incidents in which civilians were killed, youwent to the Lieutenant and you said, “Sir, what the ‘f’ are youdoing?” Correct? order to shoot? Or why were you fastening the blame on him? Because I understood that all the Marines shot.
reason I was pointing my finger at him directly, because hisvehicle was lead vehicle, his vehicle was the first one to openfire. So, his vehicle was number one in the convoy of thestaggered Humvees. Mine was always in the middle, because Ididn’t have an armoured Humvee.
whether he fired before the vehicle was in the Red Zone? honestly -- I don’t know, sir. I know that -- because I was busydoing something. I was checking the lines when the cars wouldcome in. So, by the time I got up to the front of the formation,he was already firing. So, I can’t say whether or not he fired. All I know is I visually saw him firing, but I don’t know when hedid, when he started.
have misunderstood your testimony yesterday, but I thought yourtestimony was that none of the vehicles were fired upon until theyentered the Red Zone.
sir. I’m sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought youwere asking me did I see him fire before the vehicles got into theRed Zone? -when I saw him fire, the vehicles were already in the Red Zone.
observation that he was the first to open fire? Did you say that? vehicle, as well, because his vehicle was number one. So, shotscame from his vehicle.
have any implications for the other Marines along the sides of theroad at the checkpoint? In other words, does that -- are they totake anything from the fact that the Lieutenant’s vehicle openedfire? he’s the leader in charge. You know, leadership by example. So,if the Lieutenant is doing it, then obviously it’s okay.
understand the standing order as you described it, the otherswouldn’t require a direct order from him to fire before doing so;it’s enough that the vehicle entered the Red Zone.
that they had to wait until he ordered them to fire? was never -- nobody ever gave us a direct order to fire. We hadalready --- those are my questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Massey.
would like to thank you very much for your attendance.
I know that some of this, talking about these memories will havebeen painful for you, and I certainly want to wish you everysuccess with whatever you choose to do in the rest of your life. Thank you very much for being here. We very much appreciate it. I’m sure Mr. Hinzman does.
do not have any more witnesses or evidence. If I could just lookout the door to see that his ride is available? if I request that we have written transcripts available as soon aspossible, there’s a good chance that will happen, and that it willtake at least a week. I mean, clearly they should be madeavailable to the parties as soon as possible. I’m going to leaveit to Mr. Hawkins, our communications advisor, to take care ofthat and to then liaise with Miss Dragaitis and our Case Officerso that we can ensure that they are delivered to you as soon aspossible.
submissions from Counsel for the claimants by January 4th, 2005,reply from the Minister’s Counsel by January 24th, 2005, and anyreply to the Minister’s Counsel by Mr. House by January 31st, 2005.
sincerely for the high level of your participation in thishearing. It has been a pleasure, frankly, to preside over thishearing. It has been a pleasure for me to meet you, Mr. Hinzman,and your family.
wish you, regardless of the outcome of my decision, every successto both you and your family.
fine safe holiday season, a joyous holiday season.
you, too, and to you out there. Thank you very much for yourpatience. I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS IS A TRUETRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE AND THAT IHAVE SWORN THE OATH OF SECRECY _______________________________Lucy McClelland 94040381

Source: http://www.resisters.ca/TA4-01429December8a.pdf