The Fugitive

Sites'
description of the shooting of a Jihadi in a Fallujah mosque by a
Marine (featured in an earlier
post) is now being used by the Associated
Press to substantially advance the claim that the Marine fired without
provocation.

The NBC correspondent who filmed the fatal shooting by a Marine of an
apparently injured and unarmed Iraqi by a U.S. Marine inside a Fallujah mosque
has written on his Web site that the wounded man made no sudden movements
before the Marine opened fire on him. ...

In the video, as the cameraman moved into the mosque, a Marine can be heard
shouting obscenities in the background, yelling that one of the men was only
pretending to be dead. The Marine then raises his rifle toward an Iraqi lying
on the floor of the mosque and shoots the man. Two other men are seen slumped
by a wall. Sites' account said the men, who were hurt in the previous day's
attack, had been shot again by the Marines. Earlier in the footage, as the
Marine unit that Sites was accompanying approached the mosque, gunfire can be
heard from inside.

Although Kevin
Sites' weblog posting can be read, at one level, as a defense of a
journalist's duty to report what he sees, it is now being used to convey the
impression that a Marine now under investigation is guilty of shooting an
inoffensive and wounded man. Sites himself does not say the Marine is
guilty: he carefully avoids that; but was well aware that a journalist's story
could easily be put to uses beyond his control. Describing his own video, Sites
said:

We all knew it was a complicated story, and if not handled responsibly,
could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to
hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an
investigation -- providing me with information that would fill in some of the
blanks. ...

I knew NBC would be responsible with the footage. But there were
complications. We were part of a video "pool" in Falluja, and that
obligated us to share all of our footage with other networks. I had no idea
how our other "pool" partners might use the footage. I considered
not feeding the tape to the pool -- or even, for a moment, destroying it. But
that thought created the same pit in my stomach that witnessing the shooting
had. It felt wrong. Hiding this wouldn't make it go away. There were other
people in that room. What happened in that mosque would eventually come out. I
would be faced with the fact that I had betrayed truth as well as a life
supposedly spent in pursuit of it.

When NBC aired the story 48-hours later, we did so in a way that attempted
to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that Marine's actions. We
wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances
surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just
as responsible. Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because
of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the
world.

Sites had "no idea how our other 'pool' partners might use the
footage"; he regrets that while NBC covered the story responsibly "other
foreign networks made different decisions". Sites may now even regret that
his explanatory web posting is being used by the Associated Press in ways that he
did not originally intend. His story might indeed "further inflame the
volatile region"; now his well-meant comments might bear on a political
atmosphere that may send a man to jail. We can accept his sincerity, but who
will accept the consequences?

I wrote in the earlier post that "we need the truth, however ugly. There
is due process to protect the innocent from arbitrary punishment." I still
believe in the former but can only hope for the latter.