Kevin Sites, the NBC cameraman who shot video of the controversial shooting of a Fallujah insurgent by a U.S. Marine, is an anti-war activist whose photographs of Iraqi prisoners are featured on at least one anti-war website.

Kevin Sites, the NBC cameraman who shot video of the controversial shooting of a Fallujah insurgent by a U.S. Marine, is an anti-war activist whose photographs of Iraqi prisoners are featured on at least one anti-war website.

Sites was embedded with the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment in Fallujah when he shot the video of the Marine shooting an injured enemy fighter in a mosque. From the dialogue on the footage, it appeared the Marines were unsure if the insurgent was dead or faking death. Some fighters in Iraq have feigned death only to pull out a weapon or blow themselves up to kill Americans.


The U.S. military is investigating the incident to determine what happened and what, if any, punitive action should be taken against the Marine.

Sites was serving as a pool cameraman, giving access to the video to many networks.

Images Against War is one website where Sites' photography appears, giving two separate pages to his work. One of the pages, labeled "Kevin Sites 2," features photos of captured Iraqis with one caption saying detainees on a truck were enduring "a long ride into uncertainty." Most of the photos featured on the site engender sympathy toward U.S. enemy fighters and antipathy toward American military personnel.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41506

Interesting development....

Makes ya think whether this woulda seen the light of day if he wasnt

hmm .. and ?

hmm .. and ?

At least I'm not that sure anymore if ,for example, some important things, that can change the understanding of the situation, wasn't omitted.
I trust less reporters with strong agenda, specially about stuff that serves their agenda.

the footage speaks for itself.

hmm .. and ?

He had an agenda. Why would an anti-war activist cover the war in Iraq? Did this imbedded reporter make this story public because he cared about the dead terrorist? Did he want to make our troops jobs harder and more dangerous because he hates them? Or did he release this story to make a name for himself?


We dont need to have on-the-fly reports from the war. Its not neccessary.

the footage speaks for itself.

This comming from a war veteran? Please tell me about your vast experience on the battlefield.

Ah blame the cameraman now that is new. Its all his fault he set it up BS

From what I saw of the footage I still believe the soldier murdered a wounded man. That said, I would like to see journalists with agendas, noticeably pro or anti, kicked out of Iraq. Complete impartiality of the media is an impossible pipe-dream but we at least need to weed out those whose obvious bias can compromise their objectivity.

Ah blame the cameraman now that is new. Its all his fault he set it up BS

Thats right I am blaming the cameraman... He should have never been there in the first place. I never understood the reasoning of having imbedded reporters in the warzone. Now we find out that this reporter is an anti-war activist. I see a conflict of interest here.

Remeber the incident with Geraldo Rivera back in 2002? Giving away troop movements on a live broadcast? They only put themselves and the soldiers in harms way and at the same time, prevents the soldiers from doing their job and coming home.

Do I condone what the soldier did? No, but under the circumstances given, I cant really blame the guy. He had a friend killed due to a terrorist playing dead/booby trapped dead body. You heard what the soldier said over and over again didnt you? This is a war that they are fighting and they are trying to stay alive so they can come home to their families. The enemy doesnt fight fair. The enemy isnt an army of soldiers, they are an army of terrorists. They have killed innocent people with carbombs, suicide bombers, kiddnapping (beheading while alive no less, dismembering, disembowiling and executing.) War is hell, Im sure the soldiers dont enjoy what they are going through day in and day out but they are fighting to survive. This isnt a game to them.

Nobody knows what they expereince day in and day out. Their job is tough as it is and now we have everyone in the world playing armchair quarterback. It sure is easy for anyone of us criticize them from the comfort of your own home, thousands of miles away from the battlefield. The soldiers are fighting a PC war, and they are suffering for it.

This is becoming more and more ridiculous, what's next? That the camerman also uses pink toilet paper and is gay?

This is nothing but diversionary tactics to shift focus onto the messenger, and this bothers me a thousand times more than the actual act. The soldiers actions were wrong, but that's what happens in war, that's why we try to avoid needless wars like this one. People who aren't over there getting shot at and all that who say he did the right thing and blame the cameraman are insane, they have no excuse, period.

This whole thing has now degenerated into young Iraqi men and young American men killing eachother in the streets. Every reason given for the war was a lie, there are no more WMD's, Saddam has been caught, what are we doing there? Bush's dad called it right, too bad jr. didn't listen to daddies words.. :nonono:

This comming from a war veteran? Please tell me about your vast experience on the battlefield. you can twist it any way you want, but the soldier shot an unarmed wounded man dead. please dont tell me you think thats a good thing. he didnt photoshop the footage did he? its just showing what happened. what does it matter if the guy was anti war?arent we all anti-war?

At the moment we have had placed before us no proof of this individuals bias merely a claim. Hmmm kinda reminds me of the beginings of the war itself eh.

I also note that the particular website quoted is an installation by a Museum in Germany featureing the work of over 550 artists with some 4000 photographs. Sites has 6 pictures in this show. It is a well kinown Museum from what I can see online and has pics from WW1, WW2, to present day of war. Includes pictures of the Enola Gay and soldiers walking through the mud in WW2. If I was a war photographer and a MUseum asked to use my images in an installation called images against war after seeing the cost of war I would probably allow them to use them. I remember a quote from MacArthur went something like "no one hates war more than a soldier, we see what the results of war are" I imagine that like MacArthur a War photog would feel the same. I dont see bias here just apologists.

Btw, can anybody imagine if we had no footage of WW2 or any other modern wars? I've never heard anybody say we shouldn't have had cameramen back then..

This whole we shouldn't have any reporters over there stuff is lame, take them all away and someone else will replace them from some other country. One of the most important reasons for rules of warfare and treating pow's well is to ensure that ours are given good treatment in return. How long will it be before a captured American soldier is executed by someone who says they are taking revenge for an action like this?

you can twist it any way you want, but the soldier shot an unarmed wounded man dead.

No, I am just pointing out a fact. You have never been in battle, you dont know what its like. I dont know what its like but Im sure its not a fun place to be. Knowing that the enemy had done with success in the past, booby trapping dead bodies to kill poeple, I really cant harp on the soldier.



please dont tell me you think thats a good thing.
I see you have selective reading.


he didnt photoshop the footage did he? its just showing what happened. what does it matter if the guy was anti war?arent we all anti-war?
How can you photoshop television footage? Has this reporter shown any footage of terrorists boobytrapping dead bodies killing soldiers? The fact that this reporter is anti-war shows that he would probably do anything putting our soldiers in a bad light. There is a confilict of interest. Not only do the soldiers have to deal with the terrorists over in Iraq, they have to deal with the media at home.

The enemy they are dealing with have absolutely no respect for the living or the dead.

Sites, who is well-regarded among war correspondents for his reporting skill and lack of political agenda, has been quoted as saying: “I have witnessed the Marines behaving as a disciplined and professional force throughout this offensive. In this particular case, it certainly was a confusing situation to say the least.”


Don't blame the messenger(cameraman). Or the Marine. In WAR POOP happens.

Everyone here knows the mainstreme media is anti-war socialist imo. And have been against our troops since day one . We saw the prison abuse at least a couple thousand times . They did this to stir up the iraqis and cause more deaths of thier countrtymen who they hate,imo. They only hate war when it causes harm to the enemy . No praise or sympathy for our troops , no continued thousamds of showings of iraqi butchers .No condenmnatation of beheadings, just reported as 'INSURGENTS' protecting thier country. Forget the facts that these muslims are killing, enslaving and hacking up people all over the world as they INVADE .

the footage speaks for itself.I think the question being posed now is what footage was omitted that doesn't speak?

Ah blame the cameraman now that is new. Its all his fault he set it up BS
I don't blame the camerman...in all likelyhood this means nothing. But is may explain why the media jumped all over it and played it non stop while practically ignorring the facy an unarmed, innocent civilian was beheaded at the same time.

I still say let all the facts come out and consider all the issues before you people rush to judgement. Do any of you know all the cercumstances yet? do you know what those soldiers were told upon entering? do you know what if any fire they took recently?

No, I am just pointing out a fact. You have never been in battle, you dont know what its like. I dont know what its like but Im sure its not a fun place to be. Knowing that the enemy had done with success in the past, booby trapping dead bodies to kill poeple, I really cant harp on the soldier.
no Ive never been in battle and hope I never will. but this man was checking if everybody was dead, then shouting that the ****er was faking his death, and then he shot him. now I believe that war is appelling, and this a little more then usual. I feel sorry for those soldiers too. journalists are just showing what happens in war. How can you photoshop television footage? Has this reporter shown any footage of terrorists boobytrapping dead bodies killing soldiers? . I dont know. but you are aware of this, because of other journalists.

The enemy they are dealing with have absolutely no respect for the living or the dead. this soldier didnt eighter.

BFD,you don't like the news so you are blaming the messenger.

The camera did not lie.

BFD,you don't like the news so you are blaming the messenger.

The camera did not lie.


Old socialist never die,they just fade away .

Old socialist never die,they just fade away .
:topic:

blaming the messenger.
My thoughts exactly ....

The camera did not lie.

Hopefully the camera is not of French/german/russian make .
Twould have added to the "argument" at hand ..

Where was this bassterd when the boobytraps blew up ? I know he was there,because he was with this same group of marines whos buddy was blown to pieces right before this one being shot in face .

I sure would'nt want to be a reporter with these troop after this treason came out . Accidents should happen to the enemy media from now on.

They have been the best recruiters of terrorist than even Osama and caused many deaths . Just like their vietnam fathers .

Where was this bassterd when the boobytraps blew up ? I know he was there,because he was with this same group of marines whos buddy was blown to pieces right before this one being shot in face .

I sure would'nt want to be a reporter with these troop after this treason came out . Accidents should happen to the enemy media from now on.

They have been the best recruiters of terrorist than even Osama and caused many deaths . Just like their vietnam fathers .

Personally I want all kinds of reporters covering news. No person can experience war and not have some anti war bias. No individual can produce any art and not let a peice of them enter the art. I view anyone running around with a camera taking pics in a war zone as an incredibly courageous person. Do you really want every bit of news you watch to only have one perspective? Do you really want the news to simply parrot the party line? Wake up a free, diverse, unrestricted press is crucial to our society. Today one man faces Jail for not disclosing the source of a tape showing a Mayor taking a bribe. Another is on appeal again trying to protect a source.

I for one am proud of every individual who gets behind the lens of a camera in a war zone and I honor them despite the fact I may not agree with their politics.

Oh an Who it isnt the press that acts as the best recuiter for Al qaeda its the Adminsrations policies.

you can twist it any way you want, but the soldier shot an unarmed wounded man dead. please dont tell me you think thats a good thing. he didnt photoshop the footage did he? its just showing what happened. what does it matter if the guy was anti war?arent we all anti-war?

So did John Kerry. He got a Silver Star for it.


But back on point, I don't think this is as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. The situation was not something that can be quarterbacked from afar. When it comes down to it, I would vastly prefer it be one of theirs, instead of one of ours. And we're still up by one at the end of the day.....another dead terrorist, good thing.

Not that I am saying the footage was altered or anything but the concept that the camera cannot lie is antiquated and obsolete.

Anyone who believes the camera cannot lie must be absolutely dazzled by modern cinema and must spend months trying to figure out how Keanu Reeves learned to fly :rolleyes:

GM I think he used Pixie dust didnt he :)

But back on point, I don't think this is as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. The situation was not something that can be quarterbacked from afar. When it comes down to it, I would vastly prefer it be one of theirs, instead of one of ours. And we're still up by one at the end of the day.....another dead terrorist, good thing. so you agree with killing wounded pople in battle?

so you agree with killing wounded pople in battle?yes


Do you agree with eliminating perceived threats on the battlefield?

you can twist it any way you want, but the soldier shot an unarmed wounded man dead. please dont tell me you think thats a good thing. he didnt photoshop the footage did he? its just showing what happened. what does it matter if the guy was anti war?arent we all anti-war?
Prove that please. I am getting sick of you arm chair quartebacks saying that. Prove he was not armed. Prove it was easily known he was not armed or booby tarpped?

so you agree with killing wounded pople in battle?
if still a threat or percieved as possibly one you bet.
Its idiotic to demand soldiers put themselves at risk for the enemies sake.

yes


Do you agree with eliminating perceived threats on the battlefield?

I dont agree with any acts of war. Prove that please. I am getting sick of you arm chair quartebacks saying that. Prove he was not armed. Prove it was easily known he was not armed or booby tarpped? proove that he was armed and about to blow up the soldiers.if still a threat or percieved as possibly one you bet. as surreal as it is, there are rules in war. you dont shoot wounded people just because they fake death.

but hey whatever, you are taklking to the wrong person about this, since I think that ANY murder in any situation is a crime. and Im allso not very much more shoicked by this then by any other war violence that is according to teh rules. its war and people are killing eachother. so might as well just kill the wounded, while youre at it.

I dont agree with any acts of war.
didn't really answer my question in a realistic way.

Are you a pacifist? a conscientious objector? or a dreamer?

Detroit Pistons brawl:The camera did not lie.

U.S. soldier shooting an wounded Iraqi in the head:The camera did not lie.

proove that he was armed and about to blow up the soldiers. as surreal as it is, there are rules in war. you dont shoot wounded people just because they fake death. Nope. Never said it. The burden is on you. YOU said he was. I said wate and see,. We already have examples of just that so if anything the benifit of doubt is on the marines side not yours.

No, you also dont allow them to fake it so as to blow you and yours up or oopen fire on you either.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1248394.htm

but hey whatever, you are taklking to the wrong person about this, since I think that ANY murder in any situation is a crime. and Im allso not very much more shoicked by this then by any other war violence that is according to teh rules. its war and people are killing eachother. so might as well just kill the wounded, while youre at it.
And you are unfirmilar with them apparently. One need not wait to be shot or blown up if the precident is set already that the enemy does these very things. When in doubt or threat percieeved, you err on the side of safety.

As imple concept that escapes the simple minded on warfare.

Detroit Pistons brawl:The camera did not lie.

U.S. soldier shooting an wounded Iraqi in the head:The camera did not lie.
cameras lie all the time.Go to amovie and tell me you beleive it all. Cameras can be made to lie all the time. Its rather easy.

And that nba thing, are you sure they showed it all???Things flying from the statnds seem mising at some parts.

didn't really answer my question in a realistic way.

Are you a pacifist? a conscientious objector? or a dreamer?I dont agree, Im not a pacifist and when I was drafted for the dutch army I refused, I am a concientious objecter. I think war is about the stupitest thing man ever invented. and there is no solution unless everybody refuses to do it. maybe not realistic but that doesnt bother me.

Nope. Never said it. The burden is on you. YOU said he was. I said wate and see,. We already have examples of just that so if anything the benifit of doubt is on the marines side not yours. well no, theres a vidoe that shows it happning. if you think its something else, proove it. my proof is the video. but youre right that well see. my guess is that this soldier will be reprimanded. an agains, I hardly expect anything else in a war then this sort of behaviour. if teh US drops a bomb and 3 civilians die, you hear noathing about it, and if an iraki blows up a police station killing a few women and children too, noone looses sleep over it. im not much more shocked by this one.

I wish they would film ALL killings every day and broadcast it on prime time, and made everybody watch it. its your vote, for a gouv. , that does teh killing, its YOU thats shooting and gets killed every day.

cameras lie all the time.Go to amovie and tell me you beleive it all. Cameras can be made to lie all the time. Its rather easy.

And that nba thing, are you sure they showed it all???Things flying from the statnds seem mising at some parts.

:rofl:

Any fool knows what I meant [and that what I said is accurate].

If you are saying the footage of either event is edited/doctored then it's up to you to prove it.

CamerAs can lie. Their true or lie depends of the integrity of the ones that are holding them.

CamerAs can lie.



Not in the context I'm refering to.

Their true or lie depends of the integrity of the ones that are holding them.

I would say more likely the person editing it [I've had experience in both jobs].

But there is no evidence this footage is editied,even Betty thinks what's seen is accurate.

you can use images and video to manipulate and lie, thats true.

:rofl:

Any fool knows what I meant [and that what I said is accurate].

If you are saying the footage of either event is edited/doctored then it's up to you to prove it.
ROFL No sir. Dont try and weasil out of what you said. You have the burden. You said cameras cant lie sho you need to prove it. We all know that they can.

Not in the context I'm refering to.


I would say more likely the person editing it [I've had experience in both jobs].

But there is no evidence this footage is editied,even Betty thinks what's seen is accurate.

What I'm saying is that a source with agenda lessens the creability in my eyes, camera or no camera.
I don't have a firm opinion over this specific case.

well no, theres a vidoe that shows it happning. if you think its something else, proove it. my proof is the video. but youre right that well see. my guess is that this soldier will be reprimanded. an agains, I hardly expect anything else in a war then this sort of behaviour. if teh US drops a bomb and 3 civilians die, you hear noathing about it, and if an iraki blows up a police station killing a few women and children too, noone looses sleep over it. im not much more shocked by this one.Nope, sorry. The vedeo does not show him shooting an unarmed man. I have already prooven there is no way from just that clip you can make such an assinine claim.the burden is still yours to proove the marine NEW he was unarmed and no threat.

Kep in mind the agenda of the vedio guy.
Kevin Sites, the NBC cameraman who shot video of the controversial shooting of a Fallujah insurgent by a U.S. Marine, is an anti-war activist whose photographs of Iraqi prisoners are featured on at least one anti-war website.
http://www.imagesagainstwar.com/index.php
some of his images.
http://www.imagesagainstwar.com/index.php?display=522
2 pages of his work.

Read up on him if you like;
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=41506

His description of the actual incident gives us no additional information beyond what you saw in the video, but the more telling point comes at the conclusion:

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera — the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.

This little piece of anal waste actually puts himself on an equal and level field as the marines.Add to that the fact he does not share the goals of the war and those he films ?
Cameras lie all the time. Go toa movie and tell me its all real. Giving part of the staory and making claims unsubstantiated and ofering No more evidence is a clear sigh he is hidding something.

Biased AND contemplating his navel. That describes the phony moralizing of that journalist. Shooting pictures and shooting guns require two different sensibilities.Most, not all, of the commentary about this Marine has been bloodless and gutless. Reminding readers of what happened to him and his buddies in the prior few days only gets you halfway there.

You can't just be in his boots. You must also have his eyes, his vision and above all, the sense of fear, sweat, adrenaline, and the sense of imminent danger both to you and your buddies. Instinct counts. The NBC jerk can't talk about instinct.Instinct is about processing information at the subconscious level. It happens so much faster than what is processed with your eyes and ears. In other words, he did not just "decide" to shoot the terrorist. He REACTED to his instincts. You can't catch that on a camera.

The hunter and the hunted operate on a different plane from anything the camera can shoot.Is it Site's implied contention that the presumably armed insurgent shouldn't have been shot the first time? (If indeed he had been previously wounded) ...or simply the second time? What is it about the insurgents actions in an active battlezone that earned him selective respect from his targets. There's a great scene in The Unforgiven that corresponds to this situation. Sites may believe the insurgent was unarmed and defenseless. To paraphrase Money, 'that man shoulda armed himself, if he was going to decorate his town with the mutilated bodies of my countrymen.'

Examine exactly what the video contains. It is footage of an American *killing* an insurgent. Can we actually hear the blood 'splat' against the wall? This is sensationalism, not objective reporting.I would have done the same in his shoes. All thsi reporter did was shoot picktures.

"He claimed he was willing to hold the film until an investigation was made. Beyond that, what would you have him do?"

Thats what he claims and its B.S. He knew exactly what would happen to that video and how it would be used if hi submited it right away to the pool. He is completely dishonest here. teh honorable thing would have been to wait ill the investigation, then release it.I would have him be true to his word and have actually held the tape.

Sorry, his claims are worthless when it seems to be contradicted by the facts. No explanation is given as to why he did not hold the film and it seems that the Marine's were very much intent on doing an investigation.

"Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation."
As it clearly reads it appears that the Marine's acted as if they wanted him to hold it, but Sites in consultation with superiors at NBC decided to run it anyway. This whole blog entry seems to be an attempt to justify that choice.

Sorry, but I am not buying the rationalizations offered by Sites here. The responsible and ethical thing was to hold the tape and let the investigation take it's coarse. He did not do that and the explanation as to why is extremely weak.One question that should be asked among journalists is did the news value outweigh the propaganda value the video has given to the enemy? The incident was witnessed by the reporter and a description of the shooting could have been reported without the sensational or inflammatory video to accompany it. Once it was released to the pool, media critical of the US action were free to do as they saw fit, including looping the video over and over, broadcasting it throughout the Arab world. That was a big mistake that Sites made…not fully understanding how the video could be used by our adversaries, once it was released.

Regardless his motives, that jeopardized Marine's lives going forward, as they may hesitate and be killed in future actions.Had the situation turned out differently, Sites and several of the Marines may be dead today.The fact is, there were several insurgents still alive and one of them could have had a grenade hidden on the him or been booby trapped with explosives, killing everyone in the room. We would be reacting to a much different video today.Although Sites reported that those wounded individuals weren't armed, it doesn't prove that they weren't. No one had searched them when he entered the room.One detail not mentioned in his blog or in the media reporting is that the man in the red and white keffiyah appeared to have been shot just minutes before (blood was squirting from his eye). Had he been shot just before Sites and the other Marines entered the Mosque?

Generally, in the law, the intent required for conviction can be inferred (even if denied by the perpetrator) from proof that the individual did the act in question intentionally and knew of its likely consequences, whether he subjectively 'wanted' those consequences or not.Serious consideration should be given to trying Kevin Sites, perhaps by court martial since he is embedded and under the jurisdiction of the military in Iraq.Charge Sites with obstruction of justice and hammer him as hard as possible.
Freedom of the press does not mean freedom from the law even as the right to keep a firearm does not equate to the right to endanger the public, or the right to speech as an open invitation to threat, libel and slander.

He is not quoting them truthfully now is he tig. Sites roams around Fallujah for 10+ days with a video camera, and all we see are a few stills and this one controversial video!If you bothered readding with those bliders off, you might learn something.Where are the videos of insurgents pretending to be wounded, then attacking? Where are the videos of insurgents shooting from the mosque? Where are the videos and still pictures of weapons in the mosque? Where are the videos of insurgents attacking us in civilian clothing and with stolen Iraqi National Guard uniforms? Where are the videos of the terrorists using women and children as human shields while they fight? Where are the pictures of booby-trapped bodies (the ones that are detected before they explode)?
On what basis? On the basis of the fact he did NOT go into that room with guns blazing, he did NOT roll a grenade in the room

first. He went in cautiously, and opened fire when he felt threatened. The men in the room had NOT surrendered, and were NOT in custody. Case closed.

Simply name calling and labling agaion. Getting desperate again tig. Its very unbecoming of you.
spell checked and everything just for you whiners.

ROFL No sir. Dont try and weasil out of what you said. You have the burden. You said cameras cant lie sho you need to prove it. We all know that they can.

The camera in and of itself can't lie,how the film/tape can be edited could be deceptive,but the camera in and of itself does not lie.

Once again,I've worked as a cameraman and as an video editor,so I know what I'm talking about.

What I'm saying is that a source with agenda lessens the creability in my eyes, camera or no camera.



It's very seldom [if ever] that no one has an agenda of any sort.

Even if one has a agenda that does not mean one can be accurate.

No,I can see where this can be an argument in print but not [over footage itself] in film/videotape.

Once again,editing can be an issue,but that is not what is being alledged here.