The Military Tried To Hide Evidence of a Massacre. A Lawsuit Just Exposed It.
The New Yorker sued for photos of the Haditha killings in Iraq—and found audio of a Marine general bragging about covering up those photos.

The Haditha massacre was one of the worst U.S. actions during the Iraq War. After a roadside bomb killed a Marine in the town of Haditha in November 2005, the rest of his squad shot dead 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women, and children, many of them inside their own homes. The Marine Corps then lied about it, claiming that the victims were all killed by the bomb or by running gun battles with insurgents.
Only dogged reporting by Time Magazine forced the military to open an investigation. No one was ever jailed for the killings or the coverup. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the commander of the squad, pleaded guilty to one count of dereliction of duty and was demoted.
The military avoided a public relations disaster, Gen. Michael Hagee would later brag, because graphic photos of the massacre were never published. Until now.
In the Dark, a true crime podcast published by The New Yorker, dedicated its latest season to re-investigating the Haditha massacre. The producers filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the U.S. military's files on the incident, then sued when the military refused to hand them over.
Officials claimed they were withholding photos of the massacre out of respect for the victims' families. Two survivors, Khalid Salman Raseef and Khalid Jamal, then went around Haditha collecting signatures for a petition to release the photos. They won the support of 17 relatives of the victims.
The military gave in. On Tuesday, with permission from the survivors, The New Yorker published several unredacted crime scene photos taken by investigators and by Lance Cpl. Ryan Briones and Lance Cpl. Andrew Wright, two Marines who arrived shortly after the massacre.
The FOIA files also included a recording of a 2014 interview between Hagee and a Marine Corps historian, meant for internal use. The massacre "could have been horrific for the Marine Corps if we did not handle that correctly. Another My Lai. Or another Abu Ghraib," Hagee claims, referring to the My Lai massacre, which helped turn American opinion against the Vietnam War, and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where U.S. soldiers and CIA officers were photographed torturing and sexually assaulting inmates.
Hagee "learned from" the Abu Ghraib scandal not to let Briones and Wright's photographs of the Haditha killings be published. "Those pictures today have still not been seen, and so I'm quite proud of that," he says.
Indeed, the photos are pretty shocking; the victims range from a three-year-old girl to a 76-year-old man. "I'll never be able to get that out of my head. I can still smell the blood. This left something in my head and heart," Briones told The Los Angeles Times in 2006.
One of the photos shows the body of Ayda Yassin Ahmed surrounded by her three dead daughters and her dead son. "Knowing it was a kid, I still shot him," Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum told U.S. military investigators, according to Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) notes also released under FOIA. Tatum later denied making that statement, and his lawyer declined to let The New Yorker interview him.
Another photo shows what appears to be the execution of a mother and her child. Asmaa Salman Raseef lies dead on the ground, her arm wrapped around the body of her son Abdullah, as if she is shielding him. NCIS investigators concluded that the boy was shot from close range.
A version of one of The New Yorker's photos had previously been obtained and published by The Washington Post in 2007. It shows the bodies of five college students spread out around the car they had been riding in, with a Marine standing over them.
Some of the Marines claimed that the students were running, which is why they were mistaken for insurgents and shot. According to retired homicide detective Kevin Parmelee, who was interviewed for the podcast, the photo suggests that at least one of the college students was kneeling on the ground when he died. Iraqi witnesses told NCIS the same thing.
Photos, eyewitness statements, and NCIS records also show that the Marines lied about killing Jamal's father and uncles in self-defense. After Jamal's family surrendered their legally-owned rifles to the troops, The New Yorker concluded, the Marines separated out the men, shot two of Jamal's uncles in a doorway, shot Jamal's father while he was sitting against a wall, and shot Jamal's third uncle while he hid in a wardrobe.
Haditha has suffered a lot of other violence since then. After the near-collapse of the Iraqi government in 2014, Haditha was one of the few towns in the area that resisted the Islamic State. Locals paid a heavy price, with 400 people dying in a nine-day battle.
But Jamal never stopped thinking about the day the Marines took away his father and uncles. He even found Wuterich on Facebook, and considered sending a message, Jamal tells In the Dark. "How did they die? Did they die like brave men, or were they scared? Like, what happened?" he wanted to ask.
The FOIA case gave Jamal an answer, albeit a sad one. The photos of his father and uncles were not published in The New Yorker article.
For the rest of us, the release of the photos should be a chance to reflect on the Iraq War. Americans often think of that war as a mistake to walk away from. But the desire to move on has allowed American leaders to sweep a lot of deceptive and dangerous behavior under the rug. And forgetting how bad the last big war was is perhaps making it too easy to sell the next one.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
1. Whatever excuse they might have had, the coverup obliterated it, same as every other coverup.
2. War sucks. I would not be surprised if at least some of the dead had been responsible for some “insurgent” attacks, have no doubt that the killings created a lot more, the coverup probably generated its own, and this exposé will generate more.
3. Monopoly government and its expansive bureaucracy is the ultimate culprit, but no one will ever admit that.
women and children
executed
I have a separate, academic question. Why did they keep 10 year old evidence? Do they not have an Arthur Andersen rule of purging everything that might be negative, every year?
Bureaucrats are so divorced from reality that they think they'll be heroes in the history books and want to preserve their true reputation for posterity. Look at Nixon and all those tapes, or Biden and Trump and every other President taking documents with them.
insurgents killed a marine and his squad wiped them, and their entire existence off the face of the Earth?
Too bad.
That's why it's not called 'happy playtime'.
This would have happened if it weren't for the foreign policy disaster cooked up in Washington by the Trotslyite neo-cons.
Just another installment in America's long history of foreign policy failures.
No, US psychopaths, while in a country where they didn't belong, were killing people. Residents of that country responded in kind, so the Americans did not murder those responsible for the justified retaliation, they murdered the locals they happened to find nearby. His "squad" should be in prison.
You are a disgusting creature.
Insurgents hide among the population, and then complain when members of the same population are killed in retaliation.
The Haditha situation is the umpteenth example of how Counter insurgency (COIN) doesn’t work – it only puts your own people at risk while simultaneously opening you up to “scandals” like this.
Petti: “The Haditha massacre was one of the worst U.S. actions during the Iraq War.”
Why? How is it any worse than the numerous civilians killed in conventional bombing in Iraq or any other war in history?
Because we didn't order conventional bombing of this town?
And these women and children had been disarmed prior to being executed?
And if they were insurgents, they should have been rounded up and transported back for interrogation?
"Because we didn’t order conventional bombing of this town?"
So an order to do this specific action would have nullified the scandal? Not likely.
"And these women and children had been disarmed prior to being executed? And if they were insurgents, they should have been rounded up and transported back for interrogation?"
Don't know what you're getting at with this. Do insurgents carry weapons all the time, 24/7? - No. Were these people all insurgents? No.
The point is, the population hides, feeds, clothes, and aids the insurgents in numerous ways. So the population can't then complain when some Marines retaliate against them for doing this when one of their friends gets blown to pieces by the insurgents they helped.
War is hell.
And an invader can't help but create insurgents. The Redcoats created more from 1763-1775 than they expected. The Soviets created enemies by their behavior occupying East Germany. I have no doubt that the British and French and Americans did too in West Germany.
"And an invader can’t help but create insurgents."
I do tend to wonder where all the insurgents were in Japan circa 1945-1950 though? How did we manage to not create any there?
That is a bit of a mystery.
MacArthur blocked demands to try and execute Emperor Hirohito. Hirohito arguably had guilty involvement in some WW2 Japanese war crimes, but MacArthur recognized he was the one man who keep Japan quiet, provided American occupiers behaved reasonably.
(1) On a somewhat analogous situation, US General Grant avoided guerrilla war in the occupied Confederacy by protecting Lee and other surrendered Confederate leaders. But, while ex-Confederates left Union soldiers alone, they would wage determined insurgency against the liberated Blacks, particularly those who aspired to political leadership.
(2) At Appomattox, Lee may well have recognized the key weakness in guerrilla resistance to the Union: while white Northern war soldiers may have grown war-weary, there were plenty of Black recruits available who had nothing to lose by fighting on.
I'm late answering, but Japan does a lot of things differently. When I was there in the Navy 73-76, the ship warned us there was a railway strike coming. We tried the trains anyway, and you could still set your watch by them. The only change was the workers wearing black armbands to shame management.
I have read that Japanese Communists had a resurgence after the war, and while they were Stalinists, they were also Japanese, and their disruptions were tame by Chinese or Western standards. I don't know if that is the equivalent of insurgents.
If it saves just one terrorist life it will be worth it to Petti.
To be fair though this does sound overboard but I don't think there is one trustworthy narrator on the bunch, least of all Western activists masquerading as journalists.
Most leftist are Islamist sympathizers.
We have insurgents hiding here in America, they're called neo-cons, Trotskyite, zionist neo-cons.
What is the evidence that there were insurgents hiding where the civilians were killed? Or what evidence is there that they were helping the insurgents?
And still the nimwits in Washington wonder why so many people grow up to become terrorists.
How would this cause people to grow up to be terrorists?
There's an text called The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer. He lays out the social mechanisms by which that occurs very clearly.
Sadly, for such an old and well-substantiated text, it remains largely ignored.
How would this cause people to grow up to be terrorists?
Are you asking how soldiers wearing the flag of an occupying country, murdering five children under the age of 10, and another two between 10 and 15, murders that were then covered up by agents of the occupying country, might drive people to get revenge by whatever means they could?
Can you explain how it is that Japanese haven’t been growing up to be terrorists, despite the US killing significantly more children there than the short list you just provided? In very brutal ways?
Are you saying the US killed children during the postwar occupation of Japan?
During the actual war, obviously. Why were there no insurgents created by this for Macarthur and the occupation to deal with?
Why did we face a violent insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc, but not in Japan? Have you or the advocates of blowback theory ever thought to ask this question?
Very great points!
Oh. There is a difference between a war that ends and a war that just turns into insurgency. WE no longer pay much attention to that because we don’t want to think much about justifying why we are continuing to occupy rather than declaring victory and going home. But THEY do pay attention to that.
There are many war atrocities or crimes that can turn into – maybe not bygones but turn into painful history. Where the pain and anger of the losses suffered can diminish because both sides have declared it over. Not at all the same when one side just keeps killing you without any rationale other than – we can. That is not war as an extension of politics. It is simply mass murder without any avenue for legal retribution.
"There is a difference between a war that ends and a war that just turns into insurgency."
None of your comments up and down the thread explain why the war in Japan "just ended" and the others "just turn into insurgency".
All my comments show the difference. Re Japan, the emperor said the war was over on Aug15. They had a big signing ceremony aboard battleship Missouri on September 2. A well known photograph of MacArthur and Hirohito taken on September 27 1945.
On what planet could you believe that the war wasn't over?
Maybe the US should fight wars that way, so there is a definitive end, that no one can deny, and then there wouldn’t be an insurgency. The famous photo you reference was part of this – it demonstrated that Hirohito was no god, and served as a humiliation to those who thought he was.
But if we took actions like that today, Jfree and your ilk would accuse us of arrogance.
If, as you seem to believe, the goal was humiliation and supremacy, there are many types of photos that better demonstrate that.
Eg Hirohito at Abu Ghraib. Hirohito statue pulled down by US soldiers wrapped in US flag.
You really don’t understand this at all
Further, the initial occupation of Japan was a flight by 150 mostly American soldiers landing in Japan on Aug 28 – with 3+ million fully armed Japanese soldiers on the Japanese islands.
It’s unknown whether the soldiers were chanting USAUSA and waving the flag and making slant eye faces.
Oh and it was Japanese MP's under American officers who served as the initial occupation force until more soldiers could arrive and disarm Japan
Can you explain how it is that Japanese haven’t been growing up to be terrorists, despite the US killing significantly more children there than the short list you just provided? In very brutal ways?
That is a good question. I have a couple of ideas:
Japan was the initial aggressor.
The Japanese people understood the nature of unconditional surrender.
MacArthur left the Japanese emperor on the throne, notionally at least.
The Japanese were and are a completely different culture.
The youngest ethnic Japanese who was alive for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is 79.
Japan was destroyed and chose to rebuild rather than resent.
I'm sure there are many more.
"Japan was the initial aggressor."
In their minds, they were retaliating against western aggression.
“The Japanese people understood the nature of unconditional surrender.”
How? My view is they only understood it because the US forced them to. We didn’t do this in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc, and look how those ended up.
“The Japanese were and are a completely different culture.”
A culture of total, slavish devotion to a religion (Shinto). Not that much different from what they have in the middle east, really.
“The youngest ethnic Japanese who was alive for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is 79.”
The question is why no insurgency immediately post war, so this isn’t relevant.
“Japan was destroyed and chose to rebuild rather than resent.”
The question is why did they choose this, and the other examples didn’t?
The point of my posts is the US should look toward this type of example, since it worked, and away from the neocon/leftist/compassionate conservative COIN / “win hearts and minds” bullshit that has guided our war policy for decades.
It worked because the war ENDED. A mutual recognition by both sides that the war ended. Whatever was going to happen from that point on is on a different page.
Not that that directly ameliorates anger that people have. But it really does make a huge difference.
That couldn't have happened in Iraq. Which means we should be less arrogant about our occupation. And we shouldv'e been wiser about the symbolic stuff that might have signaled 'wars end'. For example the toppling of the Saddam statue. Which instead was morphed into a ridiculously humiliating self-own by the US. Where our soldiers rubbed Saddams face with the American flag (thus telling Iraqis WE own you now) without even having Saddam in custody (ie war ain't over).
The war against Japan didn't "end", it was WON by the US, and then we dictated literally everything that would happen to them afterwards.
We failed to do this in Iraq, allowing them do whatever they wanted, write their own fucked up constitution, run their own corrupt elections, etc.
My view is they only understood it because the US forced them to.
The Japanese people didn’t give a shit about unconditional or conditional. The war ended when their emperor declared it ended. Which of course meant that the surrender was in fact semi-conditional. The US had nothing to do with the attitude change among the Japanese.
It is possible we could have simply arrested and executed Hirohito. But MacArthur was right about one thing – based on his experience of living overseas. He understood that any legitimate authority of an American occupation would rely on both American force and legitimate Japanese acceptance of their own government. MacArthur had no fucking clue how to create the latter without a live Hirohito.
Interestingly one reason the Swiss were not invaded/occupied by Germany during WW2 was because of something their President said and the nature of the Swiss Presidency (semi-anonymous and collegial rather than individual and charismatic). No one knows who I am. No one cares whether I personally surrender or not. I do not have the authority to surrender 'Switzerland'. And I say right now, nothing about surrender that is ever claimed to be in my name is accurate.
Germany could easily spare the 10 or 20 divisions that might be required to take over Switzerland. But they couldn’t spare the 10 or 20 that would thus be required for permanent occupation.
"The US had nothing to do with the attitude change among the Japanese."
This is patently absurd, but considering the source, unsurprising.
I figured some useful idiot like you would cherry pick a sentence (to avoid reading the comment) so – see below
Yeah, jackass, those two atomic bombs we dropped on them had nothing to do with it, right?
We dropped atom bombs? That is completely unknown information up to now. That changes everything. Must recompute.
Your comment below does not explain the stupidity of your other remark.
Oh – and the US likely has less influence than you probably think about Hirohito’s personal opinion about surrender. His war council was long split 50-50 between those who generally sided with the Navy and those who sided with the Army. So Hirohito had sided with the Army to keep the war going
The Navy had favored surrender or peace for a year or so – ever since Leyte maybe. They knew they couldn’t stop an invasion.
The Army was generally in favor of continuing the fight until the Kyūjō incident (the attempted coup against Hirohito on Aug 15 to PREVENT him from delivering the surrender broadcast to the Japanese). But there were some splits in the Army that occurred on Aug 8/9. Not Nagasaki – but the declaration of war by the Soviets and the invasion of Manchuria. Much of the Army had already pulled back to Japan to defend against an invasion – and the invasion of Manchuria created a rapid massive loss. Not the 75,000 soldiers of Okinawa – or the 40,000 dead civilians of Nagasaki – but 600,000 soldiers still remaining in Manchuria.
That’s why Hirohito changed his mind in the war council and broke the tie – and recorded the surrender broadcast on Aug 14.
Did the fact that the US was closing in on mainland Japan, and regularly firebombing all their major cities, have any influence on Hirohito's decision making?
I agree, after wining in Japan MacArthur "allowed" them to write a new constitution that had U.S. ideals similar to our own. In Iraq and Afghanistan we allowed them to pretty much continue with business as usual.
Islam always produces an inferior culture. Within inferior ideals.
Don't forget all the children indiscriminately killed in Germany by allied bombing raids.
Then the soviets slugs came in and brought happy times to the German women.
Yup somehow no postwar West German insurgency either, despite the obliteration of Dresden, Nuremberg, etc, etc, etc. Another total mystery.
That is easier to understand. The Soviet Union very quickly became a mutual enemy and threat. Which was right next door.
The Japanese question is a good one though. I think I read that there was a small insurgency in Japan, but it died pretty quickly.
Gen. Patton was right. We fought on the wrong side.
Two generals after the two world wars believed we should continue fighting...Pershing that we should go all the way to Berlin and Patton to drive the Soviets out of Europe. Both believed we would end up fighting them eventually and both where dismissed. Both where right.
This type of incident always happens in war [as noted by Bertrand above, all occurrences don't always get the same coverage]; another reason we should be averse to jumping into them, or supporting them.
Accountability and transparency works.
Civilian deaths in combat zones are inevitable.
And even preferable
The people of Chicago, Baltimore, Memphis and E. St. Louis and D.C. are all civilians in war zones.
Rule number one in war: people die.
Rule number two in war: Nothing can change rule number one.
The time to think on this is before you send in troops.
Rule number three, when committing mass atrocities such as Lt. Calley, in the image of John Wayne, expect some people to become disgusted.
Serves 'em right for hiding those WMDs too well.
None of this would have ever happened if it weren’t for the Trotskyite zionist neo-cons who have infested Washington, every think tank and university and perverted American foreign policy for the benefit of that little zionist shite hole, Israel.
Now add Dick Chaney, a psychopath and an idiot George W. Bush, put them in the White House and add other such detestable scum, and this is what you end up with.
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires and America is latest empire buried there.
Now arrest and jail or persecute any journalist who dares expose the war crimes committed in our name throughout the middle east. Just ask Julian Assange, & Edward Snowden.
Is it any wonder that Americans have grown tired of endless wars that benefit only the MIC and politicians. beside ruining America’s image abroad, creating more enemies, it is bankrupting the nation.
Is it any wonder so few Americans place any trust in the government. If you do so, you’re a fool.
Trotsky and Zionists despised each other. The only thing they had in common was some Jewish ancestry, of interest to Nazis only.
Don't explain this kind of thing to us. Explain it to the Hamas kids on college campuses everywhere. Explain it to people who think "Palestine" is a thing. Explain it to everyone who considers a dead Israeli citizen "justified."
Another My Lai. Or another Abu Ghraib.
Or another day that ends in Y in jihad land.
This is so sad. The My Lai massacre was my generation's equivalent.