Another Iraq massacre (by US troops) emerges.

RedPlanet

"The BBC has uncovered new video evidence that US forces may have been responsible for the deliberate killing of 11 innocent Iraqi civilians.

The video appears to challenge the US military's account of events that took place in the town of Ishaqi in March.

The US said at the time four people died during a military operation, but Iraqi police claimed that US troops had deliberately shot the 11 people."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039420.stm

I suspect we'll be finding out more and more of these dark little secrets of the conduct of US troops in Iraq.

dahamsta

All of these incidents - the one where a US soldier filmed his colleagues beating the crap out of Iraqis being the most blatant example - seem to suggest that US soldiers have had any sense of responsibility, dignity, of even a simple ability to manage their tempers hammered out of them. Not all that surprising I know, but you'd think things would have improved over the years, not worsened.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

The BBC has uncovered new video evidence that US forces may have been responsible
...
I suspect we'll be finding out more and more of these dark little secrets of the conduct of US troops in Iraq.

I notice that the source you quote expresses far more uncertainty about what has actually happened than you do.

zuma

Is this another "incident"?

This will happen and continue to happen.....I wonder how many of these "punishment" killings have already occured?

lostexpectation

John Simpson and footage shot while the flames were still burning seem as sure as they can be
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/bbc_iraq_new_massacre_tape_060601a_320x240.wmv

Manic Moran

Looks like this thread is over before it began.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060602/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_haditha;_ylt=Ar3LsqXX6w3xNqIMO1Zwq_is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A military investigation into allegations that U.S. troops intentionally killed Iraqi civilians in a March raid in Ishaqi, a village north of Baghdad, has cleared the troops of misconduct, the military said Friday — despite dramatic video footage of slain children.

Article continues.

NTM

Sgt Sensible

They can do what they like. Anyone see the newsnight programme where veterans admitted killing innocent people because it was normal procedure?

Sgt Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

Looks like this thread is over before it began.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060602/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_haditha;_ylt=Ar3LsqXX6w3xNqIMO1Zwq_is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A military investigation into allegations that U.S. troops intentionally killed Iraqi civilians in a March raid in Ishaqi, a village north of Baghdad, has cleared the troops of misconduct, the military said Friday — despite dramatic video footage of slain children.

Article continues.

NTM

However, US troops have been instructed to undergo 'ethics training'. Pourquoi?

Manic Moran

Sgt Sensible wrote:

However, US troops have been instructed to undergo 'ethics training'. Pourquoi?

PR, is my guess.

It's not as if troops don't know the difference between right and wrong, it's an issue of getting the point across that the standards need to be enforced: an issue for NCOs and junior officers. I'm not talking about massacre-level-things here, just daily, everyday business such as traffic manners. Most troops are fine, but are you going to remember the 200 HMMWVs that stopped for you, or the one that rammed you? They probably just need to be reminded "Look, you don't like it here, right? Well, the more you piss off the locals, the longer we'll be here and the more tours you do"

It's a little more complicated than all that, but I've seen troops run the gamut from extremely courteous through "I am king"

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

Manic Moran wrote:

Looks like this thread is over before it began.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060602/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_haditha;_ylt=Ar3LsqXX6w3xNqIMO1Zwq_is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A military investigation into allegations that U.S. troops intentionally killed Iraqi civilians in a March raid in Ishaqi, a village north of Baghdad, has cleared the troops of misconduct, the military said Friday — despite dramatic video footage of slain children.

Article continues.

NTM

US military clears US military of misconduct... lol

tallus

I'd feel a lot better about an investigation if it was conducted by a neutral body of some sort.

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

Looks like this thread is over before it began.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060602/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_haditha;_ylt=Ar3LsqXX6w3xNqIMO1Zwq_is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A military investigation into allegations that U.S. troops intentionally killed Iraqi civilians in a March raid in Ishaqi, a village north of Baghdad, has cleared the troops of misconduct, the military said Friday — despite dramatic video footage of slain children.

Article continues.

NTM

oh come on, thats what he supposed to say, you don't really believe that 100% without any doubt do you?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you seem to believe the other side of the story 100% without any doubt, so let's just all agree to be gullible and wait 20-30 years to see what the history books have to say about this

tallus

Mordeth wrote:

you seem to believe the other side of the story 100% without any doubt, so let's just all agree to be gullible and wait 20-30 years to see what the history books have to say about this

That will be cold comfort to the relatives of the dead people.

tallus

Mordeth wrote:

you seem to believe the other side of the story 100% without any doubt, so let's just all agree to be gullible and wait 20-30 years to see what the history books have to say about this

cold comfort to the relatives of the dead people.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i doubt there is much that can be done to comfort the relatives of the dead people, out and out hysteria probably won't be as helpful as people suppose though I'm thinking

tallus

closure might be an issue to the relatives. I'm not on the 100% blame side for either party but I think that an issue of that nature should be investigated by an independant body of some sort. Personally I dont believe that we will get an honest outcome from the U.S. Military, but that's only my opinion, and I would have that opinion about any body that investigates itself. As you have said Mordeth, in 30 years time we might know but in that case I'd hate to be one of the relatives waiting to find out, or if in fact they manage to live that long.

Hobbes

closure would be least of the worries. If anyone who knew those people wasn't an insurgent/terrorist you can bet the chances of them being so or helping them has increased dramatically.

lostexpectation

Mordeth wrote:

i doubt there is much that can be done to comfort the relatives of the dead people, out and out hysteria probably won't be as helpful as people suppose though I'm thinking

how is it hysteria??? Im sick of these army blokes telling us that war is hell and **** happens and us liberal keyboard warriors would never get it and then in their next posting tell us that they don't kill innocent civilians by the houseload?

ok thats hysteria

Sand

The U.S. military investigated, tried and convicted the Abu Gharrib crowd without any need for "independant" investigators tbh. I dont see any grounds for feeling that theyre incapable or unwilling to investigate and punish crimes carried out by their troops - if anything limits on their investigation are placed by the families of the deceased, such as the families in the linked article rejecting the offer to exhume the bodies.

zuma

Sand wrote:

The U.S. military investigated, tried and convicted the Abu Gharrib crowd without any need for "independant" investigators tbh. I dont see any grounds for feeling that theyre incapable or unwilling to investigate and punish crimes carried out by their troops - if anything limits on their investigation are placed by the families of the deceased, such as the families in the linked article rejecting the offer to exhume the bodies.

That was only after clear evidence was published in US newspapers and people demanded that someone be blamed.

Sand

That was only after clear evidence was published in US newspapers and people demanded that someone be blamed.

Newspaper reports that were based on information leaked from the ongoing US investigation? US military were investigating Abu Gharrib long before it hit the headlines.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

The U.S. military investigated, tried and convicted the Abu Gharrib crowd without any need for "independant" investigators tbh. I dont see any grounds for feeling that theyre incapable or unwilling to investigate and punish crimes carried out by their troops

Charles Graner - 10 years.
Ivan Frederick - 8 years.
Jeremy Sivits - 1 year.
Armin Cruz - 8 months.
Sabrina Harman - 6 months.
Megan Ambuhl - dropped to private, drop in pay.
Lynndie England - 3 years.
2 others not charged.

And the Brig. General of the jail got demoted (who claims that the top general for Iraq knew what was going on). Impressive a whole prison run by 10 people.

What is interesting in all these is that none of them are of any serious rank (except the Brig. General), yet the Top brass in the US military knew full well of what was going on a good 6-7 months before the story broke, yet nothing happened to any of these people until the media broke the story.

I don't think they have the credibility to investigate the issue themselves.

godfather69er

its a guerrilla war thats what happens get over it, if these people want to stay safe they should distance themselves from the insurgants and report them to allied forces, its all fair and well saying its bad(which it is ,it defo aint good)however when you are in a guerilla war everybody is your enemy unless they are clearly with you, sure kids can fire a ak47 it aint too hard just point and pull the trigger. give the yanks a break.

Lemming

godfather69er wrote:

its a guerrilla war thats what happens get over it, if these people want to stay safe they should distance themselves from the insurgants and report them to allied forces, its all fair and well saying its bad(which it is ,it defo aint good)however when you are in a guerilla war everybody is your enemy unless they are clearly with you, sure kids can fire a ak47 it aint too hard just point and pull the trigger. give the yanks a break.

Y'know ... your post reminds me of a phrase I saw on the yahoo news article discussion forum (always both an entertaining and utterly shocking read)

"These were necessary murders"

Wtf?!! I'm sorry .... I didn't realise that it was perfectly acceptable for anyone to murder someone else (assuming of couse that this did in fact happen as such). Exactly how the f*ck do you distance yourself from an insurgency in your own country? Please, I'm all ears. I'm sure there are a few million Iraqi's that are all ears too ....

As for giving the yanks a break? Why? They were sent there on foot of a lie, by a chickenhawk who side-stepped his own national service when his country apparently "needed" him back during the Vietnam war.

tallus

godfather69er wrote:

its a guerrilla war thats what happens get over it, if these people want to stay safe they should distance themselves from the insurgants and report them to allied forces, its all fair and well saying its bad(which it is ,it defo aint good)however when you are in a guerilla war everybody is your enemy unless they are clearly with you, sure kids can fire a ak47 it aint too hard just point and pull the trigger. give the yanks a break.

The U.S./coalition forces are there without a U.N. mandate, it's an illegal war. Why should they be given a break when the very reason they cooked up to start the war was proven to be untrue.
So far it appears that somewhere in the region of 100,000 civilians may have died there as a result of the war, but that figure is up for debate depending on where you get your information from. Those are innocent civilians, who dont have the luxury of distancing themselves from the conflict.

Manic Moran

They're obviously on the whole doing their own investigations before the public awareness hits. Abu Ghraib was already being investigated, and the Ishaqi investigation appears to have been completed before anyone in the public domain even heard about it.

I would submit that for Ishaqi that someone actually reads the results of the investigation before jumping on the 'Americans deliberately massacred children' bandwagon. You will note that the US aren't saying they didn't kill anyone, they're just clearing the troops of misconduct.

As for giving the yanks a break? Why? They were sent there on foot of a lie, by a chickenhawk who side-stepped his own national service when his country apparently "needed" him back during the Vietnam war.

The former is not the fault of the troops who are over there with their necks on the line. The latter is a questionable claim that has not been proven. (And it should be noted that some Guard units were sent to Vietnam)

NTM

lostexpectation

Sand wrote:

The U.S. military investigated, tried and convicted the Abu Gharrib crowd without any need for "independant" investigators tbh. I dont see any grounds for feeling that theyre incapable or unwilling to investigate and punish crimes carried out by their troops - if anything limits on their investigation are placed by the families of the deceased, such as the families in the linked article rejecting the offer to exhume the bodies.

Rumsfeld aint' been tried.

godfather69er

Lemming wrote:

Y'know ... your post reminds me of a phrase I saw on the yahoo news article discussion forum (always both an entertaining and utterly shocking read)

"These were necessary murders"

Wtf?!! I'm sorry .... I didn't realise that it was perfectly acceptable for anyone to murder someone else (assuming of couse that this did in fact happen as such). Exactly how the f*ck do you distance yourself from an insurgency in your own country? Please, I'm all ears. I'm sure there are a few million Iraqi's that are all ears too ....

As for giving the yanks a break? Why? They were sent there on foot of a lie, by a chickenhawk who side-stepped his own national service when his country apparently "needed" him back during the Vietnam war.

would you say that the soldiers killed in ww1 and ww2 were murdered?? war is war people die, in ww2 thousands died in english and german cities from bombing raids these were innocent civvies, now have you ever heared murder being used to describe these events. i have only heard 'x amount of people have been killed in y during a raid'
this post aint about whether its a legal war or not btw what the **** is a legal war(another heap of P.C bull**** no doubt) its about US soldiers who are fighting for their lives in war its either him or me i know who id choose.

tallus

godfather69er wrote:

would you say that the soldiers killed in ww1 and ww2 were murdered?? war is war people die, in ww2 thousands died in english and german cities from bombing raids these were innocent civvies, now have you ever heared murder being used to describe these events. i have only heard 'x amount of people have been killed in y during a raid'
this post aint about whether its a legal war or not btw what the **** is a legal war(another heap of P.C bull**** no doubt) its about US soldiers who are fighting for their lives in war its either him or me i know who id choose.

No nation can take it upon itself and invade a soverign nation such as Iraq or any other soverign nation for that matter. The U.N. was set up after WWII to avoid things of that nature from happening again, to stop any one nation from taking it upon themselves to invade where they want to.
Furthermore the OP wasn't about WWII either, and saying things like "war is war, and people die" is absolutely no justification for actually killing innocent civilians.
U.S. soldiers who are "fighting for their lives" have overwhelming superiority in every way militarily.
Germans were tried for war crimes after WWII.

lostexpectation

tallus wrote:

No nation can take it upon itself and invade a soverign nation such as Iraq or any other soverign nation for that matter. The U.N. was set up after WWII to avoid things of that nature from happening again, to stop any one nation from taking it upon themselves to invade where they want to.
Furthermore the OP wasn't about WWII either, and saying things like "war is war, and people die" is absolutely no justification for actually killing innocent civilians.
U.S. soldiers who are "fighting for their lives" have overwhelming superiority in every way militarily.
Germans were tried for war crimes after WWII.

a pefect a example of this ^^^ winners don't commit war crimes.

Im sick of these army blokes telling us that war is hell and **** happens and us liberal keyboard warriors would never get it and then in their next posting tell us that they don't kill innocent civilians by the houseload?


Ishaqi was in the news before as a US slaughterhouse, it just got resurrected again because of hadithi and John Simpson being given the video.

I was reading on another site how the bodycount for Israeli attacks on Palestian terrorist/fighters vs civillians killed is about 1:3, ie the news annouces that a helicoptergunship has fired rockets at a house with Hamas people in it killed two men suspected of being fighters and the bit they mention less is how their family is been killed too. 1:3.

godfather69er

tallus wrote:

No nation can take it upon itself and invade a soverign nation such as Iraq or any other soverign nation for that matter. The U.N. was set up after WWII to avoid things of that nature from happening again, to stop any one nation from taking it upon themselves to invade where they want to.
Furthermore the OP wasn't about WWII either, and saying things like "war is war, and people die" is absolutely no justification for actually killing innocent civilians.
U.S. soldiers who are "fighting for their lives" have overwhelming superiority in every way militarily.
Germans were tried for war crimes after WWII.

ok well ahve a war with no guns ..a silent war with a lot of shouting

tallus

godfather69er wrote:

ok well ahve a war with no guns ..a silent war with a lot of shouting

That's exactly what should have happened godftaher69er

joebhoy1916

Godfather your a prick! 24 murdered 11 woman and children and you come with fcuking stupid comments like report them to the ALLIED force's who the fcuk are the allied forces?

"war is war people die" So that means it was alright for the people in September the 11th to die.

After all war is war!!!

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=83156&d=3&m=6&y=2006

A Dub in Glasgo

godfather69er wrote:

ok well ahve a war with no guns ..a silent war with a lot of shouting

Compared with the massacre of innocent men, women and children, shouting sounds a lot better or do you really prefer to murder innocents?

joebhoy1916

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Godfather your a prick! 24 murdered 11 woman and children and you come with fcuking stupid comments like report them to the ALLIED force's who the fcuk are the allied forces?

"war is war people die" So that means it was alright for the people in September the 11th to die.

After all war is war!!!

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=83156&d=3&m=6&y=2006

2 week ban

RedPlanet

Obviously the credibility of the US army is suspect.
We've all learned lessens from Bloody Sunday that you can't trust the government (or their army) to investigate itself.
Manic Moran is wrong, this thread is not dead.

"Issa Hrat Khalaf, whose brother was killed in the ensuing air strike, demanded an independent investigation and said the U.S. forces responsible for the killings should be executed.
``Where are the terrorists? Are they the old lady or the kids?'' he said in a telephone interview, referring to the fact that women and children were among the victims. ``It looks like the lives of the Iraqis are worthless.''
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5863204,00.html

The Iraqi government has rejected the findings of a US military investigation into the deaths of 11 civilians in the village of Ishaqi, north of Baghdad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5044244.stm

Damn right there should be an independent investigation.
Anybody think the yanks would allow it?

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

Damn right there should be an independent investigation.
Anybody think the yanks would allow it?

Nope. At worst, there would be an inter-service investigation. For example, the Marine incident at Haditha is being investigated by the Army. At absolute worst, FBI might be called in as a civilian investigation agency, but I see no need for that. The US military arms are professional organisations.

There is zero chance of a foreign investigation, as there is just too much chance of the foreign investigators wanting the US troops to be found guilty before even starting the investigation. Most of the posters on this thread would probably qualify as such.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

They're obviously on the whole doing their own investigations before the public awareness hits.

Normally I'd believe this if it wasn't for the fact that the crap in Abu Garib continued on after the date of when the photos were taken (which was long before the story broke) and that so few low ranking people were actually convicted.

There is zero chance of a foreign investigation, as there is just too much chance of the foreign investigators wanting the US troops to be found guilty before even starting the investigation.

Because other countries can't be impartial?

The US refused to sign up to the ICC and blackmailed/bribed a number of countries to stop the ICC from ever becoming effective.

philologos

typical of the US to be honest, first abu ghraib now this.. something needs to be done

Sand

The U.S./coalition forces are there without a U.N. mandate

They have a U.N. mandate, for what its worth. But dont let facts get in your way. I doubt finding out they have a mandate will alter your views.

Compared with the massacre of innocent men, women and children, shouting sounds a lot better or do you really prefer to murder innocents?

Glago, given your political loyalities thats absolutely hilarious...

Normally I'd believe this if it wasn't for the fact that the crap in Abu Garib continued on after the date of when the photos were taken

Yes and? The photos were taken by the abusers. It was the discovery of those photos by another US soldier that led to the investigation. Seeing as the discovery came after the photos being taken, then it would seem logical the abuse continued as well until investigators arrived?

Because other countries can't be impartial?

Why risk a politically motivated investigation when the US military forces have proven perfectly able to investigate and punish their own soldiers?

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote:

The former is not the fault of the troops who are over there with their necks on the line. The latter is a questionable claim that has not been proven. (And it should be noted that some Guard units were sent to Vietnam)
NTM

Manic, I'm not attacking the troops on the whole here. I realise that they are there on the "whim" (and I choose that word quite carefully) of a chickenhawk. By and large I feel sorry for the troops given that they've just been thrown into a desert version of Vietnam. But at the same time, I do not have to cut them slack when they commit grossly obscene acts (assuming they are of course, lest we jump the gun)

tallus

Manic Moran wrote:

Nope. At worst, there would be an inter-service investigation. For example, the Marine incident at Haditha is being investigated by the Army. At absolute worst, FBI might be called in as a civilian investigation agency, but I see no need for that. The US military arms are professional organisations.

There is zero chance of a foreign investigation, as there is just too much chance of the foreign investigators wanting the US troops to be found guilty before even starting the investigation. Most of the posters on this thread would probably qualify as such.

NTM

The same can be said for the U.S. army manic. There is just as much chance of the U.S. authorities investigating and pursuing their own agenda, so it's a double edged sword in my opinion.
I fail to see what difference an inter service investigation would make, it's still the police investigating the (world)Police. As I stated earlier in this thread I think an independant investigation would be a lot better (for obvious reasons).

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

Glago, given your political loyalities thats absolutely hilarious...

At least you admit to finding murder funny

Lemming

godfather69er wrote:

would you say that the soldiers killed in ww1 and ww2 were murdered??

Errm ... I'm sorry. What soldiers, when and where exactly?

If you put on a uniform or have a weapon in your hand then tbh, it's very much a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword". Now, soldiers/combatants who have surrendered ... that's another ball game. That is bonafide murder. And is explicitly against the terms of both the Geneva convention and the US's own rules of engagement and the articles of war. Unless, of course, the rules don't apply anymore .... in which case you don't have so much an army as a bunch of hired thugs and/or psycopaths.

war is war people die, in ww2 thousands died in english and german cities from bombing raids these were innocent civvies, now have you ever heared murder being used to describe these events. i have only heard 'x amount of people have been killed in y during a raid'

Ah, and that makes all those civilian deaths ok then eh? The allies carried out war-crimes during WW2 as well. Firebombing of Dresden? How about Nagasaki?

The murder of POWs prior to WW2 was clearly against the terms of the Geneva convention as existed from 1929. Click here for a detailed explaination of this particular article.

The murder of civilians did not become a part of the Geneva convention until after WW2 in 1949. Click here for a detailed explaination on this particular article, not to be confused with the previous aforementioned article.

And, if I'm not mistaken .. the Geneva convention was drawn up after WW2
this post aint about whether its a legal war or not btw what the **** is a legal war(another heap of P.C bull**** no doubt)

Eh ..... wtf?!!! What the f*ck does WW2 have to do with the current Iraqi war? But since you want to use the "Look, somebody's good looking sister" routine, allow me to rebute you. The Geneva convention actually came into existence at the latter years of the 19th Century. So it actually existed prior to WW1, although it has seen frequent revisions, most notably in 1949 after the end of WW2. The Geneva convention today, which the US is a signatory too, is a legally binding convention regarding conduct in war, and the murder of civilians was clearly laid down in 1949. Now ... my math might be a little hazy here but 1949 comes before 2006 if I'm not mistaken.

As for a "legal" war, it's one that does not invoke the term "war-crime", since declaring war for no good reason is actually considered a crime against humanity. Ho-ho-ho ..... I wonder will we ever see the current US administration taking a "drop"?

its about US soldiers who are fighting for their lives in war its either him or me i know who id choose.

Eh .... him or me does not include going into homes, rounding up anyone you can lay your hands on and exucute them for no good reason. That's called m-u-r-d-e-r. A "war-crime". You know what those are right?

Lemming

Sand wrote:

Yes and? The photos were taken by the abusers. It was the discovery of those photos by another US soldier that led to the investigation. Seeing as the discovery came after the photos being taken, then it would seem logical the abuse continued as well until investigators arrived?

Sand, the only reason an investigation was carried out was because the pictures found their way into the civilian media, which forced the US government's hand. They HAD to convict someone. Anyone. And they choose the lowest chain in the link.

Had they not done so, the outcry would have been insane. Hell, it still wasn't much better anyway.

Manic Moran

Lemming wrote:

Sand, the only reason an investigation was carried out was because the pictures found their way into the civilian media,

Just to refresh you on the timeline:

Jan 13th 2004, a US Military Policeman presents Army investigators with a computer disk containing the photographs.

Jan 16th 2004, CENTCOM issues a press release announcing an investigation into the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Jan 19th 2004. Brig Gen Karpinski suspended. Investigaton moves into full gear with the appointment of a Major General to conduct it.

April 28 2004. CBS news program "60 Minutes II" broadcasts the pictures. First public knowledge of the nature of the abuse.

That appears to contradict your statement about the investigation only being carried out because the pictures were made public.

But at the same time, I do not have to cut them slack when they commit grossly obscene acts (assuming they are of course, lest we jump the gun)

OK, I can agree with you on that.

Going on a bit of a tangent, the argument about "You don't know what it's like to be over there" may fail in the primary extent, and succeeds in another. Although the Army is full of idiotic rules, they generally get the important things right. One of those is the Rules of Engagement, which are written with the perspective of a guy standing checkpoint duty in mind (Or whatever). There are still restrictions on when someone may or may not shoot, for example, it's not as if the country is declared a free-fire zone. Violations of those ROEs are illegal, and will result in punishment. The difference is that the ROEs in force and handed on a card to every soldier are a little 'looser' than that you would expect of a policeman on the beat.

The problem with this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking (whatever the Irish equivalent is) by the JAG and other senior staff afterwards. Our biggest worry wasn't that someone would go ape with a machinegun, it was that our soldiers were so afraid of court-martial/public witch-hunts after the fact that they wouldn't pull the trigger when they needed to. The British Army has the same problem. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/30/nirq30.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/30/ixnewstop.html. We're reading in Stars and Stripes things like "Officer court-martialled for this" or "Soldier sentenced for that" and we're looking at the offenses thinking "These are offenses? The laywers have too much time on their hands." The impression we got was that the admin side were just looking for people to hang out to dry. You have no idea how often I was finding myself thanking fate that my soldiers were pretty much sensible chaps who didn't stray off the path much.

I fail to see what difference an inter service investigation would make, it's still the police investigating the (world)Police

Don't underestimate the nature of the US Military's interservice rivalry, which is legendary, even to the extent of affecting combat operations. I'll wager there would be quite a few Army types that wouldn't mind seeing the Marine Corps taken down a notch or two if Haditha turns out to be true. As it is, I've seen Army-internal investigations both unit level and C.I.D (An alleged extortion/shake-down racket being conducted by some Americans on local Iraqis), and they are serious ball-breakers.

I realise that the risk of partiality on the part of the Army investigating the Marines or whatever is about the same as that of a foreign government investigating the US troops, but ultimately US Law has a 'natural lean' towards the defendant, and I just can't see anyone taking the risk of handing the fate of Americans over to someone who has a greater chance of being in favour of pre-determined presumed guilt than pre-determined presumed innocence.

NTM

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote:

Just to refresh you on the timeline:

Jan 13th 2004, a US Military Policeman presents Army investigators with a computer disk containing the photographs.

Jan 16th 2004, CENTCOM issues a press release announcing an investigation into the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Jan 19th 2004. Brig Gen Karpinski suspended. Investigaton moves into full gear with the appointment of a Major General to conduct it.

April 28 2004. CBS news program "60 Minutes II" broadcasts the pictures. First public knowledge of the nature of the abuse.

That appears to contradict your statement about the investigation only being carried out because the pictures were made public.

My bad, I phrased myself badly. Allow me to try again. The only reason that the Abu Ghraib abuse charges went as far as they did was because the incident had a very large public spot-light focused onto it. The US administration _had_ to see someone take the fall for it after that point for any shred of credibility to remain.

I think, and I freely admit that this is conjecture, that had the abuse charges not entered the public domain at large, this case would not have reached the conclusion that it did. The charges would have either been dropped, quietly sidelined, or the soldiers/ncos/officers involved transferred quietly.

What makes me think that? The current US administration is playing farrrrrrrrrrr too much politics (shock & awe, small footprint invasions, redefinition of geneva convention terms to find loopholes, etc) with the US armed forces for me to have any faith in a self-governed inquiry without public attention to keep it in any shape or form "honest".

The problem with this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking (whatever the Irish equivalent is) by the JAG and other senior staff afterwards. Our biggest worry wasn't that someone would go ape with a machinegun, it was that our soldiers were so afraid of court-martial/public witch-hunts after the fact that they wouldn't pull the trigger when they needed to. The British Army has the same problem.

I'm curious though, as to why the ROE as written is not the ROE as given, seeing as it's a legal entity that binds conduct of armed forces. I can understand someone who's scared sh*tless shooting someone or whatever in a moment of blind panic, but things like Haditha, or the targetted use of white phospourous, or any one of a number of other incidents, make me question the extent of what soldiers are being told they can or cannot do. For example, the targetted use of WP is in direct contravention of the ROE. Alleged massacres and subsequent cover-ups too (in a very obvious kind of way). Not a grey shade, but out and out explicitely forbidden. Unlike shooting someone because that spade they're carrying got mistaken for a gun at distance, or they happened to turn the corner into a fire-fight at the worst moment possible. If you follow my point?

The soldiers are the ones taking the blame for it when found out, but incidents like these go up the chain. Some of it I would argue stops with Rummie-babes himself at a policy level, like the redefinition of torture etc.

Manic Moran

Lemming wrote:

My bad, I phrased myself badly. Allow me to try again. The only reason that the Abu Ghraib abuse charges went as far as they did was because the incident had a very large public spot-light focused onto it. The US administration _had_ to see someone take the fall for it after that point for any shred of credibility to remain.

I think, and I freely admit that this is conjecture, that had the abuse charges not entered the public domain at large, this case would not have reached the conclusion that it did. The charges would have either been dropped, quietly sidelined, or the soldiers/ncos/officers involved transferred quietly.

I'll meet you more or less half-way. I also agree that the matter would be have been dealt with quietly, as I can't see the US Army taking out full-page advertisements in the New York Times saying "We've been abusing prisoners, but look, we're punishing the abusers." It wouldn't have done the cause any good at all.

I don't think that the soldiers would have gone unpunished, however. At the time that CBS made the announcement, there were no less than two investigations ongoing about Abu Ghraib (MG Taguba's 15-6, LTG Jones & MG Fay's 15-6) (A 15-6 is equivalent to a civilian Grand Jury), and two on training and procedures in general (Mikolashek and Ertman, the Inspectors General for both the Army and the Army Reserve). That's before the wave of investigations kicked off after it was made public. The Army doesn't like to waste its time and effort on things that are just going to be thrown in the bin, especially not if there are four general officers and one bird colonel doing the investigating. The I.G. for the entire army has enough to do as it is, and a 15-6 takes precedence over any other duties. I was made a 15-6 investigating officer for a couple of minor incidents, and the letter of appointment basically pulled me away from my 'day job' until the investigation was complete. I am fully convinced that the Army took the problems of Abu Ghraib specifically, and the detention system in general quite seriously before any public outcry was made.

The pressing of charges only two days after the public release by CBS is obviously not a coincidence. You are correct that the administration had to be seen to be doing something, but all that probably was was simply an acceleration of the wheels of justice. You had one soldier tried, convicted and sentenced in under two weeks from the CBS broadcast. In comparison, the rather open-and-shut capital case of Sgt Akbar was almost two years from arrest to sentencing. Perhaps the relatively short prison sentences were a result of the government being forced to prosecute the case before it was good and ready with all its evidence and reports, due to political pressure? Story of the old bull and the young bull comes to mind.

What makes me think that? The current US administration is playing farrrrrrrrrrr too much politics (shock & awe, small footprint invasions, redefinition of geneva convention terms to find loopholes, etc) with the US armed forces for me to have any faith in a self-governed inquiry without public attention to keep it in any shape or form "honest".

The President tells the army what to do. How the Army goes about doing it is its own affair, and it keeps its house in order as best it can. The Army took years to recover from the post-Vietnam slump in order to reassert itself as a professional, reputable force, and is not about to sacrifice itself for politicians, regardless of what side of the political fence they're on. Of course, that's just my impression.

I'm curious though, as to why the ROE as written is not the ROE as given, seeing as it's a legal entity that binds conduct of armed forces.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I can understand someone who's scared sh*tless shooting someone or whatever in a moment of blind panic, but things like Haditha, or the targetted use of white phospourous, or any one of a number of other incidents, make me question the extent of what soldiers are being told they can or cannot do. For example, the targetted use of WP is in direct contravention of the ROE.

No it's not. I have the ROE card in front of me. You are quite correct that something like Haditha, if true, is well outside of the ROEs, on a number of counts.

Alleged massacres and subsequent cover-ups too (in a very obvious kind of way)

What coverups have there been? Heck, there have cases where shootings have been arguably justifiable, and people have been tried. Take CPT Maynulet, who administered a 'coup de grace' to a dying Iraqi when his medic said that there was nothing he could do, and the Iraqi was going to die anyway. Except it would take longer and be more painful. That one had more effect on Army morale than most incidents.

If you follow my point?

I do, but I'm not of the belief that your fears are justified. Absolutely, soldiers are going to do wrong, it's how the military responds to it which is the issue. I just think that the military is going to do a better, more unbiased job than most of the cynics here will give them credit for.

The soldiers are the ones taking the blame for it when found out, but incidents like these go up the chain. Some of it I would argue stops with Rummie-babes himself at a policy level, like the redefinition of torture etc.

Agreed, though misconduct at that level is obviously beyond the scope of a purely military investigation.

NTM

RedPlanet

The primary concern of both Sands and Manic Moran in this affair, seems to be one of damage-limitation for the US (politics), or even legitmising the US's actions.
What they both do not do, is concern themselves with the 11 innocents killed, including five children and four women.
Which aptly demonstrates where their loyalites lie.
I suppose for them, the lives of Iraqi people really are worthless, just like that Iraqi said in one of those articles i linked.

It's not about some "rules of engagement" that might be interpreted in such a way that to spray a building full of innocent people with gunfire is A-OK.
Naw, these massacres are about those innocent victims, including five children, whom no matter how anybody characterises things, cannot be some sort of a legitimate target. The US chose to invade Iraq, it is their responsibility to provide safe streets for those very people they are gunning down.

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

What they both do not do, is concern themselves with the 11 innocents killed, including five children and four women.
Which aptly demonstrates where their loyalites lie.
I suppose for them, the lives of Iraqi people really are worthless, just like that Iraqi said in one of those articles i linked.

Actually, the opposite. I believe that Iraq and its people are bigger than the 11 individuals who are killed. Or the other 40,000+. Or the 3,000 coalition troops.

The US chose to invade Iraq, it is their responsibility to provide safe streets for those very people they are gunning down.

A nice idealistic concept, but in practise somewhat unrealistic to expect 100% success. Certainly there has been the occasional balls-up which reduced the success rate but unfortunately, people will in effect become a statistic. I ran the risk of becoming a statistic myself, and I had about as much choice about my being in Iraq as a local did.

NTM