Collateral Murder

[Mr Spinkles]

The reason you suspect I have not read them is because I have not commented on many of them. There is a reason for this, but it is not because I did not read them.

Perhaps it was the same ill-considered reason which caused you to falsely accuse me of having made up my mind without being open to the facts.

 

[Sententia]

The US military's first priority SHOULD be the protection of US citizens.

So lets get our of Iraq and Afghanistan. (And Germany?!?!?!?!?!) Sometimes I wonder if people see the forest or the trees. (Or our troops in Pakistan)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So lets get our of Iraq and Afghanistan. (And Germany?!?!?!?!?!) Sometimes I wonder if people see the forest or the trees. (Or our troops in Pakistan)

EXACTLY. You can't have it both ways, you can't say our first priority is to protect our soldier's lives BUT we're also going to send them to Iraq and Afghanistan, thus risking their lives, and civilian lives are secondary. If we care more about our soldier's lives than civilian lives, then we should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. OTOH, if we care about civilian lives, and that is the reason our forces are in those countries, then we should have rules of engagement which protect civilian lives.

 

[Kathryn]

EXACTLY. You can't have it both ways, you can't say our first priority is to protect our soldier's lives BUT we're also going to send them to Iraq and Afghanistan, thus risking their lives, and civilian lives are secondary. If we care more about our soldier's lives than civilian lives, then we should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. OTOH, if we care about civilian lives, and that is the reason our forces are in those countries, then we should have rules of engagement which protect civilian lives.

Oh, so what you really mean is that you are simply opposed to military action - because military action endangers the lives of soldiers.

In fact, it's apparent to me that many on this thread are simply this - opposed to any military action.

Let's not be ridiculous. The debate on this thread is not about whether or not military action is ever necessary, or whether or not we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan. The debate is about whether or not the actions of the military in this particular video are criminal actions.

You may be opposed to our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan, but our troops are there legally and many Americans, and others internationally, believe they should be there. So that's a fact that we have to deal with.

There are rules of engagement which should protect civilian lives. That is exactly WHY the actions of those on the video were thoroughly investigated - to see if any rules of engagement had been breached.

Unfortunately, even with rules, and laws, and policies in place, sometimes these guidelines and laws are broken. Then the situation is investigated. So we have a process in place.

US policy is to do all possible to protect the lives of our soldiers, AND civilians. Usually those policies work. Sometimes they don't.

When they work, my kids get to come home over the holidays in a seat rather than a body bag. When they don't work, people are hurt or killed - and then the incident and the policy are reviewed and hopefully improved upon in the future. This process may result in a change in policy or discipline of those involved, or both.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So we agree the Apache pilots wrongfully shot down unarmed people, in this particular case, and that the ROE should not allow them to do that.

 

[Kathryn]

So we agree the Apache pilots wrongfully shot down unarmed people, in this particular case, and that the ROE should not allow them to do that.

I didn't say I agree with that assessment. I believe that mistakes were made, but the question is, based on the complete context of the situation (as opposed to an edited video taken out of context and spun by a media organization) were the actions of the troops criminal?

There's a huge difference between an intentionally criminal act and a mistake made based on faulty information - or an action justified entirely by the circumstances of the situation - regardless of the outcome.

This is what the investigation was for - to determine which category the actions captured on the complete video fall into.

Personally - I have no idea which category applies. But I am suspicious of the edited video and the motives of those who released it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Personally - I have no idea which category applies. But I am suspicious of the edited video and the motives of those who released it.

The video footage is accurate according to CentCom's report, I agree the video lacked context, but we get that context from the CentCom report. The gunners apparently made a bad judgment. Later in the mission they did not engage a suspected insurgent vehicle because no weapons were identified, and that was an appropriate judgment. In the former case, they did engage even though there were no weapons and that decision cost the lives of 3 innocent men and the wounding of two children. If I made a mistake in judgment at a stoplight, and killed or injured 5 people, what do you think would happen to me? Isn't discipline even stricter in the military?

Let's face it, the reason a case like this is met with a lot of sympathy and understanding, instead of strict discipline, is because the innocent people killed were foreigners. If they were American soldiers on the ground that had been killed due to a flagrant violation of ROE, wouldn't the pilots be discharged by now?

 

[dust1n]

Let's face it, the reason a case like this is met with a lot of sympathy and understanding, instead of strict discipline, is because the innocent people killed were foreigners. If they were American soldiers on the ground that had been killed due to a flagrant violation of ROE, wouldn't the pilots be discharged by now?

Bingo.

Not to mention, a media organization did not 'spin' this around.

You want to see spin, watch the big three report on the story. Watch the video they showed.




Not to mention, even if it was an accident, the military still blatantly lied about it until they were forced to release the information under the Freedom of Information Act (remember that one?) by the ACLU's law suit.

But who cares, right? It's just a bunch of civilians we don't know. Who cares if they are innocent?



Not those soldiers.

Not those soldiers.





Just following orders....

After all, they are just civilians..

Oh, but I digress.. we were talking about killing?

 

[Kathryn]

Surely you don't want to open this can of worms, do you?

American contractors murdered, burned and hung from a bridge by Iraqis

Kurdish civilians murdered by Iraqis

More civilians killed by Iraqis

 

[dust1n]

Surely you don't want to open this can of worms, do you?

American contractors murdered, burned and hung from a bridge by Iraqis

Kurdish civilians murdered by Iraqis

More civilians killed by Iraqis

None of this has to do with an institutionalized army.

Granted.. I don't see how you think killing civilians is justified because they were killing own civilians first; that just means we took their position.

9/11? Well ...

How exactly does killing 40 times the amount of civilians make anything better?

"The extraordinary scale of the conflict's impact, claiming lives from New York to Bali and London to Lahore, and the extent of the death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, has emerged from an Independent on Sunday survey to mark the fifth anniversary of 11 September. It used new, unpublished data supplied by academics and organisations such as Iraq Body Count and Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire, plus estimates given by other official studies.


The result is the first attempt to gauge the full cost in blood and money of the worldwide atrocities and military conflicts that began in September 2001. As of yesterday, the numbers of lives confirmed lost are: 4,541 to 5,308 civilians and 385 military in Afghanistan; 50,100 civilians and 2,899 military in Iraq; and 4,081 in acts of terrorism in the rest of the world.


The new figure on civilian deaths from Iraq Body Count, a group of British and US academics, is especially telling. Just two and a half years ago, its estimate of the number of civilian dead in Iraq passed 10,000. Today, it says, that figure has gone beyond the 50,000 mark - a huge leap largely attributable to terrorist acts and the breakdown of civil authority.


Iraq Body Count's careful methodology - of recording a death only when it appears in two independent media reports - almost certainly produces a substantial underestimate. Even the Iraqi Health Ministry reports a slightly higher figure, and President Bush's much-quoted figure of 30,000 civilian dead dates from December 2005, when it tallied with the then IBC figure. Insurgent deaths are not included in the IBC figures, and neither are those of Iraqi police when engaged in combat-style operations."


62,006 - the number killed in the 'war on terror' - World Politics, World - The Independent




How much are willing to spend to keep doing this for a small, select group of people?


"As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.


A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.



...


With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year."


President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan - ABC News






Your examples aren't paid for by the countries tax dollars.


We pay for the death. We payed for Abu Ghraib and ordered the soldiers to do it - the majority of them being tortured for days and days and days... completely innocent.


Not to mention, America created Al Qaeda and the Taliban and gave them power.


Did you ever stop to think why the entire Middle East hates us so much?


Maybe it has something to do with ******* over country over and over and over and over and over and over and over...




Granted; show me pictures of Saddam torturing American civilians...

 

[Kathryn]

The photos of soldiers humiliating prisoners at Abu Ghraib are disgraceful - and those soldiers were prosecuted and punished at our expense, as well they should have been.

The result is the first attempt to gauge the full cost in blood and money of the worldwide atrocities and military conflicts that began in September 2001. As of yesterday, the numbers of lives confirmed lost are: 4,541 to 5,308 civilians and 385 military in Afghanistan; 50,100 civilians and 2,899 military in Iraq; and 4,081 in acts of terrorism in the rest of the world.


The new figure on civilian deaths from Iraq Body Count, a group of British and US academics, is especially telling. Just two and a half years ago, its estimate of the number of civilian dead in Iraq passed 10,000. Today, it says, that figure has gone beyond the 50,000 mark - a huge leap largely attributable to terrorist acts and the breakdown of civil authority.


Iraq Body Count's careful methodology - of recording a death only when it appears in two independent media reports - almost certainly produces a substantial underestimate. Even the Iraqi Health Ministry reports a slightly higher figure, and President Bush's much-quoted figure of 30,000 civilian dead dates from December 2005, when it tallied with the then IBC figure. Insurgent deaths are not included in the IBC figures, and neither are those of Iraqi police when engaged in combat-style operations."

But are you meaning to imply that these civilian deaths are at the hands of US and coalition soldiers for the most part? Wow, I think you're leaving out some very pertinent facts - that the Iraqi and Afghan MILITANTS and warring factions are constantly blowing civilians up in suicide bombings and open warfare. (Not only that, they've been at each other for thousands of years.)

During Saddam Hussein's regime alone, over 300,000 Iraqi Kurdish civilians were victims of genocide - by other Iraqis.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Babies found in Iraqi mass grave

So, even if 60,000 civilians HAVE lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in other acts of terrorism worldwide since September 2001 - that's about 1/6 the number of civilians slaughtered by Hussein (whose regime we dismantled). Furthermore, since when are these 60,000 or so civilian deaths since 9/01 solely the fault or responsibility of US/coalition forces?

Let's take a look at the number of terrorist attacks (NOT military engagements) worldwide since 2001:

Islamic terrorists have carried out over 15,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. In fact, from April 3 thru April 9, 2010, terrorist attacks worldwide left 203 people dead and over 600 critically wounded. THAT'S IN ONE WEEK.

Monthly Jihad Report
March, 2010 Jihad Attacks:

165​

Countries:

15​

Religions:

5​

Dead Bodies:

1304​

Critically Injured:

2046​

2010.04.18 (Peshawar, Pakistan) - A child is among seven people blown into pieces by a Shahid car bomber.2010.04.17 (Basra, Iraq) - Islamists gun down a woman and injure her husband and son.2010.04.17 (Kohat, Pakistan) - Two suicide bombers, dressed in burqas, blow up forty-one refugees lining up for food at a displaced persons camp.2010.04.16 (Baaj, Iraq) - Islamists kidnap two men and shoot them in the back of the head.2010.04.16 (Quetta, Pakistan) - A suicidal Sunni detonates in a crowd of Shia protesters outside a hospital, sending at least ten to Allah.2010.04.15 (Boto, Nigeria) - A Christian pastor and his wife are abducted by Muslims and burned to a crisp.

Here's another article from this week about Iraqis killing civilians:

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/04/18/106192.html

And another - this one about Afghan men gunning down Afghan women who work for "western" companies:
The Associated Press: 18-year-old Afghan woman slain in campaign of fear

Oh, wow, here's another recent article - this one is about civilian members of a minority religious sect being targeted and killed in Pakistan.
Pakistan: Three more Ahmadis murdered in target killings. No arrests have yet been made


Here's a recent article about a US civilian bodyguard, who worked for the UN, who was brutally murdered after he saved 17 colleagues from an attack by the Taliban.
UN bodyguard 'executed by Afghan police' - Telegraph

The entire Middle East doesn't hate us, by the way, though radical Muslims throughout the world DO hate the US. Many Israelis, Egyptians, Lebanese, and Jordanians support our military presence in their very unsettled and violent region. And - so do many Iraqis for that matter.

 

[kai]

The video footage is accurate according to CentCom's report, I agree the video lacked context, but we get that context from the CentCom report. The gunners apparently made a bad judgment. Later in the mission they did not engage a suspected insurgent vehicle because no weapons were identified, and that was an appropriate judgment. In the former case, they did engage even though there were no weapons and that decision cost the lives of 3 innocent men and the wounding of two children. If I made a mistake in judgment at a stoplight, and killed or injured 5 people, what do you think would happen to me? Isn't discipline even stricter in the military?

Let's face it, the reason a case like this is met with a lot of sympathy and understanding, instead of strict discipline, is because the innocent people killed were foreigners. If they were American soldiers on the ground that had been killed due to a flagrant violation of ROE, wouldn't the pilots be discharged by now?

on the contrary a case like this is not met with a lot of sympathy and very little understanding
what do you want Spinkles? what do you want to see happen to those Pilots? these things happen and that's why there are investigations to see why they happened the very actions of the air team later when they didn't open fire on civilians tells me that they are not marauding murderers but made a mistake that only came to light later.

and it wasn't a flagrant violation of the ROE. unless you are saying its all a conspiracy?

 

[kai]

EXACTLY. You can't have it both ways, you can't say our first priority is to protect our soldier's lives BUT we're also going to send them to Iraq and Afghanistan, thus risking their lives, and civilian lives are secondary. If we care more about our soldier's lives than civilian lives, then we should withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. OTOH, if we care about civilian lives, and that is the reason our forces are in those countries,

then we should have rules of engagement which protect civilian lives

.

but we do have rules of engagement which are there to protect civilian lives?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

but we do have rules of engagement which are there to protect civilian lives?

Well that's what I was asking about earlier, you said the ROE permitted shooting the van, apparently this is not the case .... ? So if the pilots opened fire on people unjustifiably then this was indeed "collateral murder" and they should be disciplined accordingly. The military leadership should reiterate and re-emphasize the ROE to the soldiers. Has this been done?

Perhaps coalition forces should be subject to Iraqi law, just as British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre were subject to American law.

 

[croak]

The entire Middle East doesn't hate us, by the way, though radical Muslims throughout the world DO hate the US. Many Israelis, Egyptians, Lebanese, and Jordanians support our military presence in their very unsettled and violent region. And - so do many Iraqis for that matter.

True, but many don't support it. As a Lebanese person, I can say I disagree, and know many other Arabs who do as well. I don't hate Americans, but I do hate US government policy.

[URL="http://www.aaiusa.org/page/-/Polls/6%20Nation%20PPT%20-%20Final.pdf"]Arab Opinions on President Obama’s First 100 Days: A 6 Nation Survey (PDF)[/url]

 

[kai]

Well that's what I was asking about earlier, you said the ROE permitted shooting the van, apparently this is not the case .... ? So if the pilots opened fire on people unjustifiably then this was indeed "collateral murder" and they should be disciplined accordingly. The military leadership should reiterate and re-emphasize the ROE to the soldiers. Has this been done?

Perhaps coalition forces should be subject to Iraqi law, just as British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre were subject to American law.

the Military investigation found that the action did not break the ROE. If the AWT thought the van was part of the insurgent team then they didn't break the ROE, their statements clearly said so and the tape clearly shows that although that were ultimately mistaken they thought the van was part of the insurgent team. The ROE is reiterated and emphasised over and over to soldiers all the time.

In order for you to think they have broke the ROE you must believe that they were wilfully lying and targeted the van knowing full well the van was nothing to do with the insurgents and indeed murdered those people.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

the Military investigation found that the action did not break the ROE. If the AWT thought the van was part of the insurgent team then they didn't break the ROE, their statements clearly said so and the tape clearly shows that although that were ultimately mistaken they thought the van was part of the insurgent team. The ROE is reiterated and emphasised over and over to soldiers all the time.

In order for you to think they have broke the ROE you must believe that they were wilfully lying and targeted the van knowing full well the van was nothing to do with the insurgents and indeed murdered those people.

No, I didn't know the ROE say soldiers can decide unarmed people are insurgents, arbitrarily, and shoot them, as long as their hunch or suspicion is genuine and sincere. If that is the case, then the soldiers didn't violate the ROE. In that case, the ROE need to be changed because that is a terrible policy, Kathryn agreed with me and I bet Caladan and Gen. McChrystal and pro-American Iraqis agree, too.

 

[kai]

No, I didn't know the ROE say soldiers can decide unarmed people are insurgents, arbitrarily, and shoot them, as long as their hunch or suspicion is genuine and sincere. If that is the case, then the soldiers didn't violate the ROE. In that case, the ROE need to be changed because that is a terrible policy, Kathryn agreed with me and I bet Caladan and Gen. McChrystal and pro-American Iraqis agree, too.

I agree with you too but, i am talking about this particular incident,so you think their lying in their statements and they murdered them?

 

[dust1n]

The photos of soldiers humiliating prisoners at Abu Ghraib are disgraceful - and those soldiers were prosecuted and punished at our expense, as well they should have been.

Actually, no higher ranking official was charged with anything.

Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib, demoted for her lack of oversight regarding the abuse, estimated later that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent.[6]

Lieutenant Colonel Steven L. Jordan became the highest ranking officer to have charges brought against him in connection with the Abu Ghraib abuse on April 29, 2006.[55] Prior to his trial, eight of twelve charges against him were dismissed, two of the most serious after Major General George Fay admitted that he did not read Jordan his rights before interviewing him in reference to the abuses that had taken place. On August 28, 2007, Jordan was acquitted of all charges related to prisoner mistreatment and received a reprimand for disobeying an order not to discuss a 2004 investigation into the allegations.[56]

The prisoner Manadel al-Jamadi died in Abu Ghraib prison after being interrogated and tortured by a CIA officer and a private contractor. The torture included physical violence and strappado hanging whereby the victim's is hung from the wrists with the hands tied behind the back. His death has been labeled a homicide by the US military [8], but neither of the two men that caused his death have been charged. The private contractor was granted immunity.[9]


And they did a bit more than 'humiliate' them;

The New York Times, in a report on January 12, 2005,[23] reported testimony suggesting that the following events had taken place at Abu Ghraib:

• Urinating on detainees
• Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
• Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
• Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
• Sodomization of detainees with a baton
• Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.

...

Major General Antonio Taguba has stated that there is photographic evidence of rape being carried out by American military personnel at Abu Ghraib.[12] An Iraqi teenage boy was raped by a uniformed man while photos of it were taken by a female US military police.[13] The alleged rapist was identified by a witness as an American-Egyptian who worked as a translator, and who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.[12] Another photo shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner.[12] Other photos show sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube, and a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.[12] Taguba has supported President Obama's decision not to release the photos, stating “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.”[12]


In another case, a female inmate was raped by an American military policeman. In a third reported case, witnesses said US guards repeatedly raped a 14 year old girl in 2003.[14]. In a fourth reported case, Senior US officials admitted rape had taken place at Abu Ghraib.[15]


...



In November 2006, the former US Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, in-charge of Abu Ghraib prison until early 2004, told Spain's El País newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Donald Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation. “The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorized these specific techniques.” He said that this was contrary to the Geneva Convention and quoted the same "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind". According to Karpinski, the handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished". There have been no comments from either the Pentagon or US Army spokespeople in Iraq on Karpinski's accusations.[109][110][111]


...


In 2009, an additional 21 color photographs surfaced, showing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq being abused by their U.S. captors. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "in seeking the other pictures, said the government had long argued that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was isolated and was an aberration. The new photos would show that the abuse was more widespread, the ACLU said." President Barack Obama initially indicated he would not fight the release of the photographs, but "reversed course in May and authorized an appeal to the high court." "The Obama administration believe[d] giving the imminent grant of authority over the release of such pictures to the defense secretary would short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act." On Oct 10, 2009 the US "Congress [was] set to allow the Pentagon to keep new pictures ... from the public"[119]


On February 3, 2010, David A. Larson, an elected official in California who has a relationship with government contract personnel, made disclosures to the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General alleging that under the Bush Administration, prisoners detained at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and undisclosed "black sites" were being used as involuntary research subjects for human biomedical experimentation, behavior modification research, and drug-testosterone delivery in a manner similar to past CIA Project MKULTRA activities that were investigated in 1977 by Senators Kennedy and Inuoye. The allegation supports information contained in a International Red Cross report relative to the expanded role of CIA Medical personnel in torture and interrogation.[120]


cont...

 

[dust1n]

Documents obtained by The Washington Post and the ACLU show that the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez authorized the use of military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and sensory deprivation as interrogation methods in Abu Ghraib.[102] Also a November 2004 report by Brig Gen Richard Formica found that many troops at the Abu Ghraib prison were only following orders based on a memo from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, and that “[she] didn't find cruel and malicious criminals that are out there looking for detainees to abuse.”[103] “Gen Sanchez authorised interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the army's own standards”, ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said in the union's statement.[104] In an interview for her hometown newspaper The Signal, Gen. Karpinski claimed to have seen unreleased documents from Rumsfeld that authorized these tactic for Iraqi prisoners.[105] Both Sanchez and Rumsfeld have denied authorization.

...

Captain Carolyn Wood was head of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion from Fort Bragg. In August 2002, nine interrogation techniques not approved by military doctrine or included in Army field manuals were added after Chris Mackey and his team turned over the detention unit in Bagram to the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion. Chris Mackey had trained with Wood before she got her command at Bagram. He says that while he was “gravely disappointed” when he found out about her changes to the interrogation rules, he understands what might have been going on. “After she took over, the stakes got very high,” he says. “We went from losing three or four soldiers a month to scores of them. She must have been under a tremendous amount of pressure.”“But there was horrible incompetence at the leadership and oversight level. People were aware of what we were doing because we were open. [The prison] was practically a Disney ride, with lots of higher-ups and officials coming through. But the common response we got was, Aren’t you kind of babying them?”[70]

...

'Do you pray to Allah?' one asked. I said yes. They said, '[Expletive] you. And [expletive] him.' One of them said, 'You are not getting out of here health[y], you are getting out of here handicapped. And he said to me, 'Are you married?' I said, 'Yes.' They said, 'If your wife saw you like this, she will be disappointed.' One of them said, 'But if I saw her now she would not be disappointed now because I would rape her.' ” [...] “They ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive.” [...] “I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, 'But I believe in torture and I will torture you.'
—Ameen Saeed Al-Sheik, [30]
​

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


cont...