Another Iraq massacre (by US troops) emerges.

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

Hobbes

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?

Riiigghhht. So imagine your a General and you have just been handed pictures of Iraqis being tortured in a US prison with a US solider giving the Thumbs up in the pictures.

Do you then proceed to let these people continue thier job for a few months to get an investigation in place or do you actually suspend all the people in the pictures pending an investigation?

Its a well known fact that these people continued on as usual for months after the pictures were released to the US military.

Manic Moran wrote:

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.

Exactly which is why there has be seen a total visual sign of justice being done. Too often soliders are let off with minor sentances or escape any case at all.

Sgt Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

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.

That sounds like something Saddam would say to defend himself and the (alleged) Dujail massacre in his comedy trial.

Sand

Hobbes posted:

Riiigghhht. So imagine your a General and you have just been handed pictures of Iraqis being tortured in a US prison with a US solider giving the Thumbs up in the pictures.

Do you then proceed to let these people continue thier job for a few months to get an investigation in place or do you actually suspend all the people in the pictures pending an investigation?

Its a well known fact that these people continued on as usual for months after the pictures were released to the US military.

Manic Posted:

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.

Is there some alternate reality I dont know about where a few days is equivalent to "a few months"?

What they both do not do, is concern themselves with the 11 innocents killed, including five children and four women.

Redplanet, my contributions to this thread have been regarding that there is no evidence that the US military is incapable or unwilling to investigate and punish crimes, correcting someone who did not know the coalition forces have a U.N. mandate, laughing at a Provo preaching about murder of innocents, and trying to comprehend Hobbes timeline of events.

As you betrayed in your original post with the line "I suspect we'll be finding out more and more of these dark little secrets of the conduct of US troops in Iraq", your only concern with these 11 people is using them as a stick to beat George Bush with. Which you betrayed again in your last post ("damage-limitation for the US (politics)" ?!?! Whats this got to do with US politics? Politics should have nothing to do with investigations of possible atrocities). So off the high horse.

I suppose for them, the lives of Iraqi people really are worthless, just like that Iraqi said in one of those articles i linked.

Attack the post, not the poster Red? Someone could just as easily note that youre only interested in civillian deaths when they can be used to attack George Bush's policies? Certainly, US administration/military involvement in accusations seems to weaken your otherwise stirring adherence to the presumption of innocence, as when you defended David Koresh against allegations of being a paedophile.

Hold on there bk, the allegation that David Koresh raped children has never been proved and survivors say that it was just black propaganda.
I'd say he's innocent til proven guilty.

Would it be fair, based on the above, to say that your only concern was damage limitation for David Koresh, legitimising his actions, and that you didnt give a damn about the children, that the life of a child meant nothing to you?

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote:

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.

Quite possible. A case of handing out token prison sentences to both appease the public outcry and to send a message to the soldiers of "sorry but we kind of have to ... ". But this is something I think we'll never find the truth of.

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.

Armed forces are the continuation of policits by other means. I wont argue that the army shouldn't do what it's command-in-chief tells it to do. But when you look at the amount of macro-management coming down from the likes of Rumesfeld and Wolfowicz (sp??) you can't help but wonder as to the scale of political interference in how the armed forces conduct themselves. They're being told how to do their job by people who really aren't qualified to tell them and probably haven't ever fired a gun much less aimed one at another human being.

So with that level of macro-management in mind, I do feel a serious level of sceptiscm towards how the US armed forces are conducting themselves as a direct result of this meddling. What kind of messages are being sent to the troops?

I'm not sure what you mean.

You had said that the ROE as written is not what is given to the troops, who are being given something far "looser" to use the term you used. I'm curious as to why they aren't beign given the ROE as is. Poor analogy I know, but take road-speed limits. You don't set a speed limit at, say, 70kph and then tell someone it's ok to go above that. Is this kind of logic being given to the troops?

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.

I seem to recall reading somewhere about the use of 'targetted' WP being against the ROE as set down by the US. The word of note here is "targetted" since it is billed as a chemical agent and meant only for illumination of a battlefield, not the targetting of people, resisting or otherwise.

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.

Cover-ups? Haditha for one. The troops involved, and their superiors (how high up the chain it goes I have no idea) tried to supress knowledge of the incident by filing false reports.

Was the case of Maynulet the one that was captured on video footage? Or was that a seperate incident?

Manic Moran

Lemming wrote:

Armed forces are the continuation of policits by other means. I wont argue that the army shouldn't do what it's command-in-chief tells it to do. But when you look at the amount of macro-management coming down from the likes of Rumesfeld and Wolfowicz (sp??) you can't help but wonder as to the scale of political interference in how the armed forces conduct themselves. They're being told how to do their job by people who really aren't qualified to tell them and probably haven't ever fired a gun much less aimed one at another human being.

Hmm.. I'm not sure that they are being micromanaged, at least certainly not in the sense that immediately comes to mind such as McNamara personally approving targets in Vietnam, or talking to the bomber crews on the radio. Certainly there have been policy decisions made which have in my opinion hamstrung US operations, but I can't think of any operational decisions in which the Army hasn't been able to say "Fine, if we have to do this damned fool thing, at least we'll do it our way."

What kind of messages are being sent to the troops?

The only one that we received was 'don't do anything which has even a hint of being out of line, else you will be strung up for the almighty God of PR.'

You had said that the ROE as written is not what is given to the troops, who are being given something far "looser" to use the term you used.

Ah, gotcha. I said that the ROEs as given to troops are looser than one might expect of a policeman on the beat. i.e. an armed civilian policeman here in California, or wherever. It was to express the idea that the ROEs already take the viewpoint of being plonked in the middle of a somewhat hostile situation with a risk of bombings, snipers, and so on, so the simple argument of 'the troops are in a dangerous and stressful situation' on its own does not justify breaking the rules.

I seem to recall reading somewhere about the use of 'targetted' WP being against the ROE as set down by the US. The word of note here is "targetted" since it is billed as a chemical agent and meant only for illumination of a battlefield, not the targetting of people, resisting or otherwise.

See the long argument on the WP /ChemWeaps thread over that. ISAW and I had quite an entertaining debate over the doctrinal and legal issues.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054937902.

Cover-ups? Haditha for one. The troops involved, and their superiors (how high up the chain it goes I have no idea) tried to supress knowledge of the incident by filing false reports.

That wasn't an investigation that was covered up, though. That is looking like it's basically a conspiracy to prevent the investigators from turning up in the first place. Army Colonel Watt's investigation starting Feb 06 (after the issue became public) was the first official investigation: The investigators have to know that there's something to investigate before they can start. He concludes that there is something fishy with the original report, sends it to the NCIS in March for criminal investigation. That investigation continues, though the investigation is being partially thwarted by Iraqi refusal to allow the bodies to be exhumed for forensic evidence.

Was the case of Maynulet the one that was captured on video footage? Or was that a seperate incident?

I believe it was not captured on video.

NTM

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Is there some alternate reality I dont know about where a few days is equivalent to "a few months"?

You left out the bit where the pictures were taken months before that (reported to be about October 2003, around the same time Rumsfield was there), and the newspaper story broke around April 2004.

To add to that numerous reports of abuses/torture shown in the pictures during the year 2003. Amnesty International even reported on it June 2003 asking for an independant investigation. Red Cross reported on the abuses going on November 2003. What did the military do during that time? Changed the rules that all on site inspections by independant bodies had to be made in advance (which is against the Geneva Convention btw).

They also banned the use of cameras for US military (Rumsfield, although some time later).

Here are some choice quotes around that time...

"This is international standards. It's the best care available for -- in a prison facility." - Brigadier General Janice Karpinski. Oct 2003.

"Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers." - George Bush. Oct 2003.

"Living conditions now are better in prison than at home... At one point we were concerned they wouldn't want to leave." - Brigadier General Janice Karpinski. Dec 2003.

For those who missed the earlier post Janice got a demotion for the mess. Never charged of any crime.

[edit]

Some more for sand..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/

There was an internal investigation into Abu Gharib around Nov 2003 (not connected to the photos).

So next time you think its "only a few days" do a bit of research.

Hobbes

On somewhat the same topic. The Iraq prime minister said a few days ago...

"This is a phenomenon that has become common among many of the multinational forces. No respect for citizens, smashing civilian cars and killing on a suspicion or a hunch. It’s unacceptable."

Whats funny in this is that Snow (Bushes Press sec.) said that he had been misquoted and didn't actually say that while Rice on TV said that he hadn't been misquoted.

They can't even spin properly anymore.

Memnoch

I've gone past the point of frustration on this issue.

Those who have the gold make the rules. The US have the power, they have the money, there is nothing any of us can do about. They will continue to abuse their power to benefit themselves as has every other powerful nation throughout human history.

The idea that humanity has become civilised or has raised itself above it's barbaric origins are mere illusion, we are no different from what we were a thousand years ago, except we have gotten better at fooling ourselves about it so as to assuage our wafer thin conscience.

The world is full mostly of people who don't care, and don't want to care. As long as those who are well off and comfortable stay that way it doesn't really matter what happens. As long as they can maintain their illusion of safety and continue lives of gluttony. Regardless of how many others must suffer for it.

People have become purposefully blind to the hypocrisy and the obviousness of the lies surrounding them.

The idea that a criminal or any organisation can somehow be considered to impartially investigate, judge and police itself is ludicrous, and would be laughed at if it were a private organisation or individual. Yet seemingly sane people seem intent on justifying how this should not only be accepted, but rather be lauded

This thread and all other such discussions are ultimately futile and pointless, people fall for spin and propaganda because it's in their own interests. It will be a long time if ever that we can rise above the most basic element of human nature, that is selfishness.

At least it felt a little better to rant about it.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

You left out the bit where the pictures were taken months before that (reported to be about October 2003, around the same time Rumsfield was there), and the newspaper story broke around April 2004.

If the photographs were only revealed to investigators three months after the photographs were taken, it's a bit unreasonable for investigators to be expected to be investigating before then.

They also banned the use of cameras for US military (Rumsfield, although some time later).

There was some rumour about it, but obviously they decided it was a bit of a non-starter. For starters, it would have been unenforceable. Besides, I was issued a digital camera to record evidence, and had to take it along on every patrol.

For those who missed the earlier post Janice got a demotion for the mess. Never charged of any crime.

Must have been. People don't get demoted on a whim.

There was an internal investigation into Abu Gharib around Nov 2003 (not connected to the photos).

If you read the commentary, the investigation was not into Abu Ghraib. One (Miller) was a general investigation into official procedures, not allegations of abuse outside of procedures. The other (Ryder) is not linked to, we don't know its scope, what it said or where it was taken.

As a bit of an aside, I was surprised to see this on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/30/damon.iraq.btsc/

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

If the photographs were only revealed to investigators three months after the photographs were taken, it's a bit unreasonable for investigators to be expected to be investigating before then.

The point was that the abuses were known about well before the photos broke and one such instance of the Red Cross rather then deal with the issue they tried to stop the Red Cross from investigating the jails.

Tried to find the story I read and instead found a story from the ACLU that had gotten documents that showed that Bush authorised some of torture techniques (using Dogs for example). On a side note to that it appears that investigations are showing that the military knew full well that torture was going on...

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/25406prs20060502.html (has actual links to the PDF documents from the military).

There was some rumour about it, but obviously they decided it was a bit of a non-starter.

More then a rumour. Was all over the news. If its enforced, you'd be better person to know that.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/23/1085250873479.html?from=top5

Must have been. People don't get demoted on a whim.

Demotion is a joke punishment tbh.

If you read the commentary, the investigation was not into Abu Ghraib.

The investigation was into the 800th MP Brigade who dealt with the Abu Gharib.