Another Iraq massacre (by US troops) emerges.

Hobbes

Again on a sidenote. You can get all Torture in Iraq related documents here..

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/050206/

Some of it is intresting. For example the accounts of torture on an Iraqi with Swedish citizenship in Abu Gharib. The guy was given asylum because he had been imprisioned in the same place under Saddams reign.

If you think the news reports are disturbing, I urge you to actually read the documents released under the FOIA, they are a lot worse.

... This is quite distressing. (starting from page 5)
http://www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD045906.pdf

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

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).

Given that the Army thoughtfully wrote down all the information for the 62 investigations, and the fact that the ACLU says that some of them had already reached court-martial, it's a pretty shoddy job at a coverup.

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

I know it was all over the news, that's how we heard about it! (We got most of our non-Iraq news from the Internet) But nothing was ever said through channels, and the only reports I ever heard on the news were 'rumours are that Rummy wants to ban cameras.' We never heard anything more definite than that.

Demotion is a joke punishment tbh.

Depends on what you can convict her of. If there is no evidence showing that she ordered, or even knew about the abuse (and my understanding is that it was the interrogators behind it all), the worst she can really be gotten on that I can think of is deriliction of duty or conduct unbecoming. Neither of which carry prison sentences, I don't think.

[ETA: One of the FOIA documents you linked to appears to substantiate this. It specifically addresses various possible charges to be made against her.http://www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD045400.pdf]

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

If you're talking about the root article "Executive summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba," that was the investigation ordered January 19th 2004.

Again on a sidenote. You can get all Torture in Iraq related documents here..

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/050206/

Interesting site. I've been browsing through it. The amount of information that the US military has retained, plus things like C.I.D emails indicating nearly 70 criminal Army investigations do not seem to support the contention that the US military involves itself in coverups and looks the other way. It seems that if they really wanted to whitewash things, they'd not be bothering with all the investigations or the paper trail.

I am appalled at the Swedish incident (and the doubtless numerous other ones like it), but I never claimed that the US military could do no wrong, or that there weren't lawbreakers in the military. The topic I believe we're focusing on right now is if the US military actually would do a proper investigation into Haditha to attribute factual blame.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

The topic I believe we're focusing on right now is if the US military actually would do a proper investigation into Haditha to attribute factual blame.

Yes and I still don't believe they are. I read through that whole Swedish document and after detailing the abuses to him and having his car and money stolen he had to put in numerous requests just to get his stuff back (not confirmed he did) and his first response to the abuses was the US government to tell him that he was being kicked out of the USA (despite legally being allowed to stay there).

The other documents are not that great either. I read the one about the doctor that was checking the health of the prisoners and one of the prisoners despite saying to the doctor he was being tortured and documented the damage to his body the doctor then released him to be tortured again. when his interrogaters were questioned they said "he tried to escape and hit himself in the process". (reminded me of the old 'Fell down the stairs' comment).

There is another where a prisoner was taken from a hospital after being shot by US troops (who shouldn't of been in that area), was tortured before they realised he should never of been there to begin with. His mother was given $1000 and told to settle with that. Another where the family were told thier son had been taken and died under torture. The body was dumped at the steps of an Iraqi hospital.

While there may be parts of the military that can investigate this from what I have read they have lost all credability to do so. There is a huge difference between actually giving justice to those who have been wronged and being appearead to going through the motions.

Depends on what you can convict her of. ... the worst she can really be gotten on that I can think of is deriliction of duty or conduct unbecoming. Neither of which carry prison sentences, I don't think.

Except that she claimed that those above her were also aware of the abuses, which isn't really denying she didn't know. At the very least she should be removed from the military.

Black Swan

The longer US forces are in Iraq, the more tragic incidents of this type will occur.

godfather69er

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

eh ya have to declare war ye stupid pacifist, 9/11 was a sneaky low blow by ****ing loopers who use islam as a cover sure its against islam to kill yourself.
i fully support the US but i dont think Iraq can be justified i think they were wrong they should have let saddam strike first.i am standing up for the troops here its easy pointing the finger behind a computer when you are in a guerrilla war you are on edge in vietnam women and children killed US soldiers do you really think the US army just go to iraq to shoot a few arabs??
the ira also used female operatives to lure british soldiers with a promise of sex and then murdered them. women and children is a load of chivarly ****, in a world of equality women are just as likely to be terrorists then men .
you pacifists are crazybut war is war and if arabs killed your mothers in cold blood youd be screaming for their heads.

godfather69er

Lemming wrote:

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.



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.



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"?



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?

have you served in a army?? have you been to war???? war has changed since ww2 it aint aload of tanks and men in a field. its gone sneaky and guerrilla, honestly for **** sake think about it legal war so what happens with a illegal war, which iraq is ??what has happened to the usa?? what sanctions?? the usa can do what the **** it likes coz it is the usa??maybe we will ban imports and exports from usa....oh **** our economies have collapsed ah well millions of us are now livinf in poverty for what??so we can punish the states??listen war is war, legal war is a term brought around to appease pacifists

Jimboo_Jones

godfather69er wrote:

eh ya have to declare war ye stupid pacifist, 9/11 was a sneaky low blow by ****ing loopers who use islam as a cover sure its against islam to kill yourself.

OBL and the US have been at war for a while before sep 11, surely you didn't miss out on the attack of the USS Cole, cruse's being dropped on Afgan trainning camps etc etc. It does not excuse that attack though, just as killing a family of innocent in Iraq can not be excused by soldiers being under extreem stress.

godfather69er wrote:

i fully support the US but i dont think Iraq can be justified i think they were wrong they should have let saddam strike first.

There is no hard evidence linking Sadam to OBL, in fact they are ideologically opposed to each other on most issues…. So if you would wait for Sadam to ‘strike first’, you would still be waiting, and be waiting for a long, long time.

godfather69er wrote:

women and children is a load of chivarly ****, in a world of equality women are just as likely to be terrorists then men

Killing a one year old child is hardly a question of equality, more a question of morality.

Lemming

godfather69er wrote:

have you served in a army?? have you been to war???? war has changed since ww2 it aint aload of tanks and men in a field. its gone sneaky and guerrilla, honestly for **** sake think about it legal war so what happens with a illegal war, which iraq is ??what has happened to the usa?? what sanctions?? the usa can do what the **** it likes coz it is the usa??maybe we will ban imports and exports from usa....oh **** our economies have collapsed ah well millions of us are now livinf in poverty for what??so we can punish the states??listen war is war, legal war is a term brought around to appease pacifists

So, I notice you didn't answer a single point I raised and instead go into a mindless rant about .. oooo ... nothing.

Funny that, eh?

But just to finish, two points since I'm really not prepared to give your ... intellect ... any mor time than it freely deserves. The art of war has not changed through human history. Evolved no doubt, but never changed. It's still as sneaky and bloody as it always has been. And the concept of "legality" of war was oddily enough what the german high command were tried for (among other things) in Nuremburg by .... the Americans. Heyyyyy, it all works out!

tallus

godfather69er wrote:

eh ya have to declare war ye stupid pacifist, 9/11 was a sneaky low blow by ****ing loopers who use islam as a cover sure its against islam to kill yourself.
i fully support the US but i dont think Iraq can be justified i think they were wrong they should have let saddam strike first.i am standing up for the troops here its easy pointing the finger behind a computer when you are in a guerrilla war you are on edge in vietnam women and children killed US soldiers do you really think the US army just go to iraq to shoot a few arabs??
the ira also used female operatives to lure british soldiers with a promise of sex and then murdered them. women and children is a load of chivarly ****, in a world of equality women are just as likely to be terrorists then men .
you pacifists are crazybut war is war and if arabs killed your mothers in cold blood youd be screaming for their heads.

I suggest you read the charter before you go insulting people godfather69er you're supposed to attack the post, not the poster.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

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 must admit to being somewhat disconcerted by this comment.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - that it was somehow wrong to go after the soldiers for such minor offenses, either because by doing so some bigger offences may not be getting the attention they need, or because the offences weren't really that serious.

Neither option fills me with confidence, to be honest, so I'm hoping you'll offer me a better one.

I would expect military law to be enforced with even more rigour than "civilian law". Seeing soldiers brought up for minor charges when things are quiet is exactly what I would want to see. I'd want to see them brought up for them at all times, but could accept how there would be times where that may simply prove impractical due to the nature of war.

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.'

Again, while you may be emhpasising the "hint of" and "strung up" bit, I would expect that in a situation like Iraq the US would be saying "...or else you will be strung up for the Almighty God of what we're supposed to be doing here".

I can't see how violating the rules and/or being lax about their enforcement can in any way benefit the mission, so surely it should not be PR which is the reason that violations would not be tolerated.

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying here - that it was somehow wrong to go after the soldiers for such minor offenses, either because by doing so some bigger offences may not be getting the attention they need, or because the offences weren't really that serious.

The problem is that soldiers who make the best, most rational decision they can at the time are still going to be under the spotlight from people who are reading a report from the pages submitted. You see it all the time in civilian cases. "Officer Smith, why did you not shoot the gun out of the robber's hand?" The fear of unwarranted persecution results in soldiers not shooting even when legal and desireable to do so, with result in their own death, or deaths of others.

The 'stupid offenses' includes a case of a Major whose unit found an abandoned 5-ton truck in Kuwait (the unit which owned it left it behind for some reason), decided to fix it, used it for the next year running convoys up and down the country, and then when turning in the vehicles at the end of the year, it was discovered by The System that she had a vehicle that wasn't hers and they court-martialled her. She used some ingenuity, in the manner of all good soldiers over the years, did her job, and got punished for it because some laywer didn't use common sense. There was a unit which got a local metalworker to armour their unarmoured HMMWVs, and they got in trouble for 'not using approved military process to include bidding' to select the contractor. (They need armor today, not after the three-month army bid process). We think cashiering the coup-de-grace officer is justice run amok as well. We (battalion officers) argued over whether or not I had the authority to blow up a suspected car bomb that the EOD guys wanted blown up. (The car blew itself up as we were arguing on the radio) MPs giving combat units speeding tickets as they're racing to an incident. To a large extent, the process is the goal. As one troop put it, "I went to a war, and garrison broke out." We were inspected to see that we didn't have any logos on our socks, for Christ's sake. How is making sure that a soldier's socks don't have a Nike swoosh on them going to affect the course of the war, Iraqis, or the perception of it in the media?

I can't see how violating the rules and/or being lax about their enforcement can in any way benefit the mission, so surely it should not be PR which is the reason that violations would not be tolerated.

That's not the problem. The problem is when the soldiers on the line believe that people are looking for perceived violations to hoist people up for PR purposes. Nobody thinks that there's anything amiss with punishing crimes, they're worried about someone being punished for acting in a reasonable manner.

NTM

godfather69er

talking to pacifists about war is well like talking to a gerbil.
USA do what the **** they like because love it or hate it they are the only superpower, they control most of the world economy, if they go to war the go to war law doesnt apply(btw can sombody please tell me clearly what happens if you break the laws of war)
and for some jabroni who implied i justified killing kids, i didnt i justified killing women, there is no point in killing a infant.

gandalf

godfather69er banned for a week for personal insults. Read the charter before you post in future!

Lemming

For anyone who's wondering what godfather69er's use of the word jabroni was ...

Definition of jabroni

Charming.

Manic Moran

People keep getting banned, this is going to be a quiet thread...

NTM

tallus

Lemming wrote:

For anyone who's wondering what godfather69er's use of the word jabroni was ...

Definition of jabroni

Charming.

Oh the irony !