Another war crime in Iraq

[Lord Zentei]

That's precisely because it was revealed that the American captors were guilty in torturing and abusing them.

That's a great kind of irony. People stop assuming Third Worlders are war criminals or terrorizers because... they had crimes and terror inflicted upon them by their American captors. It is beautiful.

No, in the context of what my argument was, it's because it was revealed that 1) they were being held without charge, 2) they were being assumed nether to fit under rules of war nor treated as common criminals with the protections that entails and 3) at least some of them were probably not guilty of anything.

[Shroom Man 777]

That itself, kidnapping people and imprisoning them indefinitely without charge, is a crime on part of America and America's own misdeeds - the character of America's actions - made people consider whether the Third Worlders were innocent or guilty or whatever.

[Lord Zentei]

That itself, kidnapping people and imprisoning them indefinitely without charge, is a crime on part of America and America's own misdeeds - the character of America's actions - made people consider whether the Third Worlders were innocent or guilty or whatever.

That doesn't make any sense. The fact of America's wrongdoing isn't itself the reason the guilt of the Guantanamo Bay detainees was doubted. It was doubted because, you know, it wasn't demonstrated. You're proposing a non-sequitur.

EDIT: and one, I might add, which has little to do with the issue at hand. How does this imply that America (or anyone else, for that matter) doesn't have the benefit of the doubt against specific allegations any more?

[K. A. Pital]

That itself, kidnapping people and imprisoning them indefinitely without charge, is a crime on part of America and America's own misdeeds - the character of America's actions - made people consider whether the Third Worlders were innocent or guilty or whatever.

That doesn't make any sense. The fact of America's wrongdoing isn't itself the reason the guilt of the Guantanamo Bay detainees was doubted. It was doubted because, you know, it wasn't demonstrated. You're proposing a non-sequitur.
EDIT: and one, I might add, which has little to do with the issue at hand. How does this imply that America (or anyone else, for that matter) doesn't have the benefit of the doubt against specific allegations any more?

What? America's kidnapping these people and detaining without charge is exactly _the reason_ why people doubt the guilt of Gitmo detainees - because they were made "guilty" without due process. So America's crime - that is, denying them either POW or criminal rights - is exactly what led people to doubt their guilt.

I agree that this has nothing to do with American guilt/innocence par se, but the argument is pretty much clear. If I were to extend it, I would say "If Americans were detained without trial, I would doubt them being guilty". So yes, perhaps the fact that we're equating soldiers on active duty in an Army so far in no threat of being detained with people detained without trial has something to do with the difference in impression. To make a case in point, people detained by the Soviet penal system in 1930s were considered innocent, because the standards of "due process" were crap in the USSR, the trials were a sham. On the other hand, in case where judicial procedures were strictly followed in the West, people usually do not doubt the guilt or innocence of the accused.

It is easy to make an assumption when someone is kidnapped, accused and held in custody without due process. It is not easy to make a presumption of innocence for an active duty military engaged in a post-agression occupation already marked by war crimes.

[Shroom Man 777]

"It was doubted because, you know, it wasn't demonstrated."

That's the wrongdoing!

[D.Turtle]

Your post to White Haven didn't justify the idea of not giving people the benefit of the doubt by any means. And as far as I can see, that post of yours contained only a wish-list, not "points". Some of these things are already done. Do you seriously think that the US army doesn't train people on what is allowed and what isn't, and that they don't prefer to use less force if able? Compare precision guided munitions in use today with the saturation bombing of yesteryear.

The rationale is the following: From what the public can tell, the US almost never properly investigates scenes where civilians were killed. Take for an example the Haditha massacre. An investigation was only launched after media reports and video evidence showed that the initial report (the civilians died from an IED) was bullshit. The investigation found that the civilians died from aimed gunshots, and not by an explosion of an IED. An investigation that would have had the required standard of proving the innocence of those soldiers would have required them to at least look at the body. Hell, the entire problem was that despite there being civilian deaths, no investigation was launched at all.

But video cameras on every soldier, heh. I'm sure the US would be happy to share its mission details to that extent with you whenever someone was caught in the crossfire.

They don't have to make everything public. They could however use that evidence in investigations.

That is what not giving people the benefit of the doubt implies.

What? Requiring more investigations and requiring a higher standard of proof before finishing the investigation would lead to less investigations and less convictions? You'll have to explain that one to me.

As for your question: obviously no country would accept the idea that their troops are supposed to prove their innocence after every battle, nor would they cooperate with such a scheme. If that's not obvious to you, then you're really more naive than you should be.

I don't think it would ever happen. It however is what I think is required for the reputation of the US military to start improving in the eyes of people in other countries.

So you want investigations when signs of wrongdoing are not forthcoming? How exactly does one prove one's innocence in a case where no evidence of wrongdoing is available, if the lack of such evidence is deemed insufficient? This IS assuming criminality by default.

I want an investigation in every case where civilians died. And the goal would be to find out how those civilians died.

The problem is that the US does not investigate unless pressured to do so by outside influence. And that has to change.

[Wing Commander MAD]

D.Turtle, I seriously doubt cameras on every man is a possibility on a technical level. One problem is getting something deemed durable enough to survive combat into a small enough package, whilst still retaining a useful resolution and overall picture quality to be useful in an investigation. The other problem is powering the damn thing. Your going to need a battery of some kind on the soldier and that adds even more weight. Soldiers are already overloaded as it is and adding another piece of equipment to their kit will increase problems. IIRC the modern infantryman carries more weight than the heaviest of European plate mail, without the benefit of having the weight being evenly distributed over the entire body. I'm certain one of the others who've actually served could explain in better detail the problems with wanting a camera per man when dealing with the modern infantryman.

[Thanas]

It would also most likely cost too much. Germany had planned something like that but dropped it AFAIK.

Far better to have just one or two guys be the designated cameramen (two in case one goes down).

[Spoonist]

D.Turtle, I seriously doubt cameras on every man is a possibility on a technical level. One problem is getting something deemed durable enough to survive combat into a small enough package, whilst still retaining a useful resolution and overall picture quality to be useful in an investigation.

Not a problem really.

The other problem is powering the damn thing. Your going to need a battery of some kind on the soldier and that adds even more weight.

Huge problem, that and cost as Thanas pointed out.

However....

I'm certain one of the others who've actually served could explain in better detail the problems with wanting a camera per man when dealing with the modern infantryman.

This is already happening. The pentagon has already put this on their hotlist. Right now its mostly for special operations (like taking out Bin Laden) but they have invested a lot in getting it to each and every soldiers helmet over the next couple of decades.

[TheHammer]

- No named accuser

Bull. The cable lists several media reports by Iraqi media as well as the morgue of Basra and neighbours of the deceased. It would be incredibly easy for any prosecutor to follow up on this.

The cable you quoted mentions no media reports. The only thing mentioned is "I have received various reports" with no named source. If there is an additional cable you are aware of with further information I'd like to see it.

- No physical evidence listed to support the accusation

Bull. The autopsy is clearly mentioned (which any prosecutor could have access too as well). Also, testimony is mentioned. Testimony which could easily be gotten by any prosecutor himself.

The cable does not mention any autopsy. The only place this was mentioned was the article from your antiwar website citing a supposed letter that again is not mentioned specifically in the cable you cited. Again, if additional cables are presented with further information this may change things.

- No opportunity for the accused to answer the charges

Bull. The cable asks explicitly for Rice to forward this to the relevant authorities to start an investigation. It is not intended to serve as a conviction in itself or demand US personnel be hanged on the streets of Baghdad.

Yet you've already labled in a war crime.

Let me put it this way. If you go to the police in Boston and tell them "my neighbour was shot on the 26th of August by corrupt cops, the morgue confirms it and there were several media reports in the days afterwards on national media", then that is plenty enough for any real prosecutor or investigating officer to at least take a look at it. Nobody who is interested in justice would just dismiss this because you are unable to name the anchorperson on the news. Yet this did not happen.

How do you know it did not happen? Is that your assumption, or do you have actual evidence besides the one cable you cited?

Also, do not forget that there is a reason this cable might not mention any names directly. It is intended to raise awareness and a US response, which the guy sending it would then have compared to the evidence he has. I am also sure he would have cooperated with US officials since that is usually the way it goes.

You have no case.

You claim the cable mentions various "media reports", which it does not. In fact, no media reports from what I can see have been cited at all. If there were in fact media reports, why would this cable be the first time we've heard of this incident?

Your article, from a source of questionable bias, also claims that Autopsies were conducted. The cable makes no mention of any autopsies or physical evidence collected on the incident. The article claims that this information comes from some "longer" letter that wasn't listed. If they have the "whole" letter, and the cable only excerpts part of this letter, then why not print the fucking letter in the first place? That would be the more damning thing.

If there is more evidence then I'd like to see it. AGAIN, if THIS:

The cable:

Quote:
I would like to draw the attention of your Government to
information I have received regarding a raid conducted by
the Multinational Forces (MNF) on 15 March 2006 in the house
of Faiz Harrat Al-Majma'ee, a farmer living in the outskirts
of Al-Iss Haqi District in Balad (Salah-El-Din Governorate).

I have received various reports indicating that at least 10
persons, namely Mr. Faiz Hratt Khalaf, (aged 28), his wife
Sumay'ya Abdul Razzaq Khuther (aged 24), their three
children Hawra'a (aged 5) Aisha ( aged 3) and Husam (5
months old), Faiz's mother Ms. Turkiya Majeed Ali (aged 74),
Faiz's sister (name unknown), Faiz's nieces Asma'a Yousif
Ma'arouf (aged 5 years old), and Usama Yousif Ma'arouf (aged
3 years), and a visiting relative Ms. Iqtisad Hameed Mehdi
(aged 23) were killed during the raid.

According to the information received, American troops
approached Mr. Faiz's home in the early hours of 15 March
2006. It would appear that when the MNF approached the
house, shots were fired from it and a confrontation ensued
for some 25 minutes. The MNF troops entered the house,
handcuffed all residents and executed all of them. After the
initial MNF intervention, a US air raid ensued that
destroyed the house.

is ALL there is, then I don't see how you can draw the conclusions that you have. If you've got more, then please by all means...

[Wing Commander MAD]

I figured the battery pack would be the most problematic part of the setup, and the cost of course goes without saying. It doesn't surprise me that wanting such a system would be on the Pentagon's wish list, nor the time frame of decades for implementation.

[Thanas]

The cable you quoted mentions no media reports. The only thing mentioned is "I have received various reports" with no named source. If there is an additional cable you are aware of with further information I'd like to see it.

*snip rest*


For legal reasons, I did not quote the full cable. You can read it here on the wikileaks server - it does mention media reports, autopsy findings etc. In short, all that which you claim did not happen with regards to the information did happen.

How do you know it did not happen? Is that your assumption, or do you have actual evidence besides the one cable you cited?

Are you claiming that a thorough investigation was indeed carried out? Where is the evidence?

You claim the cable mentions various "media reports", which it does not. In fact, no media reports from what I can see have been cited at all. If there were in fact media reports, why would this cable be the first time we've heard of this incident?

See above. It mentions media reports including autopsy pictures being broadcast etc.

[Lord Zentei]

Your post to White Haven didn't justify the idea of not giving people the benefit of the doubt by any means. And as far as I can see, that post of yours contained only a wish-list, not "points". Some of these things are already done. Do you seriously think that the US army doesn't train people on what is allowed and what isn't, and that they don't prefer to use less force if able? Compare precision guided munitions in use today with the saturation bombing of yesteryear.

The rationale is the following: From what the public can tell, the US almost never properly investigates scenes where civilians were killed. Take for an example the Haditha massacre. An investigation was only launched after media reports and video evidence showed that the initial report (the civilians died from an IED) was bullshit. The investigation found that the civilians died from aimed gunshots, and not by an explosion of an IED. An investigation that would have had the required standard of proving the innocence of those soldiers would have required them to at least look at the body. Hell, the entire problem was that despite there being civilian deaths, no investigation was launched at all.

Naturally any death should be investigated in a perfect world, but that's got noting to do with the wrongheadedness of not giving people the benefit of the doubt (i.e. the assumption of guilt a priori). That's simply got to do with the investigation of the deaths.

But regardless, how exactly do you hope to undertake intensive investigations in every instance when people are killed during wartime regardless of what the prior assumption is? I really don't see it as doable, the nature of wartime being such. Though I agree that better internal policing is always welcome.

But video cameras on every soldier, heh. I'm sure the US would be happy to share its mission details to that extent with you whenever someone was caught in the crossfire.

They don't have to make everything public. They could however use that evidence in investigations.

And if they conduct their investigation, and say "there was no wrongdoing", then people such as yourself who demand proof of innocence would simply say that you don't believe them because they didn't release the information for all and sundry. Incidentally, they do film quite a lot of the things they do.

That is what not giving people the benefit of the doubt implies.

What? Requiring more investigations and requiring a higher standard of proof before finishing the investigation would lead to less investigations and less convictions? You'll have to explain that one to me.

That is not what I meant. It was a response to your statement "I do not think that the soldiers should be automatically assumed to be war criminals". If you don't give them the benefit of the doubt, then that's the assumption that logically follows.

[Lord Zentei]

What? America's kidnapping these people and detaining without charge is exactly _the reason_ why people doubt the guilt of Gitmo detainees - because they were made "guilty" without due process. So America's crime - that is, denying them either POW or criminal rights - is exactly what led people to doubt their guilt.

That's a rather odd way of looking at it. Obviously the denial of POW status and criminal rights is a wrongdoing. But that is only the cause of the lack of evidence, which in turn is the reason people doubt the detainees guilt; not that the lack of POW status and criminal rights itself is the reason. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

It is easy to make an assumption when someone is kidnapped, accused and held in custody without due process. It is not easy to make a presumption of innocence for an active duty military engaged in a post-agression occupation already marked by war crimes.

That may be, but allegations of war crimes are a pretty serious one, don't you think? Burden of evidence must grow in proportion to that. And hard or not, it's a moral requirement.

[TheHammer]

For legal reasons, I did not quote the full cable. You can read it here on the wikileaks server - it does mention media reports, autopsy findings etc. In short, all that which you claim did not happen with regards to the information did happen.

Thank you. It helps to get a better view of the whole picture.

How do you know it did not happen? Is that your assumption, or do you have actual evidence besides the one cable you cited?

Are you claiming that a thorough investigation was indeed carried out? Where is the evidence?

I'm not making any claims. I'm in fact curious as to whether anyone has interviewed Philip Alston about this and if he had anything to say. At the end of the cable he asks four questions. I wonder if he recieved any response. If nothing was done, then the state dept should certainly be pressed to answer as to why that is the case. But I'm not going to assume that nothing was done at this point.

You claim the cable mentions various "media reports", which it does not. In fact, no media reports from what I can see have been cited at all. If there were in fact media reports, why would this cable be the first time we've heard of this incident?

See above. It mentions media reports including autopsy pictures being broadcast etc.

Again, thank you. It helps with the whole picture. I still don't see any "evidence" per say, but its nice to finally know where the bits and pieces of this story came from.

[Simon_Jester]

Your post to White Haven didn't justify the idea of not giving people the benefit of the doubt by any means. And as far as I can see, that post of yours contained only a wish-list, not "points". Some of these things are already done. Do you seriously think that the US army doesn't train people on what is allowed and what isn't, and that they don't prefer to use less force if able? Compare precision guided munitions in use today with the saturation bombing of yesteryear.

The rationale is the following: From what the public can tell, the US almost never properly investigates scenes where civilians were killed. Take for an example the Haditha massacre. An investigation was only launched after media reports and video evidence showed that the initial report (the civilians died from an IED) was bullshit. The investigation found that the civilians died from aimed gunshots, and not by an explosion of an IED. An investigation that would have had the required standard of proving the innocence of those soldiers would have required them to at least look at the body. Hell, the entire problem was that despite there being civilian deaths, no investigation was launched at all.

I am confused.

Is the argument as follows?

"The US does not investigate scenes where civilians were killed, and has been known to avoid admitting US involvement in civilian massacres. Therefore, when civilians are massacred, we should assume the US did it."

[Stark]

He expressly talks about the image problems brought about by coverups. Are you surprised that this affects how readily people accept allegations of wrongdoing?

Imagine if the US had a solid reputation of either safe behaviour or punishing murderers.
(whether true or simply the result of better coverups). Would it surprise you to see people being less ready to accept allegations like this?

[Lord Zentei]

The issue isn't whether the US has image problems, but whether it's justifiable to say that the US should no longer have the benefit of the doubt. That's a normative statement, not an observation.

[Stark]

Whether or not people give them the benefit of the doubt is a result of their image problems. It's no surprise to me that bad press leads people to accept more bad press more readily. Being unrepentant and not successfully pushing the reverse message doesn't help, either.

Frankly I don't think this discussion about whether it's right or logical for people on the internet to believe bad things about the US is very interesting. Public opinion isn't logical and the law doesn't care what people on the internet say.

[Lord Zentei]

Whether or not people give them the benefit of the doubt is a result of their image problems. It's no surprise to me that bad press leads people to accept more bad press more readily. Being unrepentant and not successfully pushing the reverse message doesn't help, either.

Frankly I don't think this discussion about whether it's right or logical for people on the internet to believe bad things about the US is very interesting. Public opinion isn't logical and the law doesn't care what people on the internet say.

LOL, too bad that's how the discussion has evolved.

Obviously public opinion isn't logical. But we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, right?

[Stark]

Right, but do people actually believe that previous crimes create guilt for future crimes without evidence, or are they just saying they have no trouble believing an allegation to be true? The whole idea of judging truth by relative levels of evil is just bizarre.

[Lord Zentei]

Seems to be a bit of column A and a bit from column B. Or that the burden of evidence changes based on past crimes, to be exact. At least, that's what I gather.

Personally, I have no trouble believing that the allegation might be true, but that's another issue.

[Thanas]

Again, thank you. It helps with the whole picture. I still don't see any "evidence" per say, but its nice to finally know where the bits and pieces of this story came from.

A cable is not large enough to list all the evidence, for the simple reason of it not being receptive to video messages etc. I am certain that if they had asked Alston, they would have gotten the evidence.

Iraq is reopening the case, not that I have any faith in them.

[Simon_Jester]

He expressly talks about the image problems brought about by coverups. Are you surprised that this affects how readily people accept allegations of wrongdoing?

Imagine if the US had a solid reputation of either safe behaviour or punishing murderers.
(whether true or simply the result of better coverups). Would it surprise you to see people being less ready to accept allegations like this?

I'm trying to grasp the argument here, though.

I mean, do we have statistics on what percentage of atrocity killings in Iraq are committed by which side? That would really wrap things up well, if you could point to that and say that the US was committing most of the atrocities. Is that the case? If not, then there are always going to be cases where it's more difficult to tell who did it, since both sides have huge reasons to blame the other and so on.

[D.Turtle]

What I'm trying to say is the following:

At the moment it seems to be the case that unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, the US does not investigate any cases in which American soldiers were involved that included civilian deaths.

This leads to cases - like the Haditha massacre - where obvious and blatant lying by soldiers lead to the case not being investigated. Even the most cursory investigation would have uncovered that lie.

Hence, the US should change that policy so that in each and every case with civilian deaths where American soldiers are somehow involved should be investigated.

In other words, no proof of wrongdoing would be required to launch an investigation. This would be a somewhat realistic possibility.

Going further, because of the long history of American coverups of fuckups, I think the US should be held to a higher standard of proof regarding exonerations at the end of that investigation. Basically, the investigation would have to clear the American soldiers involved of wrongdoing, instead of having to find proof of wrongdoing. I know that this will lead - at least in the beginning - to a lot of cases of punishments, discharges, etc that were not deserved. I think however that this is one effective way of making headway into changing the obvious US military predilection towards casual treatment of civilian deaths caused by their actions.

I have no illusions about such a standard being actually implemented.