Another war crime in Iraq

[TheHammer]

Incidents of wrongdoing definitely should be prosecuted, but at the same time its also an extremely tough job they are being asked to do. Mistakes will undoubtedly be made despite the best of intentions.

That sounds suspiciously like defending the event to me, or at least trying to mitigate the soldiers' responsibility.

I don't think that anyone in this thread is saying this behaviour is some kind of standard operation (if it was, there wouldn't be anyone left alive in Baghdad at this point), so if that's what you intended to argue then I'm not sure what the point of making your post was.

I'm saying that the incident should be investigated, and if it happened as reported responsible parties should be prosecuted.

As to your second paragraph, you'd think that much is obvious. However it seems many people are quick to condemn the entire military and the operation as a whole when incidents of severe misconduct like this occur.

To investigate, you have to admit that something happened.

Clearly "something" happened even if you don't investigate. You don't need to admit "something wrong" happened in order to investigate, that would be the job of the investigation to determine.

[K. A. Pital]

However it seems many people are quick to condemn the entire military and the operation as a whole when incidents of severe misconduct like this occur.

Why not? The military is supposed to follow the conventions on the laws of war. Also calling massacres in cold blood "severe misconduct" is a tad wrong. Yes, people are quick to condemn the military when they hear about military massacres. Part of the problem is that people don't want to be massacred. The military is a legalized killing machine created to defend the nation and "protect" national "interests" as well, i.e. for imperialistic functions. Obviously brutality would be much easier to take if the military wasn't fighting an imperialistic war thousands of kilometers away from home but instead fighting for the defence of their homeland right there.

The military as a killing tool has been granted access to weapons and the right to use them to kill people designated as "enemies" by politicians. That is a great responsibility, so it is obivous the military is held to much stricter standards than partisans, rebellions, etc.

[TheHammer]

However it seems many people are quick to condemn the entire military and the operation as a whole when incidents of severe misconduct like this occur.

Why not? The military is supposed to follow the conventions on the laws of war. Also calling massacres in cold blood "severe misconduct" is a tad wrong. Yes, people are quick to condemn the military when they hear about military massacres. Part of the problem is that people don't want to be massacred. The military is a legalized killing machine created to defend the nation and "protect" national "interests" as well, i.e. for imperialistic functions. Obviously brutality would be much easier to take if the military wasn't fighting an imperialistic war thousands of kilometers away from home but instead fighting for the defence of their homeland right there.

The military as a killing tool has been granted access to weapons and the right to use them to kill people designated as "enemies" by politicians. That is a great responsibility, so it is obivous the military is held to much stricter standards than partisans, rebellions, etc.

The military is held to a stricter standard. My point is that most of these raids are conducted within those standards. This cable MAY indicate an incident where it was not, and if the evidence matches the accusations then obviously those responsible should pay the price. What I see in that cable is not evidence.

- No named accuser
- No physical evidence listed to support the accusation
- No opportunity for the accused to answer the charges

In fact many of you quick to convict this as a war crime would consider it rather shoddy indeed should something similar be used to convict a "war criminal" held in Guantanamo Bay. You know who you are...

[open_sketchbook]

We really ought to be holding our own troops to a higher standard than we hold our enemies, though; it's rather hard to claim to be the Good Guys if we don't.

[TheHammer]

We really ought to be holding our own troops to a higher standard than we hold our enemies, though; it's rather hard to claim to be the Good Guys if we don't.

No one is saying we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard of conduct. My point is that our standard for evidence in order to convict someone of a crime should be the same shouldn't it?

[K. A. Pital]

Yep. However, there is a huge problem which is called "cover-up". Those who were guilty of murder and torture in Bagram, for example, got out mostly scot-free. The USG is a huge organization and it has a direct interest in covering up stuff like that.

[Thanas]

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

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.

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.

[Magis]

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.

(bolding mine)
As a point of fact, morgues don't confirm who shot the victim, which is what the language of your post implies.

Granting that the victims were shot, identifying the shooters is the task at hand. According to the uncited "reports", we know for sure that the people who were most prone to opening fire for no reason were already in the house at the time the soldiers approached (i.e., they opened fire on said troops). Why is extraordinary to, by default, assume that they are also the ones who bound and shot the victims? It seems like the most reasonable assumption to me, in the absence of additional physical evidence.

If I invoke my own Boston police analogy, let me put it this way. Boston police approach a house, perhaps to exercise a search warrant. As they approach, gunmen from in the house open fire at the police and there is a confrontation. Later, several bodies were found inside the house that were bound and shot. Who should be the primary suspects? The police, or the gunmen?

[Thanas]

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.

(bolding mine)
As a point of fact, morgues don't confirm who shot the victim, which is what the language of your post implies.

Granting that the victims were shot, identifying the shooters is the task at hand. According to the uncited "reports", we know for sure that the people who were most prone to opening fire for no reason were already in the house at the time the soldiers approached (i.e., they opened fire on said troops). Why is extraordinary to, by default, assume that they are also the ones who bound and shot the victims? It seems like the most reasonable assumption to me, in the absence of additional physical evidence.

Why would they shoot their own children and then bind themselves and then shoot themselves? Rather hard to shoot oneself in the head when your hands are tied behind your back.

Your theory also lacks in logic considering an airstrike on the house was called in after the house was cleared. If there was nothing to hide, I'd gather this would be a prime propaganda opportunity (look, bad insurgents shoot their own children) and in any case there was no reason for the house to get bombed after being cleared.

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually it was and is common to bomb/GMLRS structures used by insurgents simply to demolish them and remove hiding spots. I don't at all think that's what happened here of course, but it was a very common tactic in Iraq. Calling in an air strike was basically cheaper and quicker then waiting for a helicopter to airlift out hundreds of pounds of demolition charges and engineers to plant them.

[open_sketchbook]

Yeah, but why do they do that? Seems like a wasteful destruction of infrastructure for no real reason. Why don't they murder the occupants/insurgents and then put the building up for sale, either to locals or to overseas business?

[Thanas]

Actually it was and is common to bomb/GMLRS structures used by insurgents simply to demolish them and remove hiding spots. I don't at all think that's what happened here of course, but it was a very common tactic in Iraq. Calling in an air strike was basically cheaper and quicker then waiting for a helicopter to airlift out hundreds of pounds of demolition charges and engineers to plant them.

Didn't know that bombs were that cheap - but correction accepted. Would the US Army use airstrikes inside neighbourhoods to do that though? Isn't there too much collateral damage at risk just to destroy a typical house?

[Magis]

Why would they shoot their own children and then bind themselves and then shoot themselves? Rather hard to shoot oneself in the head when your hands are tied behind your back.

Family members do kill each other, you know. Even for trivial honor-related reasons, like what often gets reported from that area of the world. And with all of the "reports" that are uncited in the cable, it's hard to verify details like, 1) was every single person bound and shot, 2) were the 'civilians' (i.e. other than the gunmen) bound and shot, etc. When the cable says that they executed "all residents", that could reasonably be interpreted as referring only to those people who were not killed in the initial firefight.

There just isn't enough information in the cable to lend it much credibility. To call people war criminals based on that alone seems slanderous to me. If there was a credible amount of evidence, why didn't someone inform the actual news? Like the morgue doctor, or a family member or neighbour? Why didn't this show up on Al Jazeera, etc.? It all seems pretty sketchy to me.

I'd think that with the Strauss-Kahn situation so fresh in people's minds, they'd be little less quick to claim, "I've heard vague, unconfirmable hearsay, therefore they must be guilty!"

[Thanas]

Why would they shoot their own children and then bind themselves and then shoot themselves? Rather hard to shoot oneself in the head when your hands are tied behind your back.

Family members do kill each other, you know. Even for trivial honor-related reasons, like what often gets reported from that area of the world. And with all of the "reports" that are uncited in the cable, it's hard to verify details like, 1) was every single person bound and shot, 2) were the 'civilians' (i.e. other than the gunmen) bound and shot, etc. When the cable says that they executed "all residents", that could reasonably be interpreted as referring only to those people who were not killed in the initial firefight.

There just isn't enough information in the cable to lend it much credibility. To call people war criminals based on that alone seems slanderous to me. If there was a credible amount of evidence, why didn't someone inform the actual news? Like the morgue doctor, or a family member or neighbour? Why didn't this show up on Al Jazeera, etc.? It all seems pretty sketchy to me.

I'd think that with the Strauss-Kahn situation so fresh in people's minds, they'd be little less quick to claim, "I've heard vague, unconfirmable hearsay, therefore they must be guilty!"

Again, you lose. This is how the incident was discussed back then - as collateral damage after US troops had to use heavy firepower as a result of being fired upon. Back then, nobody claimed they had killed each other - and your version is still ludicrous. You are not a father, right? If you are, there is no way in hell you would shoot your own little children.

Back then, the US claimed the dead were killed due to an airstrike.
Now it turns out they were actually executed.
The fact that the US hid this at first makes the US forces involved look like prime suspects.

All your other theories are far from likely. If they had shot themselves, then why were they bound? Or why were any of them bound?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Again, you lose. This is how the incident was discussed back then - as collateral damage after US troops had to use heavy firepower as a result of being fired upon. Back then, nobody claimed they had killed each other - and your version is still ludicrous. You are not a father, right? If you are, there is no way in hell you would shoot your own little children.

Well, I can tell you that fathers do kill their own little children by shooting them but I digress and disregard if that wasn't what you meant.

Back then, the US claimed the dead were killed due to an airstrike.
Now it turns out they were actually executed.
The fact that the US hid this at first makes the US forces involved look like prime suspects.

All your other theories are far from likely. If they had shot themselves, then why were they bound? Or why were any of them bound?

Your theory, and that pushed by the author of the cable also seem far from likely. Witnesses reported a fierce gunfight which took place at the house. We can assume this is true because both sides agree on it. We can pretty much guarantee that some family members, not all, were killed in the gunfight so why would US forces tie up dead people and then order an airstrike without removing the binds? Are these forces completely retarded?

The other issue you have to consider is the brutality. Tying up a 3 month old or simply just shooting a 3 month old is more the MO of the extremist insurgent groups active in these areas which do engage in this type of violence.

Based off the information we have I think the likely scenario is that this family was being held prisoner or was already dead. US forces were engaged by whatever hostile force was in the house and after neutralizing the threat discovered that family within all bound and someone became afraid that it would look like the US killed a bunch of hostages in a reckless battle. Though another possibilities is that US forces never actually entered the house. If they intended on executing all those people why not just airstrike the building instead of going in and handcuffing people?

The event as described by the cable author is not logical.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We can assume this is true because both sides agree on it. We can pretty much guarantee that some family members, not all, were killed in the gunfight so why would US forces tie up dead people and then order an airstrike without removing the binds? Are these forces completely retarded?

They were not rational. Very simple. They got worked up in a firefight, took prisoners including non-combatant children, shot them in anger and left. Later (possibly even very shortly after), they realized what they did, that they would easily get caught, and tried to cover up the evidence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

We can assume this is true because both sides agree on it. We can pretty much guarantee that some family members, not all, were killed in the gunfight so why would US forces tie up dead people and then order an airstrike without removing the binds? Are these forces completely retarded?

They were not rational. Very simple. They got worked up in a firefight, took prisoners including non-combatant children, shot them in anger and left. Later (possibly even very shortly after), they realized what they did, that they would easily get caught, and tried to cover up the evidence.

I'd say. They'd have to be extremely irrational for an entire unit to agree on murdering little children. Still doesn't make sense why they would leave behind the most critical piece of evidence of foul play which are the binds. Probably part of them being irrational, right.

They were so blinded by anger that the entire unit decided to murder children then got scared they'd be caught because they shot handcuffed prisoners and children but instead of simply removing the binds and chalking it up to collateral damage...they leave them on and decide an airstrike is enough and then leave.

Your scenario isn't impossible but neither is mine. So, which scenario do we choose and why? And please tell me that a prosecutor wouldn't be laughed out of a court room in any first world country with the evidence that has been presented in this thread. The only facts we really have is that there was a battle at this house which resulted in an airstrike and then the people were found inside the house with binds on.

We do not know who put the binds on. We do not know when the binds were put on. Hell, they could have been put on by the locals because that building probably wasn't treated like a crime scene.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Or they were simply murdered. Lets be honest, it is not as if there have not been units in Iraq and Afghanistan who have snapped. Not as if there have not been gangs of people committing war crimes and the entire unit knew about it but did nothing. Nope. Nope. There have been no documented incidents of that ever.

[Shroom Man 777]

If Americans can do My Lai, I fail to see why this is so inconceivable.

People should be more supportive and patriotic of their country. Why do people underestimate the capabilities of the average American soldier?

[Block]

If Americans can do My Lai, I fail to see why this is so inconceivable.

People should be more supportive and patriotic of their country. Why do people underestimate the capabilities of the average American soldier?

It's not inconceivable, but it's also exremely rare. The term MNF doesn't just refer to US forces, it can be used for any of the joint patrols including the Sons of Iraq and Iraqi national army, and technically could mean any number of European troops too. It's possible, in fact it's more likely, that if atrocities were committed, it was Iraqi on Iraqi, there was a big problem from 05-08 with the discipline of the local forces even when operating with international oversight. Nowhere in the cable does it say US forces entered the building.

[K. A. Pital]

MNF forces refers strictly to coalition forces (US, UK + satellites), not Iraqi troops, last time I googled. Iraqi Army is included in the MNF? I thought no.

[Thanas]

It's not inconceivable, but it's also exremely rare. The term MNF doesn't just refer to US forces, it can be used for any of the joint patrols including the Sons of Iraq and Iraqi national army, and technically could mean any number of European troops too. It's possible, in fact it's more likely, that if atrocities were committed, it was Iraqi on Iraqi, there was a big problem from 05-08 with the discipline of the local forces even when operating with international oversight. Nowhere in the cable does it say US forces entered the building.

All media reports only mention US forces, not a single Iraqi force is even mentioned anywhere near it.

I'd say. They'd have to be extremely irrational for an entire unit to agree on murdering little children. Still doesn't make sense why they would leave behind the most critical piece of evidence of foul play which are the binds. Probably part of them being irrational, right.

Or they hoped the airstrike which they called in after the fact would hide evidence.

[Block]

MNF forces refers strictly to coalition forces (US, UK + satellites), not Iraqi troops, last time I googled. Iraqi Army is included in the MNF? I thought no.

When they were doing joint patrols, yes. They've changed the terminology a number of times, so it depends on the month sometimes, but yeah it can.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Or they were simply murdered. Lets be honest, it is not as if there have not been units in Iraq and Afghanistan who have snapped. Not as if there have not been gangs of people committing war crimes and the entire unit knew about it but did nothing. Nope. Nope. There have been no documented incidents of that ever.

Interesting. So, because others have done it that makes this group guilty. I think if I used that logic in my law enforcement career it would be a very short one.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If Americans can do My Lai, I fail to see why this is so inconceivable.

People should be more supportive and patriotic of their country. Why do people underestimate the capabilities of the average American soldier?

I don't know where you got the inconceivable part. All I'm pointing out is you have no evidence.

Or they hoped the airstrike which they called in after the fact would hide evidence.

Maybe. Seems rather complicated when all they had to do was remove the binds and put throw down weapons and then say the children were killed in the crossfire.