Another war crime in Iraq

[K. A. Pital]

I think you're all too quick to dismiss the disparity. Qaddafi's troops were "war criminals" because people made outrageous allegations (like e.g. that stupid viagra claim) and everyone suddenly believed it and started shouting how this is a war crime. And indeed it would be, except this particular "war crime" was not actually confirmed in a court of law; neither many other "war crimes" often ascribed to enemy forces (I think one of the more recent example would be Saddam's invasion of Kuwait; while Saddam was brutal, the behaviour of the Iraqi Army was displayed as "war criminals" and "war crimes" were invented, up to the crime of genocide, which clearly did not take place).

Nobody brings up this "innocent until proven guilty" when we're talking about Third World governments, most of which are dictatorships or formal democracies with an oligarchic power structure inside... (well, except me and a few other folks, but that's because I'm the odd person who can stick up for some god-forgotten Third World dictator, and not because I like dictators but because I feel the Third World gets it fucking rough).

In fact, when someone says "Third World leader X's forces commited a war crime", how many would even claim "Hey, hey, innocent until proven guilty!"...? That is a serious question. I have not seen the behaviour that should apparently be "universal".

[Lord Zentei]

You've seen it with regards to the Guantanamo Bay detainees, I imagine. That's why I brought them up. As for whether people on this board are more likely to assume guilt in the case of third world dictatorships, I couldn't say. Perhaps so.

In any case, while I can't speak for Kamikaze Sith, my posts were not so much about defending the US against allegations of war crimes in general, and more in response to a blanket claim that the US no longer has the benefit of the doubt with regards to these kinds of allegations (which is obvious nonsense, regardless of the fact that other crimes have been committed by them). Moreover, in this specific case, it's probably also got a fair bit to do with the question of whether there are reasonable alternatives under the circumstances.

That said, it's quite plausible that US troops did it, and I'm no fan of the tactics that are coming to light.

like e.g. that stupid viagra claim

What was that?

[D.Turtle]

In any case, while I can't speak for Kamikaze Sith, my posts were not so much about defending the US against allegations of war crimes in general, and more in response to a blanket claim that the US no longer has the benefit of the doubt with regards to these kinds of allegations (which is obvious nonsense, regardless of the fact that other crimes have been committed by them).

Why is it obvious nonsense?

[K. A. Pital]

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3525128
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3525185
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3525278

As for whether people on this board are more likely to assume guilt in the case of third world dictatorships, I couldn't say. Perhaps so.

I didn't mean just people on this board but rather people in general. Gitmo detainees are a good example, true. However, they are already caught and do not represent an active military force which is executing some sort of military operation, hence why offhand I did not think about that.

[Lord Zentei]

In any case, while I can't speak for Kamikaze Sith, my posts were not so much about defending the US against allegations of war crimes in general, and more in response to a blanket claim that the US no longer has the benefit of the doubt with regards to these kinds of allegations (which is obvious nonsense, regardless of the fact that other crimes have been committed by them).

Why is it obvious nonsense?

Because you never outright eliminate the benefit of the doubt in general, but only if you have conclusive evidence and then only in the case of specific crimes? Not the same as saying that a person or group can't be the prime suspect, but that's another matter. I really hope you're not serious with that post.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3525128
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3525185
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3525278

Wow.

As for whether people on this board are more likely to assume guilt in the case of third world dictatorships, I couldn't say. Perhaps so.

I didn't mean just people on this board but rather people in general. Gitmo detainees are a good example, true. However, they are already caught and do not represent an active military force which is executing some sort of military operation, hence why offhand I did not think about that.

People in general being more likely to assume guilt in the case of third world dictatorships? Yeah, probably. Or perhaps it's that they're more likely to assume guilt in the case of dictatorships in general as opposed to in the case of more democratic countries. I imagine that it's less now than pre-9/11, though.

[D.Turtle]

Because you never outright eliminate the benefit of the doubt in general, but only if you have conclusive evidence and then only in the case of specific crimes? Not the same as saying that a person or group can't be the prime suspect, but that's another matter. I really hope you're not serious with that post.

Oh I'm entirely serious about that post.

The US has shown itself completely willing to abandon any semblance of benefit of doubt with regards to foreign prisoners.
The US has shown itself willing to cover up numerous cases of unjustified killings.
The US has shown itself unwilling to even start an investigation into the hierarchy that allowed, supported and provoked killings and torture to happen right underneath their noses.

Why should we give the US any benefit of doubt, when it itself does not do the same?

Well, the only reason I could think of is that we don't want to sink to the level of the US.

Edit: Oh and before anyone accuses me of piling everyone in the US into one crap heap, let me ask you this: Where exactly is the widespread fury and indignation towards this behavior? Where are the masses of people demanding investigations and convictions? Its just a small fringe on the left. The vast majority of the US doesn't give a fuck.

[Lord Zentei]

Because you never outright eliminate the benefit of the doubt in general, but only if you have conclusive evidence and then only in the case of specific crimes? Not the same as saying that a person or group can't be the prime suspect, but that's another matter. I really hope you're not serious with that post.

Oh I'm entirely serious about that post.

The US has shown itself completely willing to abandon any semblance of benefit of doubt with regards to foreign prisoners.
The US has shown itself willing to cover up numerous cases of unjustified killings.
The US has shown itself unwilling to even start an investigation into the hierarchy that allowed, supported and provoked killings and torture to happen right underneath their noses.

Why should we give the US any benefit of doubt, when it itself does not do the same?

Well, the only reason I could think of is that we don't want to sink to the level of the US.

Cute. But if you deem that the US is wrong to deny people the benefit of the doubt, then you've answered your own question, haven't you.

[D.Turtle]

Cute. But if you deem that the US is wrong to deny people the benefit of the doubt, then you've answered your own question, haven't you.

Thank you for admitting that the US is a rogue nation, incapable of dealing with its own problems in the area of war crimes.

[Lord Zentei]

Cute. But if you deem that the US is wrong to deny people the benefit of the doubt, then you've answered your own question, haven't you.

Thank you for admitting that the US is a rogue nation, incapable of dealing with its own problems in the area of war crimes.

What is this smarmy shit? Are you making assumptions about where I stand?

And why are so many people around here so prone to black/white fallacies these days? I don't remember that it was this way previously.

[D.Turtle]

What is this smarmy shit? Are we seeing another jackass making assumptions about where I stand?

And why are so many people around here so prone to black/white fallacies these days? I don't remember that it was this way previously.

Okay, going back to where I disagree with you: You have objected to the fact that I (and others) do not think that the US deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore.

What this essentially means, is that in the view of many people, it is no longer the case that somebody has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that Americans did the deed. Instead, the US has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Americans did not do the deed.

This is entirely reasonable looking at the long history of American fuck ups, American cover ups of those fuck ups, American unwillingness to punish the people responsible for the fuck ups, American unwillingness to change anything about the culture that lead to those fuck ups, American unwillingness to even admit it has a problem with regards to fuck ups.

And thats why the US no longer deserves benefit of the doubt, and instead the burden of proof is on the US to prove its innocence. Because everyone knows that the vast majority of fuck ups never ever get to the light of day. So those few (potential) fuck ups that actually acquire public scrutiny stand in for a multitude of hidden, covered up, etc fuck ups.

If some American soldiers get screwed because of that. Too fucking bad for them.

[White Haven]

...Fucking hell, people. The rabid 'blame the US automatically and strip them of even a possibility of innocence' brigade is making me agree with Kamikaze Sith, of all people. Seriously. I don't like doing that. Calm the fuck down. There are two sides to this argument. One side is saying 'There are multiple possible theories to explain what evidence we know about, so there are multiple possible culprits.' The other side is shrieking incoherently in the hopes that all the blame will fall where their own prejudices assume it should. Not only does every accused party get the benefit of the doubt even if we had access to all the evidence, insurgent or 'MNF' troops, but we don't have all the evidence.

I also find it highly convenient that Lonestar's point about MNF being code for 'not US troops' is conveniently ignored by the Shrieker Brigade.

Would I be surprised to find the US proven guilty of this sort of thing, and of trying to cover it up? Not terribly. Disappointed and angry, but not terribly surprised. Not only are there multiple possible guilty parties, however, but it's an open question based on the terminology whether the US is even one of them. Seriously people. Look at yourselves. This is embarrassing. Some of you are just showing your automatic knee-jerk prejudices in a truly nauseating fashion, while others are just piling in because it's SDN and they want to score points.

EDIT: In response to the turtle, if that's your perspective, then how does someone who's the victim of that sort of assumption of guilt ever climb out of that hole? Let's say a miracle occurs and the US suddenly starts trending far better than other nations on that sort of issue. If they're automatically assumed guilty unless they happen to have ironclad evidence of innocence, they'll still end up blamed for a whole shitload of things, because in many cases that level of evidence isn't even available, not to satisfy the 'they're automatically guilty' faction. How does any accused individual or body dig themselves out of that hole if you violate the basic precepts of presumption of innocence, then demand that they clean up their record to fix it when they're always assumed to be guilty?

[Lord Zentei]

Okay, going back to where I disagree with you: You have objected to the fact that I (and others) do not think that the US deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore.

What this essentially means, is that in the view of many people, it is no longer the case that somebody has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that Americans did the deed. Instead, the US has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Americans did not do the deed.

Yes, obviously I understand what it means. That's why I am objecting to it.

This is entirely reasonable <snip>

No it's not. You don't require anyone to prove a negative. It just doesn't make sense to do so, regardless of principles of justice. Notwithstanding the fact that you're not going to accomplish anything in the way of prosecution with such an approach. Do you seriously think that any country would accept the idea that its soldiers are automatically to be assumed to be war criminals unless they prove their innocence in each case? The very idea is just idiotic on so many levels.

If some American soldiers get screwed because of that. Too fucking bad for them.

Wow, you really suck, don't you.

[D.Turtle]

EDIT: In response to the turtle, if that's your perspective, then how does someone who's the victim of that sort of assumption of guilt ever climb out of that hole? Let's say a miracle occurs and the US suddenly starts trending far better than other nations on that sort of issue. If they're automatically assumed guilty unless they happen to have ironclad evidence of innocence, they'll still end up blamed for a whole shitload of things, because in many cases that level of evidence isn't even available, not to satisfy the 'they're automatically guilty' faction. How does any accused individual or body dig themselves out of that hole if you violate the basic precepts of presumption of innocence, then demand that they clean up their record to fix it when they're always assumed to be guilty?

Rigorous investigation of every incident that involved US forces and ended with possible civilian deaths. A willingness to hold commanders accountable for the actions of their troops, and a willingness to follow that chain of command up as many levels as required. Video cameras on every soldier. Rigorous training and emphasis on what is allowed and what isn't. A change towards a whole lot lower levels of use of force. And so on.

Basically, it would require a complete rethink of how the US fights insurgents.

Moreover, you make it sound like it is impossible to prove innocence. Thats nonsense - it is just a whole lot harder.

And thats what I'm getting at. At this point, casualness toward civilian deaths, collateral damage, massive overkill, etc. is so pervasive in US forces, that it requires a radical break in order to change that culture.

[D.Turtle]

No it's not. You don't require anyone to prove a negative. It just doesn't make sense to do so, regardless of principles of justice. Notwithstanding the fact that you're not going to accomplish anything in the way of prosecution with such an approach. Do you seriously think that any country would accept the idea that its soldiers are automatically to be assumed to be war criminals unless they prove their innocence in each case? The very idea is just idiotic on so many levels.

You should look at some of the investigations in the German armed forces in various incidents that resulted in dead people. That level of proof is not unattainable.

[Lord Zentei]

No it's not. You don't require anyone to prove a negative. It just doesn't make sense to do so, regardless of principles of justice. Notwithstanding the fact that you're not going to accomplish anything in the way of prosecution with such an approach. Do you seriously think that any country would accept the idea that its soldiers are automatically to be assumed to be war criminals unless they prove their innocence in each case? The very idea is just idiotic on so many levels.

You should look at some of the investigations in the German armed forces in various incidents that resulted in dead people. That level of proof is not unattainable.

Who said anything about that level of proof being unattainable? I said that it doesn't make sense to do so. And I pointed out a number of other things, which you have not responded to.

[D.Turtle]

Who said anything about that level of proof being unattainable? I said that it doesn't make sense to do so. And I pointed out a number of other things, which you have not responded to.

I have explained my rationale for requiring such a high degree of proof in my reply to White Haven.

As for your other points:
Why would requiring a higher standard of proof before clearing someone of wrong doing not lead to an increase in successful prosecutions?
I do not think that the soldiers should be automatically assumed to be war criminals. I think, however, that in the case of civilian deaths, it should be required to launch an investigation and clear the soldiers of wrongdoing (or not), instead of only investigating when signs of wrongdoing become apparent.

Thats what I mean when I say that the burden of proof is on the US side.

Edit: Anyways, I've been awake for 40 hours now, so I'm going to sleep.

[Lord Zentei]

Who said anything about that level of proof being unattainable? I said that it doesn't make sense to do so. And I pointed out a number of other things, which you have not responded to.

I have explained my rationale for requiring such a high degree of proof in my reply to White Haven.

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.

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.

As for your other points:
Why would requiring a higher standard of proof before clearing someone of wrong doing not lead to an increase in successful prosecutions?
I do not think that the soldiers should be automatically assumed to be war criminals.

That is what not giving people the benefit of the doubt implies. 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 think, however, that in the case of civilian deaths, it should be required to launch an investigation and clear the soldiers of wrongdoing (or not), instead of only investigating when signs of wrongdoing become apparent.

Thats what I mean when I say that the burden of proof is on the US side.

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.

[Elfdart]

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?

This reminds me of the early reports of the massacres at Haditha and Mamoudiya. Remember that the one survivor of Haditha, a little girl, was accused of being a "terrorist" and right-wing sites like Michelle Malkin's tried to excuse the slaughter of small children because they were such a menace to our Brave Heroes.

It is a very "tough job" to ask people not to execute folks and especially babies? What's "tough" about this exactly?

Especially as Iraqis aren't some sort of rampaging Nazis or whatnot who just burned down Washington DC and surroundings and killed bazillions of people, in which case revengeful massacres would at least be somewhat explainable... They did nothing to injure or harm U.S. civilians.

Though of course if you spout racist bullshit on TV all day long, people who get in the Army might have a wrong impression of things.

When it was clear that American troops had gang-raped a 14-year-old girl, then killed her and her entire family to cover it up, the media kept referring to the victim as a "young woman" when she was in fact a child. I wish I could remember who pointed this out but it bears repeating: she was closer in age to JonBenet Ramsey than she was to whoever the flavor-of-the-month starlet was.

[Stark]

That sort of dishonesty is extremely common in all kinds of media; males between 15 and 25 can be referred to as 'men', 'boys', 'young men', 'youths' etc, depending on who you want the audience sympathising with.

And frankly, once you try to cover things up, it really doesn't matter if it was true or not. You can try to cover soemthing 'embarrassing' up, but if it comes out, it's much more embarassing, whether it's true or otherwise.

This is why your mum always told you that the truth was the best policy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok. I will preface this by saying "We should never shift the burden of proof to the defense". This is a core legal and ethical principle we should never ever abandon. However, when it comes to war crimes in US occupied territory, think of it like how you investigate any other serious crime. You go through the list of involved parties, and find those with a recorded propensity to commit similar actions. In this case, US soldiers, and whether or not the modus opperandi matches. In this case, US soldiers have fairly often snapped and murdered innocent people, their units, the DOD and Secretary of State have consistently covered these war crimes up through a variety of mechanisms. So, we have someone with a criminal record who's modus opperanti matches the observed crime. Now, do they have motive, means, and opportunity?

In other words, does it make sense for your suspect to have committed the action in the first place? The answer to this question is Yes. They were in the area. Motive is... well the same motive that drove college students to torture eachother in a university basement combined with young male adult anger at being shot at regularly, and they had the means. All we have that makes this in any way odd is the existence of a handcuffed infant. We also know that the US did an airstrike which is a lot like someone "conveniently" setting fire to a crime scene, and then having people insist that the two are not related. Occam's Razor does apply.

So, guess what you want to do. Scrutinize this suspect first, in much the same way that the US needs to be eliminated as a suspect for ANY in theater war crime.

[Block]

Ok. I will preface this by saying "We should never shift the burden of proof to the defense". This is a core legal and ethical principle we should never ever abandon. However, when it comes to war crimes in US occupied territory, think of it like how you investigate any other serious crime. You go through the list of involved parties, and find those with a recorded propensity to commit similar actions. In this case, US soldiers, and whether or not the modus opperandi matches. In this case, US soldiers have fairly often snapped and murdered innocent people, their units, the DOD and Secretary of State have consistently covered these war crimes up through a variety of mechanisms. So, we have someone with a criminal record who's modus opperanti matches the observed crime. Now, do they have motive, means, and opportunity?

In other words, does it make sense for your suspect to have committed the action in the first place? The answer to this question is Yes. They were in the area. Motive is... well the same motive that drove college students to torture eachother in a university basement combined with young male adult anger at being shot at regularly, and they had the means. All we have that makes this in any way odd is the existence of a handcuffed infant. We also know that the US did an airstrike which is a lot like someone "conveniently" setting fire to a crime scene, and then having people insist that the two are not related. Occam's Razor does apply.

So, guess what you want to do. Scrutinize this suspect first, in much the same way that the US needs to be eliminated as a suspect for ANY in theater war crime.

Ok, but what about the insurgents? They're just as likely a suspect are they not? Especially in Iraq, at that particular point in time, where sectarian violence was at its height, and involved many slayings similar to this, so in fact they're probably more likely suspects no?

[Alyeska]

Ok. I will preface this by saying "We should never shift the burden of proof to the defense". This is a core legal and ethical principle we should never ever abandon. However, when it comes to war crimes in US occupied territory, think of it like how you investigate any other serious crime. You go through the list of involved parties, and find those with a recorded propensity to commit similar actions. In this case, US soldiers, and whether or not the modus opperandi matches. In this case, US soldiers have fairly often snapped and murdered innocent people, their units, the DOD and Secretary of State have consistently covered these war crimes up through a variety of mechanisms. So, we have someone with a criminal record who's modus opperanti matches the observed crime. Now, do they have motive, means, and opportunity?

In other words, does it make sense for your suspect to have committed the action in the first place? The answer to this question is Yes. They were in the area. Motive is... well the same motive that drove college students to torture eachother in a university basement combined with young male adult anger at being shot at regularly, and they had the means. All we have that makes this in any way odd is the existence of a handcuffed infant. We also know that the US did an airstrike which is a lot like someone "conveniently" setting fire to a crime scene, and then having people insist that the two are not related. Occam's Razor does apply.

So, guess what you want to do. Scrutinize this suspect first, in much the same way that the US needs to be eliminated as a suspect for ANY in theater war crime.

As Block just pointed out, you completely ignore the other side of the equation. There are plenty of insurgent groups in Iraq that have made it clear that everyone is a target. Through use of random mortar strikes, suicide bombs, and what not. They have deliberately killed the families of "collaborators" in order to discourage support of the United States. There is no automatic assumption. Have crimes been committed by US troops? Yes. Have crimes been committed by insurgents, militants, and sectarian violence? Yes. Who committed this crime? We have no idea at this time.

We have known facts that can fit a wide variety of theories. We must investigate in order to determine who is guilty. However, take this into consideration. There might not be sufficient evidence to determine guilt. The house having been destroyed takes away a lot of evidence. And there are perfectly justifiable reasons to destroy the house, so the destruction in itself isn't even proof of anything. Even still, it should be investigated. Get CID involved and dissect the testimony of the soldiers as well as getting other groups to investigate with the neighbors. If we could get the US military to accept independent investigators, even better.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As Block just pointed out, you completely ignore the other side of the equation. There are plenty of insurgent groups in Iraq that have made it clear that everyone is a target.

Which is why an investigation is warranted. However that one was categorically not done is reason to suspect the US, which has every motivation to use those same insurgents as propaganda. The US is also a single entity that will be much easier to rule out or confirm than a dozen little insurgent groups.

Ok, but what about the insurgents? They're just as likely a suspect are they not? Especially in Iraq, at that particular point in time, where sectarian violence was at its height, and involved many slayings similar to this, so in fact they're probably more likely suspects no?

See above.

[Alyeska]

Which is why an investigation is warranted. However that one was categorically not done is reason to suspect the US, which has every motivation to use those same insurgents as propaganda. The US is also a single entity that will be much easier to rule out or confirm than a dozen little insurgent groups.

Do not confuse stupidity with guilt. Its ingrained in a lot of people and organizations that its better to avoid any form of guilt than to admit it. Even NATO had this stupidity in Libya when they accidentally bombed the Rebels. Their response was "tough shit", and it was a complete accident. NATO could have said "Shit man, we are totally sorry, didn't mean to do that". Instead they told the Rebels to go fuck off and stop getting in the way of the bombs and missiles. Even apologizing for a fuckup is an admission of guilt. To these morons in power, an investigation is an admission of guilt, and they think they look better by ignoring it. Its the Head in Sand routine. They honestly think its a better policy.

[Shroom Man 777]

An interesting fact about that is an American helicopter crew was ready to fire on US soldiers to help the trapped and wounded. The same crew went on to testify against those soldiers. Though the pilot was denounced by congress at the time. I bring this up because people are not black and white. It's amazing how often you and others forget that when the variables have changed.

The acts of the helicopter pilots were beautiful. It just sucks that they were vilified by their own countrymen though.

You've seen it with regards to the Guantanamo Bay detainees, I imagine.

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.