Blackwater guards sentenced for Nisour Square shooting

[Gandalf]

A U.S. judge on Monday handed down lengthy prison terms to four former Blackwater guards convicted in the 2007 massacre of 14 unarmed Iraqis, potentially closing a chapter of the U.S. war in Iraq that tested relations between the two countries.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced former Blackwater security guard Nicholas Slatten to life in prison. Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard were sentenced to 30 years each for voluntary and attempted manslaughter.

Lamberth earlier on Monday rejected a defense motion to impose lesser sentences on the four, as well as a motion by prosecutors to increase the penalties.

Lamberth had deferred formally imposing the sentences while hearing arguments from both sides on the sentencing. Defense lawyers argued for mercy, but prosecutors said the men have never shown remorse or accepted responsibility.

All four were convicted in October for their involvement in the killings in Nisour Square, a crowded traffic circle in downtown Baghdad. The legal fight over the killings, which caused an international uproar, has spanned years.

Prosecutors have described the shooting as an unprovoked ambush of civilians, though defense lawyers countered that the men were targeted with gunfire, and shot back in self-defense.

The defense argued for mercy Monday by saying that decades-long sentences would be unconstitutionally harsh punishments for men who operated in a stressful environment and who have proud military careers and close family ties.

The firearms convictions alone carried mandatory minimum sentences of 30 years in prison. The government sought sentences far beyond that, partly because it said the men have never shown remorse or accepted responsibility.

The sentencing is unlikely to bring an end to the legal wrangling, which began even before the guards were first charged in 2008. A judge later dismissed the case before trial, but a federal appeals court revived it, and the guards were indicted again in October 2013.

Even before the trial began, defense lawyers had identified multiple issues as likely to form the basis of an appeal, including whether there was proper legal jurisdiction to charge them in the first place.

The statute under which they were charged, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, covers the overseas crimes of Defense Department civilian employees, military contractors and others who are supporting U.S. war missions. But defense lawyers note that the Blackwater defendants worked as State Department contractors and were in Iraq to provide diplomatic, not military, services.

The legal fighting continued in the days leading up to sentencing, too, with defense lawyers seeking Friday to postpone the hearing after receiving new information — a victim impact statement from a trial witness — that they said was favorable to the defense. Lamberth denied the request, saying there was no need to delay the sentencing.

Well here's hoping that they actually see a prison cell, and that there isn't some state department pressure to release them.

[Rogue 9]

The State Department can't tell the judiciary what to do even if it had a mind to. They'll see prison barring an immediate pardon, which I don't think is remotely likely.

[Pelranius]

Good. Given the way the Bush Admin era officials mishandled the aftermath, it's a miracle the case made it to trial.

[Thanas]

Finally. Let's hope they have to serve out the sentence in an Iraqi prison.

[cosmicalstorm]

Shocking to see someone brought to justice over this. The entire Iraq boondoggle should have resulted in the criminal prosecution of hundreds, maybe thousands of high level officials. Those people are currently pursuing lucrative careers or enjoying their senior years with a pina-colada next to their sunchair. A few grunts gets to take the hit, as usual.

[The Romulan Republic]

Better some guilty people convicted than none, though in a really just society George W. Bush would likely be in prison.

[cmdrjones]

Better some guilty people convicted than none, though in a really just society George W. Bush would likely be in prison.

Disagree, this simply provides the fig leaf for the people at the top to evade responsibility. IN all likelihood, these guys were operating with a 'free fire zone' mentality, which is what a good portion of guys were operating on even into OIF II!

[Channel72]

Finally. Let's hope they have to serve out the sentence in an Iraqi prison.

Pffft.....

Not happening. More like this place.

But it's a start.

[The Romulan Republic]

Better some guilty people convicted than none, though in a really just society George W. Bush would likely be in prison.

Disagree, this simply provides the fig leaf for the people at the top to evade responsibility. IN all likelihood, these guys were operating with a 'free fire zone' mentality, which is what a good portion of guys were operating on even into OIF II!

If they committed the crime, they should be held accountable for it, not let off because bigger criminals got a way.

And I don't really give a shit what their mentality was while they were gunning down civilians. Besides, anyone who thinks "free fire zone" is even an acceptable concept has some serious problems.

[cmdrjones]

Better some guilty people convicted than none, though in a really just society George W. Bush would likely be in prison.

Disagree, this simply provides the fig leaf for the people at the top to evade responsibility. IN all likelihood, these guys were operating with a 'free fire zone' mentality, which is what a good portion of guys were operating on even into OIF II!

If they committed the crime, they should be held accountable for it, not let off because bigger criminals got a way.

And I don't really give a shit what their mentality was while they were gunning down civilians. Besides, anyone who thinks "free fire zone" is even an acceptable concept has some serious problems.

I was diagreeing specifically with the idea that it's better that some small fish get fried than none. I pointed out how frying small fish actually allows big fish to get away with MORE. It's the whole sacrificial lamb concept. That these guys did something bad or not is not up for debate, they did, but they were also serving as fall guys for the ones who set the policy.

As for 'free fire zones' being an unacceptable concept, well then I guess we'd better throw every vet from the US amry airforce from WWII in jail for the falaise pocket, or how about operation Ripper? Or better yet, ANY incidence of strategic bombing?

In any case, I was there when the frigging ROE would change sometimes DAILY. If that's not a recipe for disaster, i don't know what is. Example: At Fallujah teh population was warned and given time to evacuate beyond US lines, after a certain time, ANY military aged male (age 14-55) that was in the city was considered a viable target, carrying a weapon or not, aiming or not, fleeing or not. If he was male and of military age he was a legitimate target. I'm sure thsi odea offends your sensibilities (if It didn't i'd be a little worried for you) but, that being the case, how else was the USMC supposed to secure the city given the resources and timeframe they were working with? I'd be delighted to hear your suggestions.

[Thanas]

At Fallujah teh population was warned and given time to evacuate beyond US lines, after a certain time, ANY military aged male (age 14-55) that was in the city was considered a viable target, carrying a weapon or not, aiming or not, fleeing or not. If he was male and of military age he was a legitimate target. I'm sure thsi odea offends your sensibilities (if It didn't i'd be a little worried for you) but, that being the case, how else was the USMC supposed to secure the city given the resources and timeframe they were working with? I'd be delighted to hear your suggestions.

How about not securing the city?

Because the "any military male is a target" RoE are just straight out of the Nazi playbook (some generals got hanged for - among other things - using such tactics) and guess what, they were trying to justify that with the same "limited resources" stuff as well.

[Irbis]

Because the "any military male is a target" RoE are just straight out of the Nazi playbook (some generals got hanged for - among other things - using such tactics) and guess what, they were trying to justify that with the same "limited resources" stuff as well.

And the irony here also is, that albeit very late, western Allies issued call to Nazi generals to threat surrendering city fighters as POWs warning them that those who will fail to do so will be treated as war criminals. Said Allies included USA. Now, 70 years later, same country adopted almost the same 'shoot the verfluchte banditen' doctrine SS city cleaning squads did and no one dared to utter a word.

Though, no, to be fair, there is improvement - instead of 'banditen' it's called 'unlawful combatants' now

[cmdrjones]

At Fallujah teh population was warned and given time to evacuate beyond US lines, after a certain time, ANY military aged male (age 14-55) that was in the city was considered a viable target, carrying a weapon or not, aiming or not, fleeing or not. If he was male and of military age he was a legitimate target. I'm sure thsi odea offends your sensibilities (if It didn't i'd be a little worried for you) but, that being the case, how else was the USMC supposed to secure the city given the resources and timeframe they were working with? I'd be delighted to hear your suggestions.

How about not securing the city?

Because the "any military male is a target" RoE are just straight out of the Nazi playbook (some generals got hanged for - among other things - using such tactics) and guess what, they were trying to justify that with the same "limited resources" stuff as well.

Ah therein lies the problem! "should we be doing this in the first place?" To me, as a constitutionalist, almost every war since the spanish american war has been a fraud. So, I agree with your asessment that 'the only way to win is NOT to play,' BUT as a Marine on the ground, using tactics right out of Ghengis Khan is WHAT WORKED. Is it moral? no. Is it even advisable? In the long run, obviously not. Is it the fault of the Marine on the ground? No, of course not. Addendum: As per Fallujah, we DID give the inhabitants ample notice to abandon the city and get out of there befroe taking it, and DID treat all the wounded we could etc. Does that makes us better than the Mongols who would have killed everybody they could catch to make a point? Yes, but not by all that much. We're 'supposed to be better' nowadays. I think we can all agree on that.

PS I was in Baghdad at the time and saw some of the overflow from this (I believe that the events of "Encounter at Checkpoint Three" were a direct result of the battle of Fallujah. Some of the guy from my squadron went up there to help out and hoo-boy did they have some f-ed up stories to tell.

[Thanas]

The wounded did not get treated, not what with the US being known to shoot at ambulances and aid workers (no matter the gender).

And of course killing everybody fucking works. But that is not the point.

And yes, it is the fault of the marines on the ground if they obey and follow such ROI. The "I was just following orders" defence is no defence.

[cmdrjones]

The wounded did not get treated, not what with the US being known to shoot at ambulances and aid workers (no matter the gender).

And of course killing everybody fucking works. But that is not the point.

And yes, it is the fault of the marines on the ground if they obey and follow such ROI. The "I was just following orders" defence is no defence.

Source on shooting at ambulances please?
I did hear rumors of Red crescent vehilcles being used as VBIEDs... so it's not impossible, but i'm skeptical.

As for 'just following orders' I was referring to them being at fault for SETTING the ROE.

I feel a bit of a pang when people criticize our actions at that time, (YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT's LIKE MAN!!! etc etc) but I also recognize that when you are part of a group wearing a uniform you are partially responsible for everything that is done by those IN that uniform. hence the 'police your own' attitude which IS a big part of military life.
So, yeah... Not a pretty situation. I can only say that if i was there a the time, I'd have probably gone along with what the marines were doing. Now? It's an interesting question: would I have the moral courage to get sent to prison forever? I hope so.

Aside: My buddies and I had a very extensive conversation about this in 2004. Someone made the observation that we had absolutely NO 'proof' that the people we would arrest on raids were really 'bad guys,' they were people that we rousted out of their beds at night and dragged away. My contribution was: We have an implicit trust in our chain of command that they have done their homework (ie what I know now is called a 'target package') and KNOW that these guys are scum, we don't have the time or wherewithal to run through a bunch of investigating who is and isn't a dirtbag.

Ours was not to reason why, but to do and die.

There is an implicit social contract with your soldiers tht you wont send them in to fuck shit up unless you are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY sure it needs to be done. To do so and then to turn around and screw them over is the pinnacle of shitty behavior.

All that said, the guys in question are contractors and returned to the battlefield for money.... they forfeit that implicit moral contract and so.... you takes your chances yo.

[Thanas]

Source on shooting at ambulances please?

Here, well-sourced article.

BBC

Aside: My buddies and I had a very extensive conversation about this in 2004. Someone made the observation that we had absolutely NO 'proof' that the people we would arrest on raids were really 'bad guys,' they were people that we rousted out of their beds at night and dragged away. My contribution was: We have an implicit trust in our chain of command that they have done their homework (ie what I know now is called a 'target package') and KNOW that these guys are scum, we don't have the time or wherewithal to run through a bunch of investigating who is and isn't a dirtbag.

I would like to think that shooting every male that moves is a bit different than "intel says this guy is bad, snatch him".

[cmdrjones]

Source on shooting at ambulances please?

Here, well-sourced article.

BBC

Aside: My buddies and I had a very extensive conversation about this in 2004. Someone made the observation that we had absolutely NO 'proof' that the people we would arrest on raids were really 'bad guys,' they were people that we rousted out of their beds at night and dragged away. My contribution was: We have an implicit trust in our chain of command that they have done their homework (ie what I know now is called a 'target package') and KNOW that these guys are scum, we don't have the time or wherewithal to run through a bunch of investigating who is and isn't a dirtbag.

I would like to think that shooting every male that moves is a bit different than "intel says this guy is bad, snatch him".

This first link doesn't work for me, but that's no biggie. The second article sounds truthful. From what we heard at the time, Red crescent vehicles were being used to move Jihadis and weapons around. The turnaround on comms is still pretty slow, even withint the same unit. Between units, we'retalking HOURS for info to move up one chain of command and down the chain of command of an adjacent unit. Before long, RUIMINT becomes the order of the day, and if troops think ambulances are full of ali baba... then... shoot 1st ask questions later is just a hop skip and a jump away.
That being said, those are all war crimes IF they are done with malice aforethought. There's a big difference between shooting at muzzle flashes and hitting a building that has both jihadis AND civilians in it, and deliberately shooting a woman w a white flag.

As to your second point, yes, that is true, but remember, lots of people DIED when we went to 'snatch' somebody. Not everybody wants to come quietly when you blow their front door off its hinges at 0400. Especially if they've been manufacturing car bombs.

I was bringing up that the average soldier is liable to believe (and is in fact ordered to trust the intel and his chain of command) when they say both: "This guy is bad snatch him AND ambulances are full of scumbags, waste them; or this area is a free fire zone, all MAMs are hostile, air them out."

True story: On a mission with a classified task force in a major Iraqi city. We were providing security for the TF that was looking for a couple of Nuns that had been kidnapped earlier. As we sat in the dark scanning with the Thermals I see an old woman come out of her house with an AK-47 at the 'low ready' I laze her and I have her at something like 700 Meters. I think, for about 1/2 second: "don't say anything... she's no threat" THEN I think: "SSG so-and-so will flip a nut If i don't ID her and someone else does... here's the (rough) dialog:

Me: SSG, I have an Iraqi female with an AK-47 at--
SSG: WHAT?!
Me: at about 700 meters--
[radio chatter]
SSG: Whoa whoa whoa, WTF [name], WTF, where?
Me: 12 o'clock, about 700 meters away, it's at the low ready
SSG: She has a weapon?! She has a weapon? WTF, what's she doing?
[Radio chatter]
Me: SSG, she's an old woman and ain't doing shit--
SSG: Is she pointing it? well, uh, you have the target? Do you have the target?
Me: (Thinking: oh shit he's gonna tell me to kill her.{at this point she's looking around with a frown on her face, still clutching the AK. It's is obvious that she can hear all of the dozen or so armored vehicle engines growling/whining in her neighboorhood at O-dark thirty, she just can't see us} (Inpiration strikes.) I say matter-of-fact like I don't give a fuck: I got her locked center mass, you want me to kill her?
SSG: Uh...
Me: I got her dead to rights. She can't see us SSG, want me to waste her?
SSG: Uh, no. Keep an eye on her [name], good job.
Me: (Thank you Jesus)
Old woman: Damn infidels.... (goes back inside)


So, as you can see, its not always easy to discern who is who. I can tell at least a half dozen "shoot/don't shoot" stories like that (where I almost always chose NOT to shoot because there isn't anything to shoot AT 90% of the time, unless you want to return fire and waste a couple buildings full of random people. The fedayeen had shoot and scoot down to a science.
That being said, I'd never claim that the ROE was good (it wasn't) or that killing civilians is acceptable (it aint) but the people responsible for the situation rarely wear boots.

[Thanas]

This first link doesn't work for me, but that's no biggie.

I'll quote it.

Our ROEs [Rules of Engagement] when the [Iraq War] kicked off were pretty simple: If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ’em. Kill every male you see. That wasn’t the official language, but that was the idea.

—Chris Kyle, in his memoir American Sniper

Let us be perfectly clear about something here: ex-Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle fought in a war of imperialist aggression that resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. He alone killed over one hundred Iraqis while fighting on the side that initiated an illegal, unprovoked and unnecessary invasion. If we are to charitably assume that every single Iraqi he killed was actively engaged in armed hostilities against the US occupation, that still makes him an individual who killed people whose only crime was to defend the integrity and sovereignty of their own country.

It needs to be said that snipers serving in the US military were widely reported as engaging in widespread killings of unarmed Iraqis while the war was in its most heated phases. This was especially true for two of the cities Kyle served in: Fallujah and Ramadi.

Following the first offensive against Fallujah in early 2004, an Australian aid worker who was taken hostage by militants in Fallujah decried the occupation force’s brutal treatment of the city in an interview after being released:

Many families were stuck there with few supplies because US soldiers would not allow them to leave, she said. “Even during a so-called ceasefire, Fallujah was under siege with bombing, missiles and mortar attacks […] But the worst form of attack was the US snipers hiding on rooftops who kill hundreds of civilians as they tried to move about the city” (Australian Associated Press, 16 April 2004)

American journalist Aaron Glantz corroborated this description of the role played by the US snipers in terrorizing the city:

The official number killed in Fallujah is 600, but the total number of civilian casualties is likely much higher. The official tally only reflects those deaths reported by the cities mosques and clinics. But American snipers and bombers have killed many people while they [were] inside their homes.

The doctor says his ambulance was attacked multiple times as it sought to bring aid to residents stranded in their homes. Once when it was trying to retrieve dead bodies for burial and a second time when it was attempting to bring food aid to homes cut off by American snipers.

“I see people carrying a white flag and yelling for us saying ‘We are here’ just try to save us but we cannot save them because whenever we open the ambulance they will shoot us. We try to carry food or water by contrainers. As soon as you carry food or water, the snipers shot the containers of food (Pacifica Reports From Iraq, 13 April 2004).

From an interview recorded for Netherlands radio:

MR [Mindy Ran, journalist in Hilversum]: Now, we have been hearing there is a cease-fire. Is there a cease-fire in effect?

LG [Leigh Gordon, journalist and temporary paramedic in Iraq]: No, quite the opposite. Effectively they are fighting. The US has snipers around the city from the West into the center, in houses all around the main streets and are picking off people on the streets, cars and ambulances.

MR: Do you mean they are actually firing on ambulances?

LG: Yeah, I mean, indeed. My colleague and I and some international volunteers from the United Kingdom and the US had to take over the responsibility for getting patients out of bomb damaged hospitals to one of the remaining make-shift hospitals, which is actually a converted doctors surgery effectively – because the ambulances were being shot at by the US forces. In fact, my colleague who is not very far away from me at the moment, was in one of the last functioning ambulances in Fallujah when he was sniped driving. I think they fired four or five rounds at it, just missing him, I think the ambulance was destroyed. When we left, that was this morning, that was the last ambulance – more or less – in Fallujah.
[…]
MR: What’s the scene been like today? You said you left Fallujah this morning, what was it like?

LG: The hospital I was at this morning had a normal night. There were Drones and Helicopters overhead scoping targets, shelling and bombing, mainly of houses in civilian areas. The wounded trickle in, but at a slow rate, it’s what people can bring in. There aren’t any ambulances so, if anyone has a car and can make it through the snipers, they can get someone to hospital where there are some, some, equipment, but not very much. I am now standing in the office of an Italian NGO trying to rustle up some medical aid and we have boxes of surgical equipment which they desperately need in Fallujah. They don’t even have scalpels, few bandages, they don’t even have anesthetics. On the question of the cease-fire, for instance, it was called on Friday just in time for noontime prayer, about 12 – 12.30. About a half an hour after cease-fire had been called I was standing outside the hospital and I saw an Iraqi man of 28 years old who was an Iraqi nurse come from another city to try and help people in Fallujah, shot through the liver by a sniper as he was unloading an ambulance. He was dragged into the hospital and they tried to operate on him and sew up his wound. They had no painkillers, only the painkillers, um the parecetamol, that I could give them from my own bag. Um and we were told that unless we could get him to a hospital in Baghdad within an half an hour, he would die. Of course there was no way out of the city, and he did die.
[…]
MR: Do you have the feeling that American commanders are in control of their forces there?

LG: You know it’s incredibly difficult to tell. Just moving about is, is – literally just stepping out of the hospital is hazardous. There is one sniper that has been positioned a few hundred yards from the hospital on the main street, for the last few days.

MR: An American?

LG: Yeah, of course, yeah. So at the moment there are snipers in houses all around the center of Fallujah. Marines are positioned in houses just west of the center, so just moving about is extremely dangerous. Drones, unmanned aircraft, can be heard overhead, and helicopters at high altitudes spotting for targets. So people aren’t keen on moving about, so gathering information about what is going on, outside one’s own immediate neighborhood is extremely difficult (Radio Netherlands, recorded on 11 April 2004).

From an article by Dahr Jamail:

Crowded inside an empty house in the Al-Adhamiya district of Baghdad, Abu Muher, patriarch of one family that left Fallujah last Saturday, told of a harrowing journey out of his home city. “We were nearly bombed by the Americans when we tried to leave on Friday,” he said. “Bombs fell in front and behind us, so we had to turn back. Saturday we were lucky to escape.”
[…]
Abu Muher said US warplanes were bombing the city heavily last Saturday prior to his departure, and that Marine snipers continued to take their toll, shot after shot, on residents of the besieged city. “There were so many snipers, anyone leaving their house was killed,” he recalled.
[…]
Abdul Aziz, the 15 year-old son of Abu Muher, stated, “I saw two of my neighbors shot by US snipers when I went outside one time. I also saw some of the small cluster bombs on the ground that were dropped by the warplanes of the Americans. Most times, we were too afraid even to look out of our windows” (New Standard, 23 April 2004).

Here is something for us to consider whenever we are told that insurgents referred to Kyle as the “Devil of Ramadi”:

These days, Ramadi is nearly impossible to enter. Against the backdrop of the Haditha massacre, IPS has received reports of civilians killed by snipers, and homes occupied with American snipers on their roof, while families were detained downstairs.

One man, who wishes to be known simply as ‘an Iraqi friend,’ met with IPS in Amman to describe the situation in Ramadi and detail recent events there as he saw them.
[…]
“On the side of the main street you will find destroyed buildings, and military tents on the buildings for snipers. Be careful, if you hear any sound of fighting, hide in the side roads, park your car there and get in any house and hide, because snipers will kill anyone who moves, even if the fighting is in another area.”

Sheikh Majeed al-Ga’oud is from Wahaj al-Iraq village just outside Ramadi, and visits the city regularly. He also described snipers killing without discretion.

“The American snipers don’t make any distinction between civilians or fighters, anything that moves, he shoots immediately. This is a very dirty thing, they are killing lots of civilians who are not fighters.”

According to the Iraqi friend, many people have been killed in Ramadi because they simply do not know which parts of the city are now no-go zones.

One such area is the main street through Ramadi. After the first traffic light you are not allowed to proceed forward, only to the right or left.

“The way is blocked, not by concrete, but by snipers. Anyone who goes ahead in the street will be killed. There’s no sign that it’s not allowed, but it’s known to the local people. Many people came to visit us from Baghdad. They didn’t know this and they went ahead a few metres and were killed” (Inter Press Service, 5 June 2006).

Also worth mentioning is this Washington Post story (24 September 2007):

A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of “bait,” such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.

UPDATED: 1 Jan. 2015

Since this post has new found popularity due to the release of a film about Chris Kyle, I might as well add this report from the Edward Harris during the second US offensive against Fallujah:

An Iraqi journalist in the city reported seeing burned U.S. vehicles and bodies in the street, with more buried under the wreckage. He said two men trying to move a corpse were shot down by a sniper. […] “People are afraid of even looking out the window because of snipers,” he said, asking that he not be named for his own safety. “The Americans are shooting anything that moves” (Associated Press, 12 November 2004).

To be honest, these reports are so many that there is enough to brand anybody who fought in Fallujah as a sniper per se a war criminal. Likewise, everybody who supported them is an accessory to said war crimes.

The second article sounds truthful. From what we heard at the time, Red crescent vehicles were being used to move Jihadis and weapons around.

Has that ever been confirmed?

That being said, those are all war crimes IF they are done with malice aforethought. There's a big difference between shooting at muzzle flashes and hitting a building that has both jihadis AND civilians in it, and deliberately shooting a woman w a white flag.

I think the descriptions above do point out that the overall operation was carried out with malice. You don't get "shoot anything that moves" without having malicious intent in the first place.

"This guy is bad snatch him AND ambulances are full of scumbags, waste them; or this area is a free fire zone, all MAMs are hostile, air them out."

If you are regularly shooting children and women or people unloading ambulances then there is a lot of difference. It is the same with your story and what happened in Fallujah - you actually cared about who you were shooting at. By all accounts the scumbags in Fallujah did not.

[cmdrjones]

Oh, and one last point. I think we all agree that killings such as detailed above are moraly wrong, I would like to point out that despite that fact, they are sometimes necessary. Otherwise, the citizens of Hamburg and Dresden might have something to say about the Royal Airforce and US Army Airforce ROE circa 1943-1945.

[LaCroix]

Otherwise, the citizens of Hamburg and Dresden might have something to say about the Royal Airforce and US Army Airforce ROE circa 1943-1945.

What makes you think that they don't? These bombings are generally regarded as warcrimes, though unpunished due to political reasons.

Churchill actually outright admitted that it was a military worthless terror campain after Dresden - there is a telegram he wrote, but did not send off due to propaganda reasons on March, 28th...

„It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land … The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. … I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.“

edit: What was sent was a propaganda-approved version sanitized of his moral epiphamy, which cited logistic reasons to cease the bombing.

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called “area bombing” of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. We must see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy’s immediate war effort. Pray let me have your views.

[Thanas]

Oh, and one last point. I think we all agree that killings such as detailed above are moraly wrong, I would like to point out that despite that fact, they are sometimes necessary. Otherwise, the citizens of Hamburg and Dresden might have something to say about the Royal Airforce and US Army Airforce ROE circa 1943-1945.

There is a reason why the bomber memorial the brits just built was widely opposed in Germany, you know. These actions are indeed viewed as warcrimes, though obviously nobody will ever punish the victors in a war. As for the necessity, I have yet to see an argument as to why terror bombing was necessary.

[cmdrjones]

Oh, and one last point. I think we all agree that killings such as detailed above are moraly wrong, I would like to point out that despite that fact, they are sometimes necessary. Otherwise, the citizens of Hamburg and Dresden might have something to say about the Royal Airforce and US Army Airforce ROE circa 1943-1945.

There is a reason why the bomber memorial the brits just built was widely opposed in Germany, you know. These actions are indeed viewed as warcrimes, though obviously nobody will ever punish the victors in a war. As for the necessity, I have yet to see an argument as to why terror bombing was necessary.

AFAIK, the basic argument goes something like this: IF we had to conventionally defeat Germany, then A. It would have taken far longer and more Allied Troops, German military and German civilians would have died, B. More of Germany would have falled to the Soviets, and C. part of breaking the German Morale to fight was burning down their cities and showing them they had no hope.
(How that jibes with the blitz only inflaming the british, I don't know)
IMHO, this goes right back to: 'The only way to win is not to play' I'm not surprised by Allied policy, but I am dismayed a at the continued whitewashing. The German people didn't 'deserve' white phosphorous attacks for supporting the Nazi gov andy more than the Japanese 'deserved' being atomically bombed twice. If we are ostensibly 'the west' and are supposed to act like Christendom then finding a negotiated end to war should be the #1 priority not finding a war to gain 'total victory' over an opponent. That's killing just for the sake of pride, or power etc.

I'll also note you used "terror bombing" instead of strategic bombing, very apt. I suppose the difference is if you can make the case for the target being necessary for the enemies continued war efforts or not.

[LaCroix]

I suppose the difference is if you can make the case for the target being necessary for the enemies continued war efforts or not.

Even Churchill could not. See above.

.... for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed

In this telegram, he accidently outright admitted that the "military validations" were made up.

This is even worse, since the British already knew by their own experience that terror bombing does not work. Actually, it works just the other way round than expected, increasing the will to fight in the target population. The whole reason to do this to Germany was revenge for London.

[cmdrjones]

I suppose the difference is if you can make the case for the target being necessary for the enemies continued war efforts or not.

Even Churchill could not. See above.

.... for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed

In this telegram, he accidently outright admitted that the "military validations" were made up.

This is even worse, since the British already knew by their own experience that terror bombing does not work. Actually, it works just the other way round than expected, increasing the will to fight in the target population. The whole reason to do this to Germany was revenge for London.

I think we're in general agreement then: Dresden bad, Ploesti bad.. but necessary.

[Channel72]

Let us be perfectly clear about something here: ex-Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle fought in a war of imperialist aggression that resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. He alone killed over one hundred Iraqis while fighting on the side that initiated an illegal, unprovoked and unnecessary invasion. If we are to charitably assume that every single Iraqi he killed was actively engaged in armed hostilities against the US occupation, that still makes him an individual who killed people whose only crime was to defend the integrity and sovereignty of their own country.

That last sentence sounds too naive. Very few Iraqis, with the exception of hardcore Republican Guard loyalists, cared to defend "the integrity and sovereignty" of Saddam's Baathist regime - especially the >60% Shia population, nor anyone north of Mosul. The majority of Iraqis would have loved to see the regime fall, but quickly turned against the US occupiers when it turned out that the whole post-blitzkrieg shock-and-awe occupation strategy was completely inept, the entire Iraqi army was laid off, and the US couldn't get (or didn't care about) basic sanitation and infrastructure services working for months or years after the invasion. The fact that war crime after war crime started to occur while fighting the insurgency didn't help either.

The Iraqis basically just can't get a fucking break.