Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes [View all]think
(11,641 posts)99. In both the edited and unedited video
they fire upon unarmed people helping the wounded. I guess only stupid people feel it is wrong to fire on unarmed people helping the wounded.
But hey when the rules of engagement are classified and the rules opened up so killing civilians isn't a high priority I also guess nothing can be considered a war crime. This must be how you justify the killing of the unarmed men assisting the wounded as well as the children getting wounded.
February 05, 2008
Did Rumsfeld Authorize War Crimes?
The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq
by STEPHEN SOLDZ
Wikileaks has obtained the long kept secret Rules of Engagement (ROE) for U.S. troops in Iraq. This document sets out the rules guiding authorized U.S. troop actions in that occupation. While the Wikileaks document dates from 2005, as these ROEs generally change slowly the rules for today are likely similar, though we cant be sure, of course, to what extent more recent ROEs differ.
Among several interesting nuggets in the ROE, it provides indications that U.S. attacks likely to result in civilian deaths required authorization at the top of the Pentagon, by the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense). Thus, the ROE states repeatedly; "If the target is in a HIGH CD [collateral damage] area, SECDEF approval is required." And what is the definition of a High Collateral Damage area? The ROE contains a set of explicit definitions of its terms. There we find High Collateral Damage Targets defined as:
"Those targets that, if struck, have a ten percent probability of causing collateral damage through blast debris and fragmentation and are estimated to result in significant collateral effects on noncombatant persons and structures, including:
(A) Non-combatant casualties estimated at 30 or greater;
(B) Significant effects on Category I No Strike protected sites in accordance with Ref D; (
C) In the case of dual-use facilities, effects that significantly impact the non-combatant population, including significant effects on the environment/facilities/infrastructure not related to an adversarys war making ability; or
(D) Targets in close proximity to known human shields."
~snip~
As we have seen repeatedly, from the numerous roadblock killings of civilians to the Haditha massacre, this ROE authorization to use force can be used to provide cover for virtually any civilian killings. The ROE suggests that preventing such deaths was low on the priority list of those officials writing the rules of engagement for the occupation. Even so, a military study found that less than half of US occupation soldiers would report a unit member for violating an ROE.
Full article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/02/05/the-secret-rules-of-engagement-in-iraq/
Did Rumsfeld Authorize War Crimes?
The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq
by STEPHEN SOLDZ
Wikileaks has obtained the long kept secret Rules of Engagement (ROE) for U.S. troops in Iraq. This document sets out the rules guiding authorized U.S. troop actions in that occupation. While the Wikileaks document dates from 2005, as these ROEs generally change slowly the rules for today are likely similar, though we cant be sure, of course, to what extent more recent ROEs differ.
Among several interesting nuggets in the ROE, it provides indications that U.S. attacks likely to result in civilian deaths required authorization at the top of the Pentagon, by the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense). Thus, the ROE states repeatedly; "If the target is in a HIGH CD [collateral damage] area, SECDEF approval is required." And what is the definition of a High Collateral Damage area? The ROE contains a set of explicit definitions of its terms. There we find High Collateral Damage Targets defined as:
"Those targets that, if struck, have a ten percent probability of causing collateral damage through blast debris and fragmentation and are estimated to result in significant collateral effects on noncombatant persons and structures, including:
(A) Non-combatant casualties estimated at 30 or greater;
(B) Significant effects on Category I No Strike protected sites in accordance with Ref D; (
C) In the case of dual-use facilities, effects that significantly impact the non-combatant population, including significant effects on the environment/facilities/infrastructure not related to an adversarys war making ability; or
(D) Targets in close proximity to known human shields."
~snip~
As we have seen repeatedly, from the numerous roadblock killings of civilians to the Haditha massacre, this ROE authorization to use force can be used to provide cover for virtually any civilian killings. The ROE suggests that preventing such deaths was low on the priority list of those officials writing the rules of engagement for the occupation. Even so, a military study found that less than half of US occupation soldiers would report a unit member for violating an ROE.
Full article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/02/05/the-secret-rules-of-engagement-in-iraq/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
142 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why should he be pardoned? He had the option of whistleblowing under the law, and he chose a
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#7
I think he had personal motivations related to his interpersonal conflicts. Nothing
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#24
"MSM" had nothing to do with the options he had to report the few items of wrongdoing.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#121
Really? His buddy Libby covered for him in the Valerie Plame affair and took the fall by
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#81
An elected official is always under oath, or didn't you know that? When one of them
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#125
You're seriously defending Cheney now? The Constitution is the Statute, the law of the
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#139
Well, the 'perhaps' part is the problem....while I would love to see Cheney behind
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#66
Okay---take the report, and tell me what you would charge Cheney with. I don't disagree
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#72
We should have had that material made available to us right here in the US for the past 60
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#87
I don't believe anyone said that diplomats shouldn't be able to speak to each in confidence
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#138
Every criminal torturer in the CIA, DOJ's OLC and war criminals Bush & Cheney
Dragonfli
Jun 2013
#120
He should have utilized the Army IG or written to his Congressman. He did neither. His
SlimJimmy
Jun 2013
#4
That's true, I just presumed he would use his local representative to do that.
SlimJimmy
Jun 2013
#11
No--any Congressperson will do. That way, if Ted Cruz is your Senator, you can still
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#12
I agreed with you. I just presumed he would have written to his local representative,
SlimJimmy
Jun 2013
#35
One of the stupider articles published at Truthout--and that's really saying a lot.
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#5
The writer of the article is sloppy. I think that's worse than being wrong in the case of
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#41
700k records, and people pretend he read them. The more I find out about him,
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#29
I've already shown in another thread that it would have taken him approximately ten years
SlimJimmy
Jun 2013
#37
The farthest left, donation cup in hand, have a reason for pushing that meme--it makes
msanthrope
Jun 2013
#39
Which one of the over 700k documents he released detailed a war crime? The answer is
SlimJimmy
Jun 2013
#54
The result of looking forward. It's all fine now that the blue jerseys are the perpetrators. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Jun 2013
#101
It blames Obama for a "war crime" in the last paragraph and that's all the law it needs:
ucrdem
Jun 2013
#73
The guys who murdered the civilians walk free while the guy who exposed them is on trial.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#80
Three separate wars crimes associated with one attack: wonder if there were others?
indepat
Jun 2013
#102
A war of aggression is a war crime under international law. All that follows in commission of a war
indepat
Jun 2013
#142
Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to follow the Military Whistleblower Protection Act
hack89
Jun 2013
#136