Civilian Dead, and Bitterness: No Way to Bridge the Rage?

[FormerOstrich]

Mods: I didn't see this posted. If it has been, I apologize. Thanks!

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 15 - In a remarkable appearance, the commander of American forces in Baghdad stood before a roomful of Arab and Western reporters on Wednesday, trying to explain the confusing events that led to the deaths of Iraqi civilians at the hands of his men.

American generals do not often do such things, but the deaths of 13 Iraqis, including a young girl and a television cameraman, whose last moments have been replayed across televisions in the Middle East, prompted the commander, Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, to try to explain how such a lamentable thing had come to pass.

...snip

We wanted to explain, particularly to the Iraqi people, that we do everything we can to eliminate collateral damage," General Chiarelli said, in a conference room inside the American headquarters known as Camp Victory. Then he turned to the subject of the Iraqi civilians who had been killed Sunday.

...snip

"The actions of our soldiers and pilots were well within their rights," he said.

...snip

Film broadcast on Al Arabiya showed a crowd of mostly young men and boys around the Bradley, but showed no evidence that anyone was either armed or fighting. The film shows an explosion, and Mr. Tomeizi going down. Blood splatters on the camera lens.

Yet if General Chiarelli was trying to mollify Iraqi opinion with his appearance, the skepticism expressed by the Arabic-speaking journalists suggested he still had some way to go.

..snip

The most bitter words came, not surprisingly, from a reporter at Al Arabiya, who told the Americans that they had blasted the Bradley and killed those around it even though, as the tape showed, no one near it was firing a gun.

"The tape does not show any shots coming from the tank," said the reporter, Hadeer al-Rubaie. "We have the tape. We have proof."

"Your soldiers do not have any discipline," Ms. Rubaie said. "Why don't you go out of the cities, and face the terrorists somewhere else?"

...snip

The helicopter strikes against the insurgents on Sunday were the most restrained means available, the officers said.

...snip

When the helicopters passed over the battle site, Colonel McConville said, the pilots took fire from the "vicinity" of the Bradley and fired four rockets. One hit the Bradley.

Still, for all of the discussion about hostile fire, the American officers suggested that there might have been a second motive for shooting the Bradley: to ensure that no one was able to steal the vehicle's communications equipment.

...snip

"To save equipment," Ms. Rubaie said, "you risked the lives of 100 people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/middleeast/16baghdad.html?8bl

[leftchick]

1. "restrained means available"?!?

My God they really believe the Iraqis are as gullible as so many AmeriKans.

[Disturbed]

2. "risked the lives of 100 people."

Murdered 13 unarmed people!!! That is a War Crime!!!!!

They will get away with it. Why?


What is a war crime?
By Tarik Kafala
BBC News Online


Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."


This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.

The statutes of The Hague tribunal say the court has the right to try suspects alleged to have violated the laws or customs of war in the former Yugoslavia since 1992. Examples of such violations are given in article 3:

* Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
* Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
* Seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
* Plunder of public or private property.

The tribunal defines crime against humanity as crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Again a list of examples is given in article 5:

* Murder
* Extermination
* Enslavement
* Deportation
* Imprisonment
* Torture
* Rape
* Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm

[UpInArms]

3. the completely inappropriate euphemism

we do everything we can to eliminate collateral damage

another case of saying a shovel is a spoon.

It is obvious that there is no real care about the loss of lives to anyone in this escapade.

:grr:

[Art_from_Ark]

6. Heck, they've even admitted that they're not keeping track

of Iraqi casualties

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-obrien130204.htm

[PROUDNWLIBERAL]

4. collateral damage

I regards to the statement about trying to limit collateral damage

did you notice only one in four missiles from the helicopters hit the Bradley---where did the other three missiles go---maybe into the crowd!

[UpInArms]

5. precision aimed missiles

and smart bombs -

instruments of death

:(

[biftonnorton]

7. Code Books, Classified Stuff

An ex-special-forces guy told me that back when he was in service code books,lists of radio freqs, etc., would be in vehicles similar to the one that was burning and destroyed. While it might have burned all the classified material and other things that U.S. wouldn't have wanted in enemy hands, the military is well-known for redundancy, so destroying the totalled vehicle is SOP, and not a war crime, since no harm to civilians was intended. That doesn't mean that the harm was morally right. In light of the facts, we need to get the word out to the citizens to stay away from those vehicles.

[jayfish]

8. Here We Go Again.

Just because something is SOP for the US military doesn't mean it is excluded from war crimes status. Also I don't think that crimes against humanity require specific intent. I give up! You people will excuse anything that is done to these people.


"The Statue Of Liberty Is Kaput."


Jay

[Dhalgren]

9. You are right, Jay, if a US soldier does it, it can't be a crime.

I am so sick of having to deal with closet fascists who refuse to accept the fact that US troops are committing war crimes on a daily basis in Iraq. Do the troops know that what they are doing is criminal? A lot of them do - you can read their own words about how they feel (but they do it anyway). The idea that because German soldiers had sops to execute all Jews and suspected terrorists does not make their actions, therefore, legal. It doesn't for the US in Iraq, either. Enough! Let's call a spade a spade and stop acting like children!

[biftonnorton]

10. Read carefully; And I don't appreciate the personal attacks

I said their intent was not to harm civilians but to destroy classified material. The civilians were harmed by accident and because they were too close to U.S. property that was being destroyed. I'm not saying it was right. All I'm saying is by the definition given above it's not a war crime. Don't lump me in with whoever you keep trying to lump me in with, jay. Unless you are trying to lump me in with the people who will read carefully enough to determine what "is" is when it comes to declaring something a "war crime."