Wikileaks: New Evidence That US Troops May Have Massacred Iraqi Civilians

[Formaldehyde]

Then allegedly covered it up with an airstrike:

IBT: Wikileaks Cable Release: New Evidence that U.S. Troops May Have Massacred Iraqi Civilians

American troops may have executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians and then ordered an air strike to obliterate the evidence, according to a U.S. diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks.

Mostly overlooked in the uproar surrounding Wikileaks' latest release of a deluge of diplomatic cables is an unclassified cable in which a United Nations inspector challenges the U.S. military's account of what happened during a raid on the Iraqi town of Ishaqi. Philip Alston, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, wrote to a U.S. embassy with fresh evidence supporting the charge that American troops intentionally killed civilians. The U.S. military has ignored his requests for more information, as has the Iraqi government.

"The tragedy is that this elaborate system of communications is in place but the [U.N.] Human Rights Council does nothing to follow up when states ignore issues raised with them," Alston wrote to McClatchy.

From there, the accounts diverge. U.S. military spokesmen said that an al-Qaida in Iraq operative was captured from the house, and that the ferocity of the fight had reduced the structure to rubble. A subsequent military investigation exonerated troops of any wrongdoing. But angry Iraqis pointed to 10 civilian deaths and demanded that the government take action.

Alston's cable notes that autopsies conducted on the 10 civilians killed during the raid determined that they had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Of the 10 people killed, four were women and five were children younger than the age of five. Alston also disputed the idea that the house was destroyed in the firefight, maintaining that it was still standing until the U.S. called in an airtstrike.

"Troops entered the house, handcuffed all residents and executed all of them," Alston wrote. "After the initial MNF [Multi-National Force] intervention, a U.S. air raid ensued that destroyed the house."

Alston's account matches that of the Joint Coordination Center in Tikrit, a regional security center set up with American military assistance and staffed by U.S.-trained Iraqi police officers. McClatchy noted that the cable also backed up what neighbors and the doctor who performed the autopsies told Knight-Ridder -- which is now owned by McClatchy -- immediately after the incident.

"The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals," the Joint Coordination Center's report said.

Do you think this latest leak is credible?

If so, why aren't these incidents properly investigated when they are discovered by the appropriate authorities and even the press?

If not, why do you think the leak isn't credible given that the report was confirmed by the Joint Coordination Center and the media?

 

[Leonel]

I'm not entirely sure it is credible or not. But then again Wikileaks hasn't seemed to have released any false information that I know or recognize so I'd probably wait until a proper investigation is started before forming my own opinion.

 

[warpus]

If so, why aren't these incidents properly investigated when they are discovered by the appropriate authorities and even the press?

Because it would make the U.S. military look bad

Hearts and minds, remember?

 

[peter grimes]

I think it's credible.

I think it's not investigated because the investigating agencies are relatively powerless.

The only reason Abu Graib was investigated was because of the massive media coverage: it could not be ignored. But notice that it was only low-level people who were prosecuted. The people responsible for the systemic failures that lead to Abu Graib weren't even fired, let alone held accountable in court.

The only reason the Pat Tillman cover-up friendly fire incident was investigated was -- Oh wait, that's right! It wasn't!! It was left to a guy who writes for a sporting magazine to uncover the differences between the official version of events and the facts on the ground.

I'm not sure why the Nisour Square event was investigated - I don't remember it having much media traction until the investigation was well-along.

 

[amadeus]

This kind of thing is going to happen in wars; the solution isn't to try and fight "clean" wars (an impossible idea to begin with), it should be to fight fewer wars.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I really don't see how activities such as those alleged here are inevitable in any war, much less committed by US troops.

 

[MobBoss]

If so, why aren't these incidents properly investigated when they are discovered by the appropriate authorities and even the press?

Err. How do you know they weren't properly investigated? I would caution making judgement based upon only 1 side of a particular issue. The link says the issue was investigated and the soldiers involved exonerated - presumably such an investigation would have included an autopsy itself of the buildings occupants. Is the allegation that such evidence was ignored?

In the face of conflicting testimony/evidence which side should be believed? Oh, I see, not the US military, because they are always guilty and corrupt and cant be trusted.

Give me a break. I know soldiers arent angels, and some do indeed peform terrible criminal acts; however, until found guilty in a court of law there is still a presumption of innocence - even for soldiers. I dont know if the report is credible or not, but the story says the issue was indeed investigated and soldiers exonerated. It is my experience that such investigations are typically thorough, independent of influence, and accurate. Are there exceptions to this? Sure, but they are generally rare in the extreme regardless of the media attention they garner. You are just going to have to trust me on this one: soldiers, more than anyone, desire to see criminals/murderers/etc. driven from our ranks even more so than any civilian. Any soldier who breaks his creed and does such a thing should be driven from service with the most harsh punishment available. And that is indeed the opinion of the vast majority of soldiers that serve - especially for those appointed to investigate such incidents.

My thoughts. If there is a question of the legitmacy of the US military investigation or if there has been actual new evidence to be considered; then US authorities should re-open the case, examine all the facts, and then publish the results. If the evidence supports the allegation against the soldiers, arrest them, court martial them, and if found guilty, enact the harshest punishment possible. If the addtional investigation simply confirms the exoneration of the soldiers, then close the case and move on.

 

[asbestos]

Yeah, stuff like this doesn't surprise me anymore.

 

[innonimatu]

My thoughts. If there is a question of the legitmacy of the US military investigation or if there has been actual new evidence to be considered; then US authorities should re-open the case, examine all the facts, and then publish the results. If the evidence supports the allegation against the soldiers, arrest them, court martial them, and if found guilty, enact the harshest punishment possible. If the addtional investigation simply confirms the exoneration of the soldiers, then close the case and move on.

This isn't about soldiers, not any longer. It's about cover ups. Who watches the watchers, who investigates the investigators, the institutions who cover up any undesirable "incidents"?

 

[jtb1127]

I don't find this the least bit surprising.

 

[MobBoss]

This isn't about soldiers, not any longer. It's about cover ups. Who watches the watchers, who investigates the investigators, the institutions who cover up any undesirable "incidents"?

Do 'cover-ups' sometimes happen? Sure. But such are extremely rare to be honest. They get a lot of media play, but as an actual ratio in comparison to the number of such investigations done, its a very, very small fraction. There are hundreds of thousands of such investigations done yearly - one for every such allegation made. A bare handful of those are what you would refer to as 'cover ups'.

However, it would seem that the off-cuff premise is that every such investigation is a cover-up as opposed to the possibility being extremely remote. That's conspiracy theorist type thought in spades and simply no where near the accurate portrayal of how these things go in reality.

The entity the military has is akin to the Internal Affairs division of a police department and is the Inspector Generals Office . They are held separately accountable from the various command structures and mandated to find the truth and report it without regard to guilt or innocence. The Army, for example, has entire regulations involving how such investigations, formal or informal, must be conducted and the mandatory oversight such investigations have.

My point is I have specific knowledge to the length and breadth the military goes to in order to ensure the validity of such investigations. It is in general extremely rare for some 'fix' to be involved to provide some type of cover up.

 

[peter grimes]

...until found guilty in a court of law there is still a presumption of innocence - even for soldiers.

I thought that the military code of justice differed from civil law in this respect. I thought I heard about it in connection with the Bradley Manning situation. I could be wrong, though.

And, sorry, as well-intentioned as the military may be in investigating itself, I don't accept that as adequate. I see no difference between that and the way the SEC has been [non] policing the banking industry: "We hear you may be guilty of insider trading. Please investigate and let us know if you're guilty or not".

 

[Yeekim]

Alston's cable notes that autopsies conducted on the 10 civilians killed during the raid determined that they had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Of the 10 people killed, four were women and five were children younger than the age of five.

Somebody should be hanged.

 

[thenooblet22]

I don't understand what executing a family would accomplish, especially in the manner described here. Hard to believe.

 

[MobBoss]

I thought that the military code of justice differed from civil law in this respect. I thought I heard about it in connection with the Bradley Manning situation. I could be wrong, though.

And, sorry, as well-intentioned as the military may be in investigating itself, I don't accept that as adequate. I see no difference between that and the way the SEC has been [non] policing the banking industry: "We hear you may be guilty of insider trading. Please investigate and let us know if you're guilty or not".

No, its the same in that regard. What Bradley Manning was going through was not 'pushiment' but simply pre-trial confinement just like any civilian could be given.

And you would have a point, except thats not how the SEC, or the military for that matter, accomplish such investigations. Rather thats just your idea of how such things are accomplished and are divested from what actually does happen.

 

[peter grimes]

I don't want to stray Off-Topic, but Matt Taibbi's recent article about the SEC document shredding practice contains this:

"The episode with AIG highlights yet another obstacle that MUIs experience on the road to becoming formal investigations. During the past decade, the SEC routinely began allowing financial firms to investigate themselves. Imagine the LAPD politely asking a gang of Crips and their lawyers to issue a report on whether or not a drive-by shooting by the Crips should be brought before a grand jury – that's basically how the SEC now handles many preliminary investigations against Wall Street targets.

The evolution toward this self-policing model began in 2001, when a shipping and food-service conglomerate called Seaboard aggressively investigated an isolated case of accounting fraud at one of its subsidiaries. Seaboard fired the guilty parties and made sweeping changes to its internal practices – and the SEC was so impressed that it instituted a new policy of giving "credit" to companies that police themselves. In practice, that means the agency simply steps aside and allows companies to slap themselves on the wrists. In the case against Seaboard, for instance, the SEC rewarded the firm by issuing no fines against it.

According to Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant at the SEC, the Seaboard case also prompted the SEC to begin permitting companies to hire their own counsel to conduct their own inquiries. At first, he says, the process worked fairly well. But then President Bush appointed the notoriously industry-friendly Christopher Cox to head up the SEC, and the "outside investigations" turned into whitewash jobs. "The investigations nowadays are probably not worth the money you spend on them," Turner says."

And you're right - I don't know how it works in the military (or the SEC). But if you're saying that the military polices itself, and there are no watchers watching these watchers, then don't be surprised when common people like myself assume the worst. We have no reason to think the military is any different from any other organization that's allowed to police itself. That's a recipe for failure proven over and over, in all sorts of institutions.

 

[RedRalph]

Do 'cover-ups' sometimes happen? Sure. But such are extremely rare to be honest. They get a lot of media play, but as an actual ratio in comparison to the number of such investigations done, its a very, very small fraction. There are hundreds of thousands of such investigations done yearly - one for every such allegation made. A bare handful of those are what you would refer to as 'cover ups'.

You are assuming every cover-up eventually gets found out. You cannot possibly know how many there actually are.

 

[MobBoss]

No, my point is, where the military is concerned, is that the precisely IS someone watching the watchers and is indeed mandated by military regulation.

 

[RedRalph]

No, my point is, where the military is concerned, is that the precisely IS someone watching the watchers and is indeed mandated by military regulation.

Who's watching the watcher's watchers? Come on, don't make me keep going...

 

[MobBoss]

You are assuming every cover-up eventually gets found out. You cannot possibly know how many there actually are.

Considering how many people generally have to be involved in such investigations, and the fact that everyone involved would need to be able to keep their mouths shut, yeah, i'm making an educated guess based upon my career experience that the actual number of them are quite small.

I mean all it takes is for one single person to talk and the whole thing get blasted all over the major media; not to mention the punishments for even attempting such a cover-up are beyond severe and deservedly so.

Is it an assumption? Yes, but its one i'm pretty comfortable in making.

The old adage typically plays true: Three can keep a secret if two are dead...

Who's watching the watcher's watchers? Come on, don't make me keep going...

Hehe...conspiracy theorists UNITE!!!