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

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

They happen in any real war. Sometimes soldiers snap or war just makes them cruel. Just because their US troops doesn't make them angels.

Its also much easier to happen if the enemy hides among the civilians and you can't tell them apart.
 
It is also why we try others for war crimes. If these were American civilians who were killed by troops of another government under these supposed circumstances, there would be a huge outrage and rightfully so. The US should be the last country which is turning a blind eye to its own suspected atrocities given how frequently we prosecute others for those acts in the past.

It also calls into question the UN procedures in cases such as this. Even if the US military was apparently unwilling to pursue it, they certainly should have been willing and able to do so.
 
I think there is a distinct difference between dehumanizing events and the cold-blooded murder of civilians. This appears to be another My Lai only on a smaller basis. And no, I'm not surprised in the least.

Considering the complete lack of facts in that only one side is being presented, how on earth can you make that allegation? :confused:

It also calls into question all the other incidents which were similarly glossed over and excused by the military.

I agree the US should thoroughly investigate these cases. And it is clear we certainly can't trust the military to do so based on the past, yet nothing is done to create an independent commission to do so. They continue to be allowed to cover up the truth in such incidents, as they did in My Lai and similar cases in WWII. And the credibility of the nation directly suffers for it, because we aren't really fooling anybody but other Americans and a few others from other countries who are apparently willing to believe just about anything.

The sheer fact that a overwhelmingly huge number of these things are investigated, with soldiers being found guilty and punished all the time would indicate you are simply incorrect. You simply cant take a single case from about 40 years ago and use it as some basis of comparison to today. The military has gone to great lengths to find soldiers that do criminal acts, courtmartial them and punish them accordingly. This happens several times a day across all components. For example, in 2010, just for the Army alone, there were 1883 court martials done, (and btw they had 1824 convictions for a 98.6 conviction rate). Thats an average of more than 5 a day each and every day of the year. And thats just the Army. (stats from http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/annual/FY10AnnualReport.pdf )

Part of the real problem is your non-military layman really has no clue as to how many investigations/courts martials/etc. the military does on a annual basis. All they know is what they see as a headline on tv - and if its on tv then of course thats how every single thing occurs in the military....which is of course a very skewed view not in any way close to how things really are on average in the military.

It is also why we try others for war crimes. If these were American civilians who were killed by troops of another government under these supposed circumstances, there would be a huge outrage and rightfully so. The US should be the last country which is turning a blind eye to its own suspected atrocities given how frequently we prosecute others for those acts in the past.

It also calls into question the UN procedures in cases such as this. Even if the US military was apparently unwilling to pursue it, they certainly should have been willing and able to do so.

And what if the US military did indeed investigate it thoroughly, came to a different conclusion, and dissmissed those allegations as baseless?

You do realize that ultimately, the US congress has oversight on this kind of stuff right? Are the civilians in charge not adequate enough to provide oversight of the military?

Who would you believe?:mischief:
 
Possible evidence of a execution of US troops? Gee, wonder how many news outlets will take this and run with it. :mischief:
 
I'm sorry but I know what U.S. training is like and I know U.S. operating procedure; and I cannot believe for a second that our troops executed children (the women I can see provided they were armed Obama change to a policy of field execution of insurgents) Did it occur to anyone that these people might have been executed by the terrorists?
 
Yeah, we all know that. Unlike all other militaries, that, of course, are able to commit atrocities, especially, if they're left to police themselves, the military of United States (and Israeli military also - well, maybe) is a wondrous collection of professional and well-trained warriors that never commit any atrocities. In fact, the United States Military is a shining light among the dark cesspools of humanity. All rules that are common sense in regards to other countries, are inapplicable to the USA. The USA is truly special.

Formaldehydish sarcasm aside, treat the actions of your country just like you treat the actions of any other country you're neutral to. This is an excellent recipe against too much nationalism.
 
Is it of any bearing that while US troops can break the law, the rate at which they do is actually less than what occurs in the civilian world?

US soldiers can commit atrocity. However, its a simple truth that such incidents are extremely rare; and that is indeed largely due to our extensive training we give soldiers on the Law of War, Ethics, and the oversight our command structure gives.
 
Not how it works, and like I said, the police have their own internal affairs branch dont they? Thats still 'part' of the police; but still a separate entity solely tasked to investigate officer wrongdoing.

If the military system is anything like IA, then I would certainly support placing the entire process under civilian review, for the same reason that many communities choose to do so. Because they don't trust the investigations implicitly, and would like to see the processes involved. Given the circumstances the military operates under, it actually seems much more important to do so there.
 
The Iraqis have reopened the probe based on the Wikileaks disclosure:

BAGHDAD — Iraq’s government will reopen an investigation into a 2006 raid in which U.S. forces killed at least 11 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, a spokesman for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Friday.

The new probe comes after a diplomatic cable surfaced in a WikiLeaks cache that raised fresh doubts about the Pentagon’s version of events, which cleared the U.S. military of any wrongdoing.

Iraqis in the town of Ishaqi have long claimed that U.S. military forces executed at least 11 people there — including women and children — and then hid the crime by directing an airstrike to the area, about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

A Pentagon spokesman dismissed the claims on Friday, saying that, from the U.S. military’s viewpoint, nothing had changed.

Among the dead were a 28-year-old Iraqi man, Faiz Harrat al-Majmaee, and his extended family, including five children younger than 5, the U.N. report said. Autopsies done later in the hospital in Tikrit showed that “all the corpses were shot in the head and handcuffed,” Alston noted.

U.S. coalition spokesmen said at the time that there was no wrongdoing and that the commander “properly followed the rules of engagement as he necessarily escalated the use of force until the threat was eliminated.”

U.S. forces captured a Kuwaiti-born al-Qaeda cell leader — Ahmad Abdallah Muhammad Nais al-Utaybi — and killed an Iraqi bombmaker and recruiter during the coordinated raid.

According to the official military account given later, the troops took direct fire from the building upon their arrival. They responded first with small arms and then by calling in helicopters and, later, air support that destroyed the building.

They found the Iraqi bombmaker dead inside, along with 12 others, the account said.

In June of that year, a Pentagon investigation determined that U.S. commanders used appropriate force in taking down what they described as a safe house during the raid.
It is interesting how only the al Qaeda cell leader apparently survived the airstrike. Perhaps someone should ask him what occurred.
 
It is straight from the article.

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

Wikileaks Cable Release: New Evidence that U.S. Troops May Have Massacred Iraqi Civilians
 
Is there any evidence at all that actually places US servicemen there handcuffing them? Were they really handcuffed or did an pro-rebel person submit false autopsies? Were they handcuffed by rebels after the firefight to make the US look bad? Shall I continue with a multitude of other more likely scenarios than "US troops handcuff children and execute them"?
 
So those scenarios are more plausible to you than the possibility that this is just yet another cover-up? What evidence do you think should be required in a case such as this? That one of the soldiers apparently responsible confesses? Otherwise, they all go free due to lack of evidence that this isn't a conspiracy to make the US look bad?
 
I find it far more likey that the examiner lied to frame American troops, or that rebels shot them and handcuffed them to be found that way to frame American troops, yes absolutely.
 
I think they are usually provided with plastic tie-wraps in such situations. I would guess the UN inspector meant their wrists showed signs of restraint.

 
Read this interview with Matthew Schofield. He was one of the people reporting on the incident back in 2006:

http://www.salon.com/news/the_story...ics/war_room/2011/09/03/iraq_alleged_massacre

And if you have the time, I suggest reading through the comments.

I no longer see this as a clear-cut case of Patrol Gone Wild. Hopefully the renewed interest in the incident will lead to more interviews with the people involved.

Here are some of the highlights from the linked article that stand out to me:

Beyond the primary question about what happened that day and whether it was an unjustified massacre or a case of collateral damage, the incident has political ramifications. As the AP reported Friday, Iraqi politicians said this week the incident could have an impact on any agreement to allow U.S. forces to stay in the country beyond Dec. 31.
This highlights why open sharing of facts and findings can only help.


The coroner we talked to after the incident said that the people who died were killed by gunshots to the upper chest and head. It didn't necessarily look execution-style -- the shots were not all to the same place in the head, or anything like that -- but it looked like they were from fairly close range. His guess was that the bullets were from an M-16. The Iraqi police investigators, who had been trained by U.S. forces, said in their report that these had been execution-style killings by American forces.
This casts doubt on the "tie 'em up and shoot 'em in the head" storyline.

...can't continue commenting on this (cooking dinner), but there's much more in the interview worth noting for this discussion. I really hope everyone commenting here gives it a read. And the comments, too!
 
It is interesting that the reporter's discussion with the coroner is different than the UN inspector regarding chest wounds as well as head wounds.

But it also confirms their hands were allegedly bound with plastic cable ties and that they appeared to have been shot at close range. To me, this actually sounds more credible than everybody being shot in the head.

And I still find it odd that the al Qaeda operative was the only survivor.
 
Top Bottom