It's a good thing the U.S. got that World Court exemption...

[RussSchultz]

Never mind, there also was a similar incident in Mosul.

Just like all stories, the bang always makes the front page. The retraction or mundane follow up never does.

Or have you got some way to search for incident inquiry reports that isn't google?

 

[Clashman]

There's always Lexis-Nexis, (if you get free access through a university, or have the cajones to pay for it yourself).

 

[Clashman]

The incident you're talking about was is Fajulla, not Mosul. There was an inquiry (or at least there was the 'no fault found' report in the news).

edit: see next post.

That's funny, because as I recall it no one in the Israeli military has ever been charged with killing Palestinian civilians. The point being that in general, (but not 100% of the time), while there might be internal discipline for actions such as what happened in Falujah or Mosul, there will likely not ever be an official admittance of wrongdoing, if it can be avoided. And as I recall, the few reporters who did visit those scenes could find no evidence that U.S. troops had been fired upon in either of them, and so I regard with more than a little suspicion that noone is being prosecuted because there was "no fault found".

 

[RussSchultz]

There's always Lexis-Nexis, (if you get free access through a university, or have the cajones to pay for it yourself).

I had no idea Lexis-Nexis also catalogued Military inquiries.

 

[Clashman]

There's always Lexis-Nexis, (if you get free access through a university, or have the cajones to pay for it yourself).

I had no idea Lexis-Nexis also catalogued Military inquiries.

Sorry, misread what you originally wrote.

 

[Clashman]

Just out of curiosity:

What level of proof would be required for this story, (or other similar cases), to be regarded as "legitimate", as opposed to the "rumors" label Russ is ascribing? I myself do not believe with certainty that this happened. However, when one of the largest news sources in the world reports on this, (even if it is "French"), I would think it would be worth investigating and responding to. Not just by the military, but also other press agencies. It seems as though on these matters there is little investigative journalism being conducted, and more often than not they simply repeat Centcom briefings. I don't think this is an unreasonable, or "radical" request, and so I hope some people will take the time to formulate an serious and sincere answer.

 

[Fred]

Just like any other crime, evidence must be gathered. Then the independant prosecution decides whether or not there is ample evidence to warrant a trial.

Then a court marshall session comes and judges decide guilt based on the discourse of a defense and prosecutor.

No one knows if its true or not, but the simplest explanations are usually the correct ones, and there is a notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' that is cherished here in the states.

 

[elchuppa]

" there is a notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' that is cherished here in the states."

- unless you're an arab or "french"...
hate to do it.. but it's true. So it's not a notion that is cherished all that much.

 

[Clashman]

Just like any other crime, evidence must be gathered. Then the independant prosecution decides whether or not there is ample evidence to warrant a trial.

Then a court marshall session comes and judges decide guilt based on the discourse of a defense and prosecutor.

How would you suggest this is done? Who arrests the soldiers and officers responsible? Who is conducting an investigation? Who is the independent prosecution in a country with no government independent of the alleged perpetrator of the crime? In one of the protest shootings earlier, several news agencies, (I believe at least Reuters and the AP), went to the scene of the incident. They were able to find no bullet casings where the protestors were, and there were no pockmarks from bullets near where the U.S. soldiers were standing. The buildings near where the protestors were were covered in bullet holes. And there were around a dozen, maybe more, dead Iraqis, several of whom were not even part of the protest but were simply passing by. It seems pretty obvious that the soldiers got spooked by an angry crowd and reacted very hastily. But the U.S. military 'cannot confirm' it and so the story is dead where it stands.

 

[RussSchultz]

Not sure exactly what the proof is required for me to believe it, but a single article on reuters doesn't do it. (Interestingly enough, AFP also reported the Mosul incident in a similar manner to the recent incident--very skeptical of US statements, but not of the Iraqi).

Even stories that are picked up by many news agencies are just plain wrong. The widespread looting of the museum in Baghdad, for example, falls into this category. Everybody was reporting it, but in the end everybody seemed to be duped. Beyond that, sometimes the "ground level" view is not in context and appears to be something that it isn't.

Highly politically charged issues like this are extra suspect, because of several factors:
1) There are people who have a vested interest in presenting the US in as bad a light as possible without any scruples at all
2) There are people making eye witness reports that are pissed off (for example these Iraqis being insulted by being occupied)
3) And there are biased reporters who let (intentionally or not) their personal animosity against the US or its current administration bleed through--either by slanting the reporting, or simply by not fact checking because they'd rather believe what they're reporting.
4) There's just stupid reporters out there.

Of course, reversing the political leanings of the list above also leads to the same thing.

I think the story needs widespread coverage and legs, or ongoing pattern, or widespread eyewitness reporiting before I'll be satisfied with it being a somewhat accurate reporting of the situation.

 

[Clashman]

No one knows if its true or not, but the simplest explanations are usually the correct ones, and there is a notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' that is cherished here in the states.

And by that same token many of you have simply dismissed the AFP story without a single shred of evidence to indicate that something contrary to their report took place.

 

[Althornin]

No one knows if its true or not, but the simplest explanations are usually the correct ones, and there is a notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' that is cherished here in the states.

And by that same token many of you have simply dismissed the AFP story without a single shred of evidence to indicate that something contrary to their report took place.

There is no evidence to say it did.

 

[Clashman]

Not sure exactly what the proof is required for me to believe it, but a single article on reuters doesn't do it. (Interestingly enough, AFP also reported the Mosul incident in a similar manner to the recent incident--very skeptical of US statements, but not of the Iraqi).

In that instance I believe they or Reuters did in fact visit the scene.

Even stories that are picked up by many news agencies are just plain wrong. The widespread looting of the museum in Baghdad, for example, falls into this category. Everybody was reporting it, but in the end everybody seemed to be duped. Beyond that, sometimes the "ground level" view is not in context and appears to be something that it isn't.

There was in fact widespread looting. However, in the case of the Iraqi museum all they got were fakes, the real stuff was kept hidden in a vault within a vault, which was apparently flooded to kill looters who were in fact trying to break in.

Of course, reversing the political leanings of the list above also leads to the same thing.

Which is why I would like to see this looked into further, whereas you seem to not care if it is looked into further and would just as soon have noone look at it so you could assume it wasn't true.

I think the story needs widespread coverage and legs, or ongoing pattern, or widespread eyewitness reporiting before I'll be satisfied with it being a somewhat accurate reporting of the situation.

And so what happens when the patterns are ignored, (IE the handful of protest shootings that have occurred), or when there are no eyewitnesses left to testify? (It seems as though everyone at this "camp" was arrested or killed).

 

[Clashman]

No one knows if its true or not, but the simplest explanations are usually the correct ones, and there is a notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' that is cherished here in the states.

And by that same token many of you have simply dismissed the AFP story without a single shred of evidence to indicate that something contrary to their report took place.

There is no evidence to say it did.

There were locals reporting on the aftermath. That's something.

 

[RussSchultz]

There was in fact widespread looting. However, in the case of the Iraqi museum all they got were fakes, the real stuff was kept hidden in a vault within a vault, which was apparently flooded to kill looters who were in fact trying to break in.

I don't remember anything about fakes.

I found this interesting take on the museum.

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/as/Uus-baghdadmuseum-commentary.R8sK_DuD.html

Strangely, the email goes to Joe Bob Briggs (I presume the host of the cheezy movie review show of cheezy movies)http://www.joebobbriggs.com/

Wierd

 

[Clashman]

From a quick yahoo news search.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030612/en_usatoday/5235889

Though 170,000 items were not stolen as initial reports indicated, Gibson says, thousands of items from three looted storerooms were likely stolen or destroyed.

The lack of looting was not due to the fact that it wasn't attempted, or that the U.S. forces in the area prevented it, but because the people running the museum were dedicated and cunning enough to do so.

 

[RussSchultz]

Interesting commentary on your part. I've read in many places that any thefts of the really expensive stuff was likely an inside job and that the museum spokesman wasn't necessarily on the up and up.

 

[Clashman]

Interesting commentary on your part. I've read in many places that any thefts of the really expensive stuff was likely an inside job and that the museum spokesman wasn't necessarily on the up and up.

I thought so too originally, but then why would so few of the good pieces have been touched, (unless I'm misreading what you meant by "on the up and up")? The more I hear about this museum though, the more I want to see it. Seems like they have some amazing stuff.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030608/wl_nm/iraq_museum_dc_1

Assyrian Jewlery that has only been displayed once in the last 3,000 years? Wow!

 

[Dave H]

It's truly amazing how otherwise intelligent people can be so willing to believe anything that makes the US look bad.

(BTW, this is the same Agence France-Presse that www.honestreporting.com/a/r/367.asp+mideast+afp&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]calls suicide bombers "martyrs" in their headlines[/url]--without quotation marks.)

It's also truly amazing how otherwise intelligent people can be so willing to only believe things that makes the US look good when the truth is somewhere in between.

Agreed. That's why one needs to use common sense when trying to derive fact from a world full of biased, sensationalist, and/or ignorant media outlets.

In the aggregate, the truth is somewhere in between, as you say. In this particular case, there is no "in between" I can find: either American troops summarily executed a number of handcuffed enemy fighters who posed no danger; or someone else (presumably the victims' fellow fighters) did; or the reports of Arab fighters handcuffed and dead of close-range bullet wounds to the head are false.

Anyone with the aforementioned common sense would realize that the last two scenarios are wildly more plausible than the first. The anti-American bias of AFP's Mideast Bureau, the source of the report, merely makes it all the more obvious that critical thought must be given before accepting the conclusions of the news report.

Instead, the original poster accepted this at-best extraordinarily dubious report at face value. Moreover, the implicit assumptions reflected in the thread title--namely that enough evidence exists to secure a conviction at the ICC of a war crime, but that the US military will not instigate court martial proceedings even in the face of such strong evidence of a war crime--show him to be even more tilted in the direction of unthinking anti-Americanism.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I doubt any of you know the 100% unblemished truth.
Everyone is either throwing punches left or right but yet have I heard anyone say they don't have all the unspoilt facts so they care not to comment.

I will be the first. I care not to comment as I do not know the 100% unblemished truth about the situation. I keep reading different opinions but I do not know which opinions are non-fictional.

There, I said it.