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

[Clashman]

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.

Bullshit. You're making the assumption of AFP anti-Americanism on the basis of two things: one is that it's French, the other is that they even wrote the article. And you quote the use of ONE SINGLE WORD IN ONE HEADLINE OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY to justify your case. I think I've already gone over in enough detail the ridiculousness of using 'martyr', (without quotations), as proof of "anti-americanism" or "Sadaam-Loving". But if you need more than that here's a list of current AFP stories on Iraq:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...st_us_030617111722&cid=1514&ncid=1478
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...t_afp/un_iraq_blix&cid=1514&ncid=1473
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...aq_weapons_britain&cid=1514&ncid=1473
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._britain_australia&cid=1514&ncid=1473
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...afp/iraq_worldwrap&cid=1514&ncid=1473
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...raq_unrest_us_toll&cid=1514&ncid=1473
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...iraq_britain_press&cid=1514&ncid=1473
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...t_afp/iraq_rebuild&cid=1514&ncid=1473

Seriously, where is this overwhelming anti-American sentiment? They seem like they contain a balance that you would be hard pressed to differentiate from a normal day at the AP or Reuters.

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.

Have you read anything I've posted here, other than the first post? I stated EXPLICITLY that I did not feel this was enough evidence to present anything close to a damning case. But it was precisely because of that that I wanted further investigations and public reports by both the military and the press to try and find out what really happened. You're attacking me because instead of saying "aw, we don't know enough about it, let's just forget it ever happened", I said "gee golly, this could be serious! we should make an effort to find out what happened". The problem I have with this line of thinking is that these sorts of things are happening every week or so, and a continual attitude like that expressed means you end up with your head in the sand more often than I am comfortable with.

And by the way, you misinterpreted my titling of the thread. I was not saying "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". Rather, it was an intentionable jab at an administration that claims to uphold human rights and international law, (we went to war to enforce UN resolutions, remember?), but will not submit itself to any sort of inspection or examination of it's adherance to said laws and rights. So get off your high horse Dave. If you want to disagree you're more than welcome to do so, but make an attempt to actually address the points I'm raising, (which is what Russ was doing in this case, and which I have tried to do in reference to your own jabs), and not simply create a reflexive attack on my sources and, (of course), my "unthinking anti-Americanism".

 

[Clashman]

On a slightly related note, (since we've been talking about the use of excessive force, and also about the protest shootings earlier). Notice this is from the AP, (there's no 'F' in there), although you probably think Human Rights watch is full of America-hating commies and therefore isn't a 'credible' source to talk about human rights:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...raq_excessive_force&cid=540&ncid=1478

U.S. Troops Accused of Excessive Force
27 minutes ago

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. soldiers used excessive force when they shot and killed 20 protesters and wounded almost 90 others in the restive city of Fallujah, according to a report by a human rights group that calls for a U.S. investigation into the two April shootings.

The group, Human Rights Watch, said it found no concrete evidence to support U.S. assertions that troops returned precision fire on gunmen in the crowd who shot first.

Human Rights Watch investigators who examined the sites of the shootings said they did not find conclusive evidence of bullet damage on buildings used as a base by U.S. troops. Despite detailed claims of shooting, there was little to suggest U.S. troops had been fired upon, according to the report, issued Tuesday.

By contrast, buildings facing the U.S. positions were pocked with more than 100 bullet holes. The damage was "wider and more sustained than would have been caused by 'precision fire.'"

The evidence suggested soldiers of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade responded to a perceived threat with disproportionate force, according to the report.

The group called for a full U.S. investigation into the April 28 and April 30 shootings, asking that participants be held accountable for any violations of international humanitarian law.

A U.S. Central Command spokesman in Tampa, Fla., said Wednesday that military officials were still considering whether to respond to the New York-based group's report.

Capt. John Morgan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the Army would "take appropriate measures" based on the results of its own investigation, which he said was under way.

Since the April shootings, Fallujah, about 35 miles west of Baghdad, has become synonymous with resistance to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq (news - web sites). Subsequent ambushes of troops have killed four U.S. soldiers and wounded 21.

The conservative Sunni Muslim city of 300,000, which gave key support to Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime, has seen three separate U.S. Army occupation forces attempting to quell anti-American attacks with a mixture of combat raids and humanitarian aid.

The 82nd Airborne was replaced by the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment after the shootings. When the attacks continued, a large portion of the 3rd Infantry Division was sent in weeks ago to quell the city and the surrounding area along the banks of the Euphrates River.

Human Rights Watch said the original order to police Fallujah with combat troops of the 82nd, a paratrooper unit whose soldiers had come straight from battle, was a "recipe for disaster."

The troops were unprepared and ill-equipped for the post-conflict job of dealing with hostile civilian crowds. They lacked translators, law enforcement training and non-lethal crowd control tools, the report states.

Interviews by the group's investigators with Iraqi witnesses and U.S. soldiers directly involved in the April 28 incident produced sharply differing accounts.

Although it was dark, soldiers said they returned fire for about 30 seconds with rifles and machine-guns after seeing men shooting from behind a taxi and on rooftops and from four or five armed men mingling with a crowd of about 200 protesters.

Protesters said they were attacked without provocation by U.S. troops who fired automatic weapons for 10 minutes.

Iraqi witnesses denied shots had been fired at U.S. troops but said some protesters threw rocks at the soldiers and their vehicles.

The report says it is still possible that agents in the crowd fired at U.S. troops, despite the lack of witness accounts and ballistic evidence.

 

[Crusher]

The article states that 50 bodies were found in a line, but it doesn't say whether the people were killed in that fashion, or their bodies were moved into a line after they died. It also says that a few of the dead bodies were handcuffed, but it makes no mention of who handcuffed them or when they were killed. None of the "facts" the article provides directly implicate the U.S. in any wrongdoing.

What's more, the article does mention that there was 13 hours of fighting, after which time I think anyone would expect a rather large body count. I'm sure the fire wasn't all going in one direction during that time, either.

 

[Dave H]

On a slightly related note, (since we've been talking about the use of excessive force, and also about the protest shootings earlier). Notice this is from the AP, (there's no 'F' in there), although you probably think Human Rights watch is full of America-hating commies and therefore isn't a 'credible' source to talk about human rights:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._mi_ea/iraq_excessive_force&cid=540&ncid=1478

No, I think HRW is an important and very valuable organization, and one with a history of honest and very in-depth research. In fact, if they were the ones asserting that summary executions had occured in that raid, I would find the accusation much more credible. Conversely, the fact that HRW isn't making a stink about it might be a sign that there's nothing credible there. (Of course, it may be that HRW is still investigating the supposed incident before delivering a report.)

They do hold Western countries and the US in particular to a much higher standard than the dictators and thugs of the world, because they know that Western countries and the US in particular are more likely to listen to them. But that doesn't bother me much, because I think the US should be held to a very high standard when it comes to human rights.

If HRW is calling for an investigation, then probably an investigation is warranted. It may find that US rules of engagement weren't properly followed, or that there was a gap in the rules or confusion that lead to this incident; or it may find that the force used was actually proper for the situation. If an investigation finds that something went wrong, then the guilty will be disciplined, and/or the rules of engagement will be changed to try to avoid this sort of thing in the future.

 

[Clashman]

It took HRW a good month or so to come out with it's report on the protest shootings, so I would hardly say that because it has yet to issue one after a week the story is bogus.

 

[Dave H]

It took HRW a good month or so to come out with it's report on the protest shootings, so I would hardly say that because it has yet to issue one after a week the story is bogus.

Ok, that's a fair point.

 

[elchuppa]

it's a political issue

Much of the US public sees their soldiers as a liberating army of angels come to save the poor Iraqi people (I live in Atlanta Georgia..trust me I hear it everyday on the streets and on TV). It is not acceptable to them that these soldiers be prosecuted for "defending" themselves, when they are in Iraq as "great" patriotic "Americans" fighting for freedom. Much like the pilots who bombed the Canadian forces in Afghanistan will never be prosecuted for their negligence with human life, do not expect to see any US soldiers in Iraq prosecuted. The US public would not stand for it. In addition to this is the military issue of maintaining moral in the battlezone. US soldiers would likely feel extremely anxious about defending themselves in Iraq, if they were worried that they may be prosecuted for unwarranted use of force... the normal and general priorities of the vast majority of countries is that the lives of their soldiers are more important than the lives of innocence of some other country. It has been this way forever.

 

[chavvdarrr]

[IMHO]
The idea that some country may claim its soldiers are "not guilty even if proved" and above ANY human law says enough for that country's ethics .
Feeling yourself invulnerable is dangerous for everyone, especially for a soldier with killing machine in hands.[/IMHO]
To trust such people is just stupid.

When you kill a man, you're murderer,
Kill many and you're a hero,
Kill'em all, ah, you're a God.