U.S. War Crimes in Fallujah

[ASsman]

Friday, November 19th, 2004
U.S. War Crimes in Fallujah

A number of incidents have been captured on tape and broadcast in the United States that international law experts charge could be evidence of clear war crimes being committed by US troops. We speak attorney Jules Lobel of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of Success Without Victory. [includes rush transcript] While the reporting of embedded correspondents operating in the besieged city of Fallujah is subject to censorship by the US military, a number of incidents have been captured on tape and broadcast in the United States that international law experts charge could be evidence of clear war crimes being committed by US troops. The most prominent among these incidents was a case earlier this week of a US soldier apparently executing a wounded Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. It was captured on videotape by an NBC cameraman.

* Footage of US soldier executing wounded Iraqi.
* Jules Lobel, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He teaches at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. He is the author of the new book Success Without Victory.

[ASsman]

AMY GOODMAN: The most prominent among these incidents was a case earlier this week of a U.S. soldier apparently executing a wounded Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque. It was captured on videotape by an NBC cameraman.

SOLDIER 1: He's [inaudible] faking he's dead.

SOLDIER 2: Yeah, he's breathing.

SOLDIER 1: He's [inaudible] faking he's dead.

AMY GOODMAN: The excerpt of a videotape captured by Kevin Sites of NBC in a Fallujah mosque of a soldier executing a wounded Iraqi, who was laying in the mosque. We're joined now by Jules Lobel, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights he teaches at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, and he's the author of a new book called, Success Without Victory. Welcome to Democracy Now!

JULES LOBEL: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Great to have you us with, Jules. Can you talk about this videotape that is now being seen around the world?

JULES LOBEL: Yes. If it is correct what it apparently shows, which is that a soldier was executing a prisoner, then it's a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. But I think that the whole problem of the U.S. Government here in the war crimes area is that they're focusing on the individual. You know, there was another incident which was recorded also by a United Kingdom video crew on Channel 4 in Britain, in which another soldier was doing apparently the same thing. And if you look at Sites' website, he --

AMY GOODMAN: This is Kevin Sites, the NBC cameraman --

JULES LOBEL: Kevin Sites, the NBC cameraman, what he does is he shows that -- he puts up quotes from different Marines. He says the Marines say they were operating under rules of engagement, which said this was a weapons-free zone. And what they meant by weapons-free was that they could shoot at anything. They didn't have to determine whether it was hostile. Anything that they saw was deemed to be hostile in Fallujah. It reminds you of the free-fire zones in Vietnam. Under the Geneva Conventions, commanders have a responsibility to ensure that civilians are not indiscriminately harmed and that prisoners are not executed. The real problem here is coming from the top, not from the individual soldiers. I think the investigation should really be on what the rules of engagement were that these Marines were operating under, and whether they were given instructions not to kill prisoners, not to discriminate between insurgents and civilians, and my hunch is that they weren't.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, is there a distinction between an innocent civilian who's killed and a resistance fighter who was wounded, who is unarmed? Kevin Sites, the NBC journalist said that he didn't pose a threat, and he was unarmed.

JULES LOBEL: Yeah. There's a distinction, but both of them are protected. An unarmed fighter, who is wounded, is considered to be out of combat and therefore treated as if they were a civilian. Therefore, to kill a combatant who's wounded and unarmed and is not taking part in the fight, is similar, is identical to killing a civilian, and both of them are protected under the Geneva Conventions.

AMY GOODMAN: The Channel 4 videotape, which I haven't seen, is this also a case in Fallujah?

JULES LOBEL: It's a case in Fallujah. It's almost the same thing. I don't think in a mosque, but almost the same thing. The only thing they didn't capture was the actual killing of the person. You saw a marine shooting at a -- at an unarmed, wounded insurgent, and you don't see what happened, but the marine says, he's done for.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, what does it mean to say that it violates international law? I mean, are these the laws that the U.S. Marines abide by, have to answer to?

JULES LOBEL: Well, for 50 years, the United States has ratified the Geneva Conventions and believed that the Geneva Conventions protect both our soldiers, and are the rules of combat which our soldiers should fight by. In this conflict, as we saw from the top, there's this whole effort by Gonzales and other people to say, well, the Geneva convention's provisions are now quaint. That was Gonzales's word in his memo. And not to abide by them. And it's very disturbing, and you know, amnesty international has called for an investigation of this. Louise Arbor, top U.N. Official, has called for an investigation. I really think that the investigation should start from the top. As to how these soldiers are being trained and told to fight in this conflict. But the Geneva Conventions was passed after World War II, and it was designed to overcome the terrible abuses that we saw that occurred in World War II. If we're going to go back to the era, the world is in for a very sorry state.

AMY GOODMAN: Jules Lobel is author of Success Without Victory. You pursue a lot of these human rights cases. You don't usually win.

JULES LOBEL: No. They're hard cases to win. But you know, for example, right now, we're suing the military contractors who were involved in the torture at Abu Ghraib. It's a hard case. We're hoping to win. And we're representing the people in Guantanamo.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's talk about Abu Ghraib for a minute and also Gonzales. You are talking about Alberto Gonzales, the white house counsel whose just been nominated by President Bush to become the Attorney General. Can you explain his significance when it came to the underpinnings, the memos that were written, sort of providing the legal framework, how Abu Ghraib prisoners should be dealt with.

JULES LOBEL: Yeah. His memos said that not only with respect to Al Qaeda, but with respect to the Taliban prisoners, who the world believes are covered by the Geneva Conventions, that the Geneva Conventions should not apply. I think that's set in train a whole series of events whereby the U.S. Government began to take the position that not formally, maybe informally, that we're not going to abide anymore by the Geneva Conventions or that we'll try to circumvent them. And there have been various memos, I think, attempting to circumvent them. For example, the Geneva Conventions requires that you cannot deport people from Iraq, from occupied territory, and take them out, because of what happened during World War II where the Germans deported people and killed them. Well, the United States has been, it's come out, that we have been deporting or we have been taking people out of Iraq, secretly, to interrogate them where the red cross would not know about it, and presumably using much harsher measures which would violate the Geneva Conventions. But there's a move to get around all the different provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Taken as a whole, what the U.S. Government has done, is tried to avoid many of the restrictions of the Geneva Conventions.

AMY GOODMAN: The contractors who worked at Abu Ghraib, who are they?

JULES LOBEL: These are the Titan Corporation and the Khaki corporation. They're military contractors. We allege that they were involved in the torture, that some of their people were involved in the torture, and because they're private military contractor, we believe we can sue them.

AMY GOODMAN: It's interesting is there a precedent? Because just this week, a federal judge ruled a case can go forward in the United States of prisoners, detainees, at a facility in New Jersey, who, they applied for political asylum, they were being held, and they were abused by the guards at the facility. Now, the government, the judge ruled that they cannot go after the U.S. government, but they can go after the private contractor that ran the jail. Would that have relevance in this case?

JULES LOBEL: That's one of the reasons we sued the private contractors. Because that would have relevance to show that even if the government has immunity, and there are statutes and there are provisions that give the government itself immunity in some of these cases, the private individuals, the private contractors should not have immunity, nor should the commanders have immunity.

AMY GOODMAN: And how far along is this case?

JULES LOBEL: The case is, we're arguing about motions to dismiss. The contractors have moved to dismiss the case and it's going to be a hearing in San Francisco in the beginning of December, I think.

AMY GOODMAN: And how involved were Khaki? Were the two, and Titan, in Abu Ghraib? Were they running the whole facility?

JULES LOBEL: I don't know if they were running the whole facility, but I think they were intimately connected with what was going on, particularly the interrogations parts of it.

AMY GOODMAN: Aren't a lot of these guys actually from the U.S. military?

JULES LOBEL: Sure. There's a total intermixing of these private contractors and the U.S. military folks.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about Guantanamo?

JULES LOBEL: Well, in Guantanamo, we just sued on behalf of Mr. Rasul who is our lead plaintiff, who was a British citizen, who claims he was tortured in Guantanamo. We filed a suit against the officials who we claimed did the torturing, but also who set up again the rules under which these people could be tortured. You know, the U.S. government has said, well, if there's any abuse, we'll go after the individual Marine or the individual soldiers, but nobody's looking at the commanders, the people really responsible, for creating a situation in which people could be tortured or where prisoners could be executed.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, what does it mean to have Alberto Gonzales become the Attorney General of the United States, talking about Geneva Conventions as what was it, quaint, and saying that they don't apply?

JULES LOBEL: To have the chief law enforcement officer of the United States be somebody who in his memos showed a total disregard for one of the key international law provisions, is just outrageous. It's inconsistent with the whole notion of a chief law enforcement officer.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Democratic Senators will be opposing this?

JULES LOBEL: I'd hope some of them would have the backbone to oppose it. But in the past, you can't be very optimistic about that.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Jules Lobel, I want to thank you very much for being here. Jules Lobel, Vice President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, teaches at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, author of the new book, Success Without Victory.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/1524257

[ASsman]

What I think the soldiers could have said. They would have been on VH1 or something, but nooooo.

Harry Callahan: I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking, "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, I've forgotten myself in all this excitement. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?

[American]

A video has surfaced showing the cold-blooded killing of Margaret Hassan, the woman who headed a humanitarian organization called CARE International. She lived in Iraq for 30 years and dedicated herself to helping Iraqis. The thanks for her tireless efforts came in the form of a bullet to the head. The video shows her blindfolded and wearing an orange jumpsuit. Yet, just as always, the terrorist-appeasing media refuses to acknowledge the following irrefutable facts:

Margaret Hassan was executed at point-blank range by terrorists.

These terrorists were Muslims, and thus can be accurately described as Islamic terrorists.

The vicious bastards that killed her believed that in doing so, their actions were approved by Allah, and will be rewarded in the after life.
Nowhere in any of the mainstream press coverage will you see her killers being described as anything less than "insurgents." Some of the coverage makes it sound like she died as the result of an accident or something. If it's not that, then it must be George Bush's fault for invading Iraq, angering the insurgency, and making them kill her. It's simply amazing that the leftist media in this country refuses to properly identify the enemy in the war on terror. They're too busy apologizing for the actions of the insurgents and doing stories about the "root causes" of terrorism.

Now ... think about this. A US Marine puts a bullet in the head of a terrorist, a terrorist he thought was playing dead. Just a day or two earlier this very same Marine lost a good friend to a booby-trapped body of a "dead" insurgent terrorist. Now that we know this, I'm prepared to give this Marine a pass. Good going, Marine. Now we see more outrage over what the Marine did than we see over the murder of this innocent, caring woman. What's wrong with this picture?Also it was not in front of a mosque. It was in front of an enemy stronghold. No matter what the building's intended use was, when it is filled with Iraqis trying to kill Americans, it is an enemy stronghold.

[American]

Also it was not in front of a mosque. It was in front of an enemy stronghold.

[QUOTE]it was IN a mosque.
When militants take over a Mosque and shoot at people from it, and use it to carry out milatary objectives, the building is no longer a Mosque no matter how you look at it. I works the same the other way around. When people gather under a tent to worship God it is no longer a tent; it is a Church.

But if western families are killed by landmines and killed by airstrikes, or christians killed in churches, its atrocities and injustice.
I don't recall hearing about any American civillians killed in recent history by landmines. I'm not sure we have them here except on milatary bases for training. Wait, I think they do grow in Iowa. No, wait, that is corn.
The only airstrikes that I know of were on Sept 11, 2001 and in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1942. Both were sneak attacks and atrocities. We were not at war during either one. Can't make the comparison. Oh yea, and I forgot that it is a usual practice for Christians in America to hold up in Churches with weapons trying to kill the people outside and getting bombed. Oh wait, that actually did happen. I believe it was in Waco, TX. No wait, they were Davians, not Christians.

[Rosie Cotton]

It's liek the crusades all over again.
Bush already called it that.

[Funkaloyd]

A US Marine puts a bullet in the head of a terrorist

Why do you assume that the Iraqi in question was a terrorist?

Just a day or two earlier this very same Marine lost a good friend to a booby-trapped body of a "dead" insurgent terrorist.

Are you sure? I heard that he was shot.

[American]

Why do you assume that the Iraqi in question was a terrorist?
In a possible life or death situation I'm shooting first and asking questions later. I'd rather be wrong because of a mistake than dead because of one!



Are you sure? I heard that he was shot.
Well "I Heard" that John was cheating on Sally who was messing around with Jenny's cousin Glen. But I also heard that Sally was mad that Glen voted for Bush and there was no way she was messing with him.
My point is, only the people that were there know for sure. Either way, his friend was killed by a "dead" Iraqi. Too bad that fucker with the camera didn't get that on film.

[Funkaloyd]

But would you agree that not all Iraqis fighting the occupying coalition forces can be accurately labelled terrorists?

[American]

But would you agree that not all Iraqis fighting the occupying coalition forces can be accurately labelled terrorists?
Sure, but terrorist or not, if that Iraqi was out there minutes before shooting at said Marine, does it matter that he is a "terrorist"? Maybe we should have called him and enemy combatant. Or and insurgent. I think that you are somewhat understanding me and I am somewhat understanding you.

[ASsman]

Fuck off, if you nothing intelligent to say just find other threads. I will have you come in and start spitting out your dribble. This thread isn't for you to come here and try to justify warcrimes "because they started it". Calling you childish would be an insult to all children. So I will call you incredibly ignorant and immature. Also, this is the last time I will address you. It is obvious to me you are incapable of an intelligent discussion.

Ignore my threads the same way I will ignore you.

Repect... you know nothing of what you speak of. Goddamn hypocrite.

[ASsman]

Don't respond to him, he doesn't deserve merit for his stupidity.

[yeahwho]

Now that the US military is immersed in this military action, what turns out to be a regime change, not a search for WMD, unacceptable acts from those invaded are bothering the invader. Bush was forewarned of this, the international community said WTF is your plan and now that we are in the thick of it, immersed, soldiers, kids have you, from our towns in America are faced with the ugliest decisions any human can make.

All because Bush wanted his bidding done. The hero, who is driving this country into the ground. But hey, his morals on gays and abortion seem to be right in line. Shopping (http://www.wholesalecentral.com/accessoriespalace/store.cfm?event=showcatalog&catid=52706) may cheer me up and help cover up that spot where my Kerry sticker was.

[Rosie Cotton]

The iraqis in the mosque were injured and lying there, so ur tellign me they were fighting back? Oh and i used the landmine and airstrike examples of "if it did happen", the whoel western world goes crazy. When oen or two americans die, the whole us is in an uproar, but if 10 iraqis die, everyone doesnt care. the american soldiers defile the mosques, i mean they blew up an important sunni mosque in Baghdad for no reason. if someoen blew up the vatican or some cathedral like all christians will be in an uproar. Blowing up a mosque is no better that blowing up a church.

Alot of evangelicals don't believe Catholics are Christian. Cause, you know, the altar is used for human sacrifice and stuff. They wouldn't care if the Vatican was destroyed.

[Documad]

The Crusades didn't turn out so good last time.

[D_Raay]

Now that the US military is immersed in this military action, what turns out to be a regime change, not a search for WMD, unacceptable acts from those invaded are bothering the invader. Bush was forewarned of this, the international community said WTF is your plan and now that we are in the thick of it, immersed, soldiers, kids have you, from our towns in America are faced with the ugliest decisions any human can make.

All because Bush wanted his bidding done. The hero, who is driving this country into the ground. But hey, his morals on gays and abortion seem to be right in line. Shopping (http://www.wholesalecentral.com/accessoriespalace/store.cfm?event=showcatalog&catid=52706) may cheer me up and help cover up that spot where my Kerry sticker was.
Well said yeahwho (y)

[Space]

assman....SAY WHAT AGAIN!

[ASsman]

Whut!

[Whois]

vietnam the second

"Iraq is arabic for Vietnam" - Anon posted sign

[infidel]

Interesting fact I came across.
In every war there have been slang words used to name the enemy, krauts, nips and gooks are a few examples.
The Iraqis call the US troops Jews.
Really

[Ace42]

"krauts" and "Nips" both predate the wars.

Krauts come from old navaldays where, like the British "limies" the Germans ate a lot of sauerkraut to stave off scurvy.

"Nips" is an abbreviation of "Niponese" Nipon being "Japan" - a name which again predates the wars.

[Ali]

Sure, but terrorist or not, if that Iraqi was out there minutes before shooting at said Marine, does it matter that he is a "terrorist"? Maybe we should have called him and enemy combatant. Or and insurgent. He was an Iraqi, fighting for his homeland, not for Saddam. If you were invaded, you would fight like he did and do anything and everything you could to get rid of the invaders, including cut people's heads off. Or would you play by the rules, against a much more powerful force? Would you die playing by the rules or would you do something so horrific that the enemy thinks twice.

You sit there and judge these people because they have resorted to desperate measures to get rid of the Americans, who've come to steal their oil. Have you ever for a moment considered that the very presence of US troops in Iraq is what is driving these people to do these terrible things? The US government is responsible for Margaret Hassan's death, stop bleating and think, if you can. Do you think the fighting would increase if the US withdrew?

[Whois]

Interesting fact I came across.
In every war there have been slang words used to name the enemy, krauts, nips and gooks are a few examples.
The Iraqis call the US troops Jews.
Really

Hadjis = Iraqis

Google "hadj"

[ASsman]

If you were invaded, you would fight like he did and do anything and everything you could to get rid of the invaders, including cut people's heads off.
Is it safe to they the insurgents and the people doing the beaheading are all in the same?

Also, don't quote American in this thread please.

[Ali]

Is it safe to they the insurgents and the people doing the beaheading are all in the same?

Also, don't quote American in this thread please. I'll try not to.

I love the way people use the term Insurgent to describe anyone who doesn't agree with the illegal occupation of one country by another. It's a label, like Terrorist, Gook, Charlie, etc. used to dehumanise your enemy in the eyes of your nation.

What is an insurgent, really? An Iraqi who fights an American? I didn't hear the word much until after the Occupation, when Iraqis began fighting for their freedom.

History will doubt have a different name for them.

[drobertson420]

"No matter what the building's intended use was, when it is filled with Iraqis trying to kill Americans, it is an enemy stronghold." -Unknown Source


That's The Rules!

[ASsman]

Uh right I can assure you that all of the building they blew up (atleast the majority) were not filled with "Iraqis trying to kill Americans". They were filled with people trying to protect their own land, they are not "strongholds" in the sense that they are only defensive positions. They aren't the attackers, they are the defenders in this case.

Also,
in·sur·gent Audio pronunciation of "insurgents" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

You're right they aren't insurgents, unless you think military hegemony gives authority. We will use the term USA Killas, from now on.

[Ali]

Uh right I can assure you that all of the building they blew up (atleast the majority) were not filled with "Iraqis trying to kill Americans". They were filled with people trying to protect their own land, they are not "strongholds" in the sense that they are only defensive positions. They aren't the attackers, they are the defenders in this case.

Also,
in·sur·gent Audio pronunciation of "insurgents" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.

1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

You're right they aren't insurgents, unless you think military hegemony gives authority. We will use the term USA Killas, from now on. "Illegal Occupying Force" has a nice ring to it.

[Paul Nice]

Hey look - a post about how GWB or America sucks. How suprising and original.

[ASsman]

And one of Concentration Camps.. Just a German hot-fest....

I hope you are being sarcastic.