wikileaks:-Cover-up of murder of civilians and journalists

[23]

Two different views... from two different viewing points.

[MacCruiskeen]

Video Appears to Show U.S. Forces Firing on Unarmed Suspects in Baghdad

Last night at 2am, BBC World radio was still introducing the story with these words:

"A video has emerged [sic - passive voice, because Wikileaks is unworthy of credit] that purportedly shows a US helicopter mistakenly attacking civilians in Iraq."

Yeah. Like, maybe Wikileaks has a Pentagon-scale production budget that allows it to create 37 minutes of incredibly detailed and lifelike aerial footage of Apache gunship attacks in Iraq. Maybe Wikileaks also engaged a team of full-time professional sound engineers and scriptwriters to come up with plausible dialogue and a convincing soundtrack. I mean, we have to be impartial and allow for those possibilities.

Today, on the BBC website, it's not even mentioned in their front-page news. (Unlike, for instance, "Is Birdemic worst film ever made?", and "Future vision? Brazil's striking 'new' capital turns 50 this month".)

Rawstory's finally reporting it, but in their headline they use the word "allegedly".

Unbefuckinglievable.

Allegedly my ass.

Raw Story, at least, has now belatedly changed its headline, maybe due to those complaints from you and others:

Leaked video shows US forces killing reporters, civilians

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0405/video- ... reporters/

Hey, hey, Obam-ay,
How many kids did you kill today?

[whipstitch]

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0405/ret-in ... ted-rules/

I guess the "Rules of Engagement" have changed...

The Pentagon maintains that no crime was committed and no investigation will be carried out.

[Nordic]

Yeah, it took 24 hours for rawstory to change that headline.

And they're supposedly on "our side".

Greenwald's got a piece on this today:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... fghanistan

How Americans are propagandized about Afghanistan
BY GLENN GREENWALD

AP
Blood is seen near a shoe and a hairband inside a room where five members of an Afghan family were killed near Gardez, in Paktia province, Friday, Feb. 12, 2010.
(updated below - Update II)

On February 12 of this year, U.S. forces entered a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan and, after surrounding a home where a celebration of a new birth was taking place, shot dead two male civilians (government officials) who exited the house in order to inquire why they had been surrounded, and then shot and killed three female relatives (a pregnant mother of ten, a pregnant mother of six, and a teenager). The Pentagon then issued a statement claiming that (a) the dead males were "insurgents" or terrorists, (b) the bodies of the three women had been found by U.S. forces bound and gagged inside the home, and (c) suggested that the women had already been killed by the time the U.S. had arrived, likely the victim of "honor killings" by the Taliban militants killed in the attack.

Although numerous witnesses on the scene as well as local investigators vehemently disputed the Pentagon's version, and insisted that all of the dead (including the women) were civilians and were killed by U.S. forces, the American media largely adopted the Pentagon's version, often without any questions. But enough evidence has now emerged disproving those claims such that the Pentagon was forced yesterday to admit that their original version was totally false and that it was U.S. troops who killed the women:

After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.

One NATO official said that there had likely been an effort to cover-up what happened by U.S. troops via evidence tampering on the scene (though other NATO officials deny this claim). The Times of London actually reported yesterday that, at least according to Afghan investigators, "US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened."

What is clear -- yet again -- is how completely misinformed and propagandized Americans continue to be by the American media, which constantly "reports" on crucial events in Afghanistan by doing nothing more than mindlessly and unquestioningly passing along U.S. government claims as though they are fact. Here, for instance, is how the Paktia incident was "reported" by CNN on February 12:

It goes on ...... can't quote the whole thing, lots of links and blockquotes and the like .....

[Cordelia]

When I woke up this morning I heard about a five second announcement on NPR about the release of the tape.

This is one of two current board topics that makes me physically ill; the other one is children in danger. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27733

They feel linked to me, almost like a Cosmic 'Pied Piper of Justice' is extracting the most painful of payments from the two countries most responsible for heinous crimes against humanity, by luring their children into the darkest abyss.

(Or, as Mercutio cried as he lay dying: "I am hurt.
A plague o' both your houses!")

Edited to add another sickening topic about Iraq viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27770

[Cordelia]

WTF is going on?!?!? This makes no sense and hurts my brain. If it were up to me, I'd ban your ass 'round here, delta. How you have no empathy for others, YES, "even in the case of 'war'" and remain so strident about it, even though you know what this board is about and always has been, is perfectly beyond me. Unless. . .

This bothers me a lot, 82_28. Delta isn't a troll or an instigator, or writing in malice. Do you really want to ban someone if they differ from "what this board is about and always has been"? Which is what?

[82_28]

WTF is going on?!?!? This makes no sense and hurts my brain. If it were up to me, I'd ban your ass 'round here, delta. How you have no empathy for others, YES, "even in the case of 'war'" and remain so strident about it, even though you know what this board is about and always has been, is perfectly beyond me. Unless. . .

This bothers me a lot, 82_28. Delta isn't a troll or an instigator, or writing in malice. Do you really want to ban someone if they differ from "what this board is about and always has been"? Which is what?

Like everyone else, that clip angered me. As you note, my previous comment was "Please tell us this is a delayed April fool's joke" or however it went. And I want to apologize. No, no one should be banned. At the time, I was still trembling, tears and all. Maddy set me straight. She was right. I stayed away from the thread from that point forward. I had nothing more to add. Again, apologies.

I still don't understand though what went down. And yes, I have always considered this board anti-war and anti-fascist, pro intuition and pro empathy -- this is what I meant about this board. But again, I am sorry for creating any kind of hubbub or offending anyone whatsoever.

[apologydue]

I still don't understand though what went down. And yes, I have always considered this board anti-war and anti-fascist, pro intuition and pro empathy -- this is what I meant about this board. But again, I am sorry for creating any kind of hubbub or offending anyone whatsoever.

If people were banned from this forum for not agreeing with the majority opinion or admin's opinion this board would be a dung heap like DU and so many other dung heaps.

The fact that people can take their own stand (on most subjects anyway) is the main thing that keeps me reading this forum. I know I can come here and see disagreement and differing opinions. That is how I learn to see many sides and form more educated and intelligent opinions.

If I wanted news and commentary that followed a "party line" format style I can watch Fox News, CNN, Democratic Underground, National Public Radio, etc...

Diversity is what makes this place rock. I love the fact that the people on this forum are often willing to completely disagree with other posters. I might not agree with their stance, but after they have a chance to explain themselves, in some form or another, I usually come away from it with a different perspective on matters.

I have an anti fascist mindset but I wouldn't mind seeing fascists post just so that I can see what makes them tick. Their mindset would probably be offensive and sickening to me but I would defend their right to say what they feel. When we lose the right to voice our true opinions, no matter what they are, we all lose no matter what our beliefs are.

I'm sorry Delta Dawn feels the way he does, but I have no way of knowing how much hell and pain he has suffered at the hands of the establishment that formed his perspective. Whether I agreed with Delta Dawn or not, I bet if I sat and talked with him for a few hours I would see life differently in many respects. I might not agree with him, but I bet I would understand how his experiences formed his paradigm.

Sometimes we are not responsible for what we are and how we think. We are all a product of our experiences and sometimes we do not get to choose what those experiences are.

[tazmic]

From Americas Army 3 (The Game)

"I used to smirk inside when I heard the phrase 'Army Values'", thought Inhaesio Zha, a programmer for Pragmatic Solutions. "I'm a political leftist still shaking my head at why the American people by and large accept an unsubstantiated Al-Qaeda link as reason enough to occupy Iraq."

The next five days would change the way most of the team felt about the Army and its Seven Core Values.

[basic combat training]

Inhaesio Zha summarized his feelings this way:

"What I see is this. The Army is a beautiful machine, in the same way that a flower or a leopard is a beautiful machine. It has an aim and it accomplishes its aim perfectly."

[Uncle $cam]

Interestingly enough, I was in a sweat lodge this past weekend with several vets. The third round was of prayers for our brothers with PTSD, --of which I have also been labeled with, however, I'm not a vet-- it was intense and at that point, no longer able to hold it in, and in fear of a bad reaction I had to say what was on my mind. I spoke of many things, but the most scary was saying the following in a group of men. I said, "I suspect, there is a big difference in warriors and killers." And that while I do not support these wars, I do support our warriors, which are few, in the service to and of an immoral and illegal war for profit.

I had many shake my hand afterward.

[Maddy]

After seeing this, it has really brought home this, and all, war to me. I understood from an intellectual point of view, but I have never seen anything like this slaughter. I am still horrified. Now, I see headlines, such as "27 Taliban reported killed in western fighting" and "At least 7 blasts rip through Baghdad, killing 49", and all I am ever going to think of is, "Who was up there, laughing?"

[23]

Interestingly enough, I was in a sweat lodge this past weekend with several vets. The third round was of prayers for our brothers with PTSD, --of which I have also been labeled with, however, I'm not a vet-- it was intense and at that point, no longer able to hold it in, and in fear of a bad reaction I had to say what was on my mind. I spoke of many things, but the most scary was saying the following in a group of men. I said, "I suspect, there is a big difference in warriors and killers." And that while I do not support these wars, I do support our warriors, which are few, in the service to and of an immoral and illegal war for profit.

I had many shake my hand afterward.

Actually, I think that a more pertinent comparison would be between warrior and soldier.

They both kill.

But the purpose for, and manner of, their killing vary significantly.

[bks]

On the requirement that mainstream media report willful misconduct as good-faith mistakes:

The Presence of Malice
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/opinion/02moran.html

By RICHARD MORAN

South Hadley, Mass.

LAST week, Judge Nancy Gertner of the Federal District Court in Boston awarded more than $100 million to four men whom the F.B.I. framed for the 1965 murder of Edward Deegan, a local gangster. It was compensation for the 30 years the men spent behind bars while agents withheld evidence that would have cleared them and put the real killer — a valuable F.B.I. informant, by the name of Vincent Flemmi — in prison.

Most coverage of the story described it as a bizarre exception in the history of law enforcement. Unfortunately, this kind of behavior by those whose sworn duty it is to uphold the law is all too common. In state courts, where most death sentences are handed down, it occurs regularly.

My recently completed study of the 124 exonerations of death row inmates in America from 1973 to 2007 indicated that 80, or about two-thirds, of their so-called wrongful convictions resulted not from good-faith mistakes or errors but from intentional, willful, malicious prosecutions by criminal justice personnel. (There were four cases in which a determination could not be made one way or another.)

Yet too often this behavior is not singled out and identified for what it is. When a prosecutor puts a witness on the stand whom he knows to be lying, or fails to turn over evidence favorable to the defense, or when a police officer manufactures or destroys evidence to further the likelihood of a conviction, then it is deceptive to term these conscious violations of the law — all of which I found in my research — as merely mistakes or errors.

Mistakes are good-faith errors — like taking the wrong exit off the highway, or dialing the wrong telephone number. There is no malice behind them. However, when officers of the court conspire to convict a defendant of first-degree murder and send him to death row, they are doing much more than making an innocent mistake or error. They are breaking the law.

Perhaps this explains why, even when a manifestly innocent man is about to be executed, a prosecutor can be dead set against reopening an old case. Since so many wrongful convictions result from official malicious behavior, prosecutors, policemen, witnesses or even jurors and judges could themselves face jail time for breaking the law in obtaining an unlawful conviction.

Strangely, our misunderstanding of the real cause underlying most wrongful convictions is compounded by the very people who work to uncover them. Although the term “wrongfully convicted” is technically correct, it also has the potential to be misleading. It leads to the false impression that most inmates ended up on death row because of good-faith mistakes or errors committed by an imperfect criminal justice system — not by malicious or unlawful behavior.

For this reason, we need to re-frame the argument and shift our language. If a death sentence is overturned because of malicious behavior, we should call it for what it is: an unlawful conviction, not a wrongful one.

In the interest of fairness, it is important to note that those who are exonerated are not necessarily innocent of the crimes that sent them to death row. They have simply had their death sentences set aside because of errors that led to convictions, usually involving the intentional violation of their constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. Very seldom does the court go the next step and actually declare them innocent.

In addition, some of these unlawful convictions resulted from criminal justice officials trying to do the right thing. (A police officer, say, plants evidence on a defendant he is convinced is guilty, fearing that the defendant will escape punishment otherwise.) In cases like these, officers or prosecutors have been known to “frame a guilty man.”

The malicious or even well-intentioned manipulation of murder cases by prosecutors and the police underscores why it’s important to discard, once and for all, the nonsense that so-called wrongful convictions can be eliminated by introducing better forensic science into the courtroom.

Even if we limit death sentences to cases in which there is “conclusive scientific evidence” of guilt, as Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate and former governor of Massachusetts has proposed, we will still not eliminate the problem of wrongful convictions. The best trained and most honest forensic scientists can only examine the evidence presented to them; they cannot be expected to determine if that evidence has been planted, switched or withheld from the defense.

The cause of malicious unlawful convictions doesn’t rest solely in the imperfect workings of our criminal justice system — if it did we might be able to remedy most of it. A crucial part of the problem rests in the hearts and souls of those whose job it is to uphold the law. That’s why even the most careful strictures on death penalty cases could fail to prevent the execution of innocent people — and why we would do well to be more vigilant and specific in articulating the causes for overturning an unlawful conviction.

Richard Moran is a professor of sociology and criminology at Mount Holyoke College.

[DeltaDawn]

Feel like I should apologize for upsetting so many here, but as Maddy pointed out, (and thank you soo much, again) there was something in that video that 'triggered' me to the point, I felt I just stand up for our soldiers. You might have the wrong opinion of me, I'm Not pro-war but when our soldiers are sent out there, then we Must support them in every way possible!!!

ApologyDue, really expressed how I feel, if any one of you had lived my past, then maybe you'd understand my strong allegiance!!! Although, on funny note, would be DeltaDan, if I wasn't a Dawn

I don't support this atrocity, I just 'get' why those soldiers went and did against, what they believed to be insurgents/terrorists. We only have a squak box, with higher ranks who think they see in their computers what the real 'grunts' are out there living.

Ain't NOthing pretty about war, all suffer, not just the civilians, but the soldiers who do what they are told.

Meant no harm or malice by stating my support, just stating the 'other' side's view.

And thank you Uncle $cam, would shake your hand also, had I been there!!!

PTSD is a sad thing, especially when you deal with two types of it, childhood and military????? Walk only a half mile in my shoes....sigh!!!! Meant no one here harm, only had an opinion!!

[Uncle $cam]

DeltaDawn

And thank you Uncle $cam, would shake your hand also, had I been there!!!

Well, maybe. Because honestly, from my point of view, what I saw was cold blooded mass murder in that video. Killers. Not warriors.


23 wrote:

Actually, I think that a more pertinent comparison would be between warrior and soldier.

They both kill.

But the purpose for, and manner of, their killing vary significantly.

I see your point, but like the semantics of mine better. That's just me.