View Full Version : More war crimes evidence against U.S. forces in Iraq


AJS
12-05-2004, 02:01 PM
Published on Saturday, December 4, 2004 by the Guardian/UK


You Asked for my Evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here It Is
In Iraq, the US Does Eliminate Those Who Dare to Count the Dead

by Naomi Klein


David T Johnson,
Acting ambassador,
US Embassy, London

Dear Mr Johnson,

On November 26, your press counselor sent a letter to the Guardian taking strong exception to a sentence in my column of the same day. The sentence read: "In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are no longer bothering to conceal attacks on civilian targets and are openly eliminating anyone - doctors, clerics, journalists - who dares to count the bodies." Of particular concern was the word "eliminating".

The letter suggested that my charge was "baseless" and asked the Guardian either to withdraw it, or provide "evidence of this extremely grave accusation". It is quite rare for US embassy officials to openly involve themselves in the free press of a foreign country, so I took the letter extremely seriously. But while I agree that the accusation is grave, I have no intention of withdrawing it. Here, instead, is the evidence you requested.

In April, US forces laid siege to Falluja in retaliation for the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees. The operation was a failure, with US troops eventually handing the city back to resistance forces. The reason for the withdrawal was that the siege had sparked uprisings across the country, triggered by reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed. This information came from three main sources: 1) Doctors. USA Today reported on April 11 that "Statistics and names of the dead were gathered from four main clinics around the city and from Falluja general hospital". 2) Arab TV journalists. While doctors reported the numbers of dead, it was al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya that put a human face on those statistics. With unembedded camera crews in Falluja, both networks beamed footage of mutilated women and children throughout Iraq and the Arab-speaking world. 3) Clerics. The reports of high civilian casualties coming from journalists and doctors were seized upon by prominent clerics in Iraq. Many delivered fiery sermons condemning the attack, turning their congregants against US forces and igniting the uprising that forced US troops to withdraw.

US authorities have denied that hundreds of civilians were killed during last April's siege, and have lashed out at the sources of these reports. For instance, an unnamed "senior American officer", speaking to the New York Times last month, labeled Falluja general hospital "a center of propaganda". But the strongest words were reserved for Arab TV networks. When asked about al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya's reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed in Falluja, Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defense, replied that "what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable ... " Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja - but this time the attack included a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time around.

Eliminating doctors:

The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy casual ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.

But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical center" before it was hit.

Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.

Eliminating journalists:

The images from last month's siege on Falluja came almost exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. Al-Saadi's detention has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists. "We cannot ignore the possibility that he is being intimidated for just trying to do his job," the IFJ stated.

It's not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003, US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city. Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates of its location to US forces.

On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing José Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso's family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.

Eliminating clerics:

Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too have many of the clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both had spoken out against the Falluja attack".

"We don't do body counts," said General Tommy Franks of US Central Command. The question is: what happens to the people who insist on counting the bodies - the doctors who must pronounce their patients dead, the journalists who document these losses, the clerics who denounce them? In Iraq, evidence is mounting that these voices are being systematically silenced through a variety of means, from mass arrests, to raids on hospitals, media bans, and overt and unexplained physical attacks.

Mr Ambassador, I believe that your government and its Iraqi surrogates are waging two wars in Iraq. One war is against the Iraqi people, and it has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. The other is a war on witnesses.
.
.
So what do you think people - should we continue to "Support The Troops"? Are you proud of the U.S. Military now?

Snakebit
12-05-2004, 02:43 PM
.
.
So what do you think people - should we continue to "Support The Troops"? Are you proud of the U.S. Military now?
Yes we should support them and yes I am proud of them.

Fredrico
12-05-2004, 05:10 PM
Yes we should support them and yes I am proud of them.

"Those who live by the gun, die by the gun." Good luck to ya, pal.

Snakebit
12-05-2004, 05:22 PM
"Those who live by the gun, die by the gun." Good luck to ya, pal.
Those without a gun may fall victim to those with one! Those young men and women in uniform are YOUR luck.

Fredrico
12-05-2004, 05:33 PM
Those without a gun may fall victim to those with one! Those young men and women in uniform are YOUR luck.

Good or bad?

Snakebit
12-05-2004, 05:50 PM
Good or bad?
Better than you deserve.

AJS
12-05-2004, 08:13 PM
Yes we should support them and yes I am proud of them.

Are you saying you support the killing and arresting of doctors, reporters, and religious non-combatants, just so that the word on this barbarism doesn't get out to the world? If so, you should be in Iraq waiting for the next car bomber to drive by. Better yet if you were captured by the guerillas.

Snakebit
12-06-2004, 04:45 AM
Are you saying you support the killing and arresting of doctors, reporters, and religious non-combatants, just so that the word on this barbarism doesn't get out to the world? If so, you should be in Iraq waiting for the next car bomber to drive by. Better yet if you were captured by the guerillas.
I'm saying that I believe the oficial version of why those moves were made rather than the one you put forth here. You gave a description of actions that have already been explained.

Your question was do I still support and respect the troops in Iraq and my answer to both questions was yes. Do you?

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 07:37 AM
I'm saying that I believe the oficial version of why those moves were made rather than the one you put forth here. You gave a description of actions that have already been explained.

Your question was do I still support and respect the troops in Iraq and my answer to both questions was yes. Do you?
Yes...but I hate some of their members actions.

Spunout
12-06-2004, 07:41 AM
I have heard Naomi at lectures. Very good speaker. Very smart, and always backs up her facts with research. She had done a very good lecture as part of the Massey Lecture series on the business side of the war in Iraq. It would have made Michael Moore's jaw drop.

Snakebit
12-06-2004, 08:24 AM
[QUOTE=Spunout]I have heard Naomi at lectures. Very good speaker. Very smart, and always backs up her facts with research. She had done a very good lecture as part of the Massey Lecture series on the business side of the war in Iraq. It would have made Michael Moore's jaw drop.[/QUOTE)
I don't dispute the facts, it's the conclusions that I believe are wrong. Of course we took control of those hospitals, we didn't close them, just took control. The reporters who were banned were part of a propaganda machine and I am fine with them being blocked. We have media coverage and not all of it shows us in a positive light but it is more balanced than Al Jazeera. Many of those clerics are long overdue for being arrested. They are fomenting hatred not furthering the religion of peace and love we keep hearing Islam represents.

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 08:35 AM
They are fomenting hatred not furthering the religion of peace and love we keep hearing Islam represents.
Is that the same peace and love that Christianity is supposed to represent?

Snakebit
12-06-2004, 08:57 AM
Is that the same peace and love that Christianity is supposed to represent?
I'm not sure.

AJS
12-06-2004, 09:56 AM
U.S. military doctrine has never been to occupy hospitals as the first of an urban objective, and the conflict in Iraq is no different. Certainly it was not taught in the Tactical Guerilla or Urban Warfare classes at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School where I studied. It was done in Falluja in order to silence any reports of casualties coming out, and Rumsfeld's tactics were continued the next week when they went into Mosul.

War crimes, plain and simple.

Al Jazeera's reporting is no more of a "propaganda machine" than the distortions and scrubbed reports that are spoon-fed to the U.S. media by the Bush Admin. Both sides have a duty to report and show the situation as it is found. But there's no way to make the intentional slaughter of non-combatants look OK.

Snakebit
12-06-2004, 10:11 AM
U.S. military doctrine has never been to occupy hospitals as the first of an urban objective, and the conflict in Iraq is no different. Certainly it was not taught in the Tactical Guerilla or Urban Warfare classes at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School where I studied. It was done in Falluja in order to silence any reports of casualties coming out, and Rumsfeld's tactics were continued the next week when they went into Mosul.

War crimes, plain and simple.

Al Jazeera's reporting is no more of a "propaganda machine" than the distortions and scrubbed reports that are spoon-fed to the U.S. media by the Bush Admin. Both sides have a duty to report and show the situation as it is found. But there's no way to make the intentional slaughter of non-combatants look OK.

There are a lot of things in this conflict that are new to the situation. the hospitals and mosques have been used as bases and amunition dumps in this conflict. As such, they either come off the protected list or remain a free zone for our enemies to regroup for new attacks. We chose to remove them from the equation because this fight was to completion, not a political excursion. Hard decisions were made with good reason by courageous people responsible for our interests.

The actions of our military are not spoonfed to our media, there are reporters with the various groups involved in the attacks. Al Jazeera is not a credible source of information and the casualty reports from those hospitals was not either. There isn't much balance to your attacks either. You are willing to accept any report that condemns our actions here without qquestion and to deny credibility to any response from our own government or forces.

bill105
12-06-2004, 10:17 AM
Is that the same peace and love that Christianity is supposed to represent?


bashing Christians again? seems to be a hobby of yours. i think rufus is going to have a flag buring party at his place today after work. are you going?

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 10:17 AM
You are willing to accept any report that condemns our actions here without qquestion and to deny credibility to any response from our own government or forces.
And you do the opposite and rely solely on the words of our government so that puts you at loggerheads.

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 10:18 AM
bashing Christians again? seems to be a hobby of yours. i think rufus is going to have a flag buring party at his place today after work. are you going?
How is holding Christians up to a standard that they profess to have bashing? Methinks you protest too much Bill.

bill105
12-06-2004, 10:19 AM
How is holding Christians up to a standard that they profess to have bashing? Methinks you protest too much Bill.

what standard would that be?

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 10:21 AM
what standard would that be?
Are you denying that Christians say that they venerate peace and love?

bill105
12-06-2004, 10:23 AM
Are you denying that Christians say that they venerate peace and love?

i'm not denying anything but your asking questions in an accusatory way in response to a post questioning islamic clerics. how is bringing Christianity into the conversation relevant? or are you just trying to change the subject because the poster is right about the clerics and their actions?

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 10:32 AM
i'm not denying anything but your asking questions in an accusatory way in response to a post questioning islamic clerics. how is bringing Christianity into the conversation relevant? or are you just trying to change the subject because the poster is right about the clerics and their actions?
Because I think Christian values are extremely relevant in this situation. It may even be a contributing factor as to why we are currently at war with Iraq.

AJS
12-06-2004, 10:36 AM
There are a lot of things in this conflict that are new to the situation. the hospitals and mosques have been used as bases and amunition dumps in this conflict. As such, they either come off the protected list or remain a free zone for our enemies to regroup for new attacks. We chose to remove them from the equation because this fight was to completion, not a political excursion. Hard decisions were made with good reason by courageous people responsible for our interests.

The actions of our military are not spoonfed to our media, there are reporters with the various groups involved in the attacks. Al Jazeera is not a credible source of information and the casualty reports from those hospitals was not either. There isn't much balance to your attacks either. You are willing to accept any report that condemns our actions here without qquestion and to deny credibility to any response from our own government or forces.


Well, you've got to spin it somehow, hmm? Nice try, but no cigar.

bill105
12-06-2004, 10:48 AM
Because I think Christian values are extremely relevant in this situation. It may even be a contributing factor as to why we are currently at war with Iraq.


really? what Christian values were used by the admin in promoting the war? and yes, Christians promote peace and love. what they dont promote is denying a problem and having your people attacked.

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 10:58 AM
really? what Christian values were used by the admin in promoting the war? and yes, Christians promote peace and love. what they dont promote is denying a problem and having your people attacked.

In GWs case...dominionism.

"I saw heaven open and there before me was a white horse who is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war...He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and his name is the word of God...Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the Nations. And I saw an angel standing in the sun who cried in a low voice to all the birds flying in midair--come gather together for the great supper of God, so you may eat the flesh of kings, generals and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great. --Revelations 19"

bill105
12-06-2004, 11:20 AM
In GWs case...dominionism.

"I saw heaven open and there before me was a white horse who is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war...He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and his name is the word of God...Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the Nations. And I saw an angel standing in the sun who cried in a low voice to all the birds flying in midair--come gather together for the great supper of God, so you may eat the flesh of kings, generals and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great. --Revelations 19"


so does that mean you dont have any sources or quotes of the bush admin supporting the iraq war based on Christian principles?

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 11:21 AM
so does that mean you dont have any sources or quotes of the bush admin supporting the iraq war based on Christian principles?
I'd just like to know any compelling reason we went over there in the first place. Absent of that, I'd have to suspect a vendetta or something that GW hasn't disclosed to the public.

bill105
12-06-2004, 11:28 AM
I'd just like to know any compelling reason we went over there in the first place. Absent of that, I'd have to suspect a vendetta or something that GW hasn't disclosed to the public.


i'll take that as a.. " no. i have no data, quote, nothing to support my previous allegation. "

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 11:33 AM
so does that mean you dont have any sources or quotes of the bush admin supporting the iraq war based on Christian principles?
The man claims God talks to him and he can't provide any legitimate reason for invading a sovereign nation pre-emptively other than to force feed them "democracy" so I have to suspect his religious views might have made it more likely we went to war. It couldn't be about oil, or to appease Israel, could it?

Bocephus Jones II
12-06-2004, 11:34 AM
i'll take that as a.. " no. i have no data, quote, nothing to support my previous allegation. "
What do you want to hear? That Bush said he went to war because God told him the end times were coming and he was to play a part? He's dumb, but not that dumb.

AJS
12-06-2004, 02:18 PM
In GWs case...dominionism.

Dominionism arrived at through fascism.

cycleaddict
12-06-2004, 03:12 PM
Amuricans that think the same way that B105 and Snakebit do. No matter what they read about the "war", they choose to believe that things are rosy in Iraq and that the real story is that the media is distorting the picture. No amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds. As long as our foreign policy is carried out in the name of Jesus, they are content.

This is what the rest of the civilized world sees as a very scary direction--they've seen it before.

Fredrico
12-06-2004, 05:33 PM
Those without a gun may fall victim to those with one! Those young men and women in uniform are YOUR luck.

If a terrorist attacked me or my fellow citizens, I would fight back with all the resources at hand, and gladly give my life to save my country, without question. I am equally adamant that I must speak out when the leaders of my country act in ways that are immoral, go against the principles of human digninity, self-determination, true freedom, and international law. I see both as my moral obligation as a citizen and patriot.

When the people, intimidated for being unpatriotic or traitorous, don't speak out against the abuses of their government leaders, despots easily take over and do what they want, without accountability. That's how Hitler came to power. The people didn't question his policies, his tactics, his stated aims, or his actions, until it was too late. They had been hoodwinked into WWII. Six years later, they suffered a fate far worse than the World Trade Center destruction and the death of 6000 innocent civilians.

Those who blindly follow their leaders in adventurist military campaigns in foreign lands are aggressors, not defenders. They march into battle singing patriotic songs with great fervor, misty eyed before the fluttering Stars and Stripes and the beat of the drums, on their way to becoming heroes for the folks back home. When they enter the nightmare of battle, how else are they to justify the deaths of their comrades, the terrible pain and sacrifice, other than it being absolutely necessary to ensure the continued freedom of their homeland? Once they see the truth, that they are pawns in their leaders' political games, or power grabs, their patriotism is betrayed, their sacrifices become a joke. How else can the Swift Boat Veterans be explained? So blind they were to the realities they were facing in Vietnam, so hung up on doing their duty to the country back home, they couldn't handle the truth when John Kerry and many others told it. There were many Nazis who felt similarly betrayed by Hitler long after his defeat, but lived in denial until their deaths.

I say bring the troops home as soon as possible. They have no right to be there. Bush had no right to send them there. They're unjustly being ordered to kill thousands of innocent civilians caught in the cross-fire, and cover up the evidence. Abu Graib prison is the symbol of this war. The best intentions of American idealism can't change that. Let's hope the Iraqi people can pull together and work out their problems, so that this shameful chapter in American history can come to a close.

Snakebit
12-06-2004, 05:54 PM
If a terrorist attacked me or my fellow citizens, I would fight back with all the resources at hand, and gladly give my life to save my country, without question. I am equally adamant that I must speak out when the leaders of my country act in ways that are immoral, go against the principles of human digninity, self-determination, true freedom, and international law. I see both as my moral obligation as a citizen and patriot.

When the people, intimidated for being unpatriotic or traitorous, don't speak out against the abuses of their government leaders, despots easily take over and do what they want, without accountability. That's how Hitler came to power. The people didn't question his policies, his tactics, his stated aims, or his actions, until it was too late. They had been hoodwinked into WWII. Six years later, they suffered a fate far worse than the World Trade Center destruction and the death of 6000 innocent civilians.

Those who blindly follow their leaders in adventurist military campaigns in foreign lands are aggressors, not defenders. They march into battle singing patriotic songs with great fervor, misty eyed before the fluttering Stars and Stripes and the beat of the drums, on their way to becoming heroes for the folks back home. When they enter the nightmare of battle, how else are they to justify the deaths of their comrades, the terrible pain and sacrifice, other than it being absolutely necessary to ensure the continued freedom of their homeland? Once they see the truth, that they are pawns in their leaders' political games, or power grabs, their patriotism is betrayed, their sacrifices become a joke. How else can the Swift Boat Veterans be explained? So blind they were to the realities they were facing in Vietnam, so hung up on doing their duty to the country back home, they couldn't handle the truth when John Kerry and many others told it. There were many Nazis who felt similarly betrayed by Hitler long after his defeat, but lived in denial until their deaths.

I say bring the troops home as soon as possible. They have no right to be there. Bush had no right to send them there. They're unjustly being ordered to kill thousands of innocent civilians caught in the cross-fire, and cover up the evidence. Abu Graib prison is the symbol of this war. The best intentions of American idealism can't change that. Let's hope the Iraqi people can pull together and work out their problems, so that this shameful chapter in American history can come to a close.
That was a long winded position declaration....and wrong.

Fredrico
12-06-2004, 06:34 PM
That was a long winded position declaration....and wrong.

I just wanted to be understood, but apparently not. I guess you respect authority too much to ever question it. The Army's looking for guys like you.

AJS
12-06-2004, 06:53 PM
Obviously, Snakebit is stunned by reality when it's pointed out to him, and has no rational defense.

See GWB's first debate against Kerry.

Snakebit
12-06-2004, 07:07 PM
I just wanted to be understood, but apparently not. I guess you respect authority too much to ever question it. The Army's looking for guys like you.
You gave a long list of unproven opinion to substantiate your position. I understood you. You are wrong.

AJS
12-06-2004, 07:43 PM
Like I said: "has no rational defense."

Snakebit
12-07-2004, 03:04 AM
Like I said: "has no rational defense."
Rational? In a discussion with you? You don't like anything about this country and that proves how much you love it. Now that's rational.

AJS
12-07-2004, 04:07 AM
Rational? In a discussion with you? You don't like anything about this country and that proves how much you love it. Now that's rational.

Here, let me rephrase that for you: ""You don't like anything about this president or Congress and that proves how much you love your country. Now that's rational."