Pentagon opens civilian claim files against military: Chilling accounts of fatalities

Related
ACLU Releases Files on Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq: See story and link to database following this story.
---
Chilling accounts of civilian fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan released under freedom of information act.

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Friday April 13, 2007
The Guardian

Chilling accounts of hundreds of fatal encounters between the US military and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing a rare glimpse of the confusion and chaos of daily life in the conflict zones, were released by the Pentagon yesterday under the freedom of information act.

Four hundred and ninety-six files deal with Iraqi claims for compensation for family members killed by US forces between 2003 and 2006 and 17 from Afghanistan. The files, including handwritten notes from some of the soldiers involved, record the deaths of civilians killed mainly at checkpoints, or in their homes, or when US forces sprayed roads with gunfire to protect convoys.

---

---

Many of the deaths result from a failure of communication between US forces, most of whom do not speak Arabic, and civilians. Among the files is one relating to a mother shot dead and her two children wounded when the taxi they were in went through a checkpoint at Baqubah, north of Baghdad, in February last year.

The US defence department file said: "While the matter is still under investigation, there is evidence to suggest that the warning cones and printed checkpoint signs had not yet been displayed in front of the checkpoint, which may be the reason why the driver of the taxi did not believe he was required to stop." The case has since been resolved and the US military has paid out $7,500 (£3,750).

Another file, from the 101st Airborne Division, deals with a claim for $4,800 from a father whose son was shot dead in a car at a checkpoint between Baghdad and Kirkuk in 2005. A sergeant dealing with it writes: "How was he supposed to know to get out of the vehicle when they fired warning shots? If I was in his place I would have stayed put too." In spite of his comments, the claim was turned down.

The defence department paid out $2,500 in another case, near Tuz in eastern Iraq, in which four family members were killed at their home in March 2004. The file records that more than 100 rounds were fired, so indiscriminate that 32 sheep and a cow were also killed.

The files were released after a request by the American Civil Liberties Union and amount to only a fraction of civilian deaths at the hands of US troops and the compensation claims lodged. Of the 496 Iraq claims released yesterday, cash payments were made in 164 cases.

Marc Garlasco, a spokesman for Human Rights Watch, said what he found shocking was the lack of consistency in deciding who was entitled to compensation.

---

ACLU Releases Files on Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq (4/12/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Americans Have a Right to Unfiltered Information About the Human Costs of War, ACLU Says

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today made public hundreds of claims for damages by family members of civilians killed or injured by Coalition Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ACLU received the records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request it filed in June 2006.

The hundreds of files provide a vivid snapshot, in significantly more detail than has previously been compiled and released, of the circumstances surrounding reports of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Since U.S. troops first set foot in Afghanistan in 2001, the Defense Department has gone to unprecedented lengths to control and suppress information about the human costs of war," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Our democracy depends on an informed citizenry, and it is critical that the American people have access to full and accurate information about the prosecution of the war and the implications for innocent civilians."

The ACLU pointed out that during both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Defense Department has instituted numerous policies designed to control information about the human costs of war. These policies include:

• Banning photographers on U.S. military bases from covering the arrival of caskets containing the remains of U.S. soldiers killed overseas;
• Paying Iraqi journalists to write positive accounts of the U.S. war effort;
• Inviting U.S. journalists to "embed" with military units but requiring them to submit their stories for pre-publication review;
• Erasing journalists' footage of civilian deaths in Afghanistan; and
• Refusing to disclose statistics on civilian casualties.

The files made public today are claims submitted to the U.S. Foreign Claims Commissions by surviving Iraqi and Afghan family members of civilians said to have been killed or injured or to have suffered property damages due to actions by Coalition Forces. The ACLU released a total of 496 files: 479 from Iraq and 17 from Afghanistan. The documents released by the ACLU are available online in a searchable database at www.aclu.org/civiliancasualties

Most of the Iraq claims range from early 2003 to late 2006; the majority are from 2005. Most claims from Afghanistan are from May 2006, with one dating back to 2001. Based on the number of deaths represented and the variation in number and location of claims per year, the ACLU said it believes there are additional documents being withheld and is pressing the Defense Department to disclose them all.

Of the 496 files, 198 were denied because the military found that the incidents arose "from action by an enemy or resulted directly or indirectly from an act of the armed forces of the United States in combat," which the military calls "combat exclusion."

Of the 496 claims, 164 incidents resulted in cash payments to family members. In approximately half of the cash payment cases, the United States accepted responsibility for the death of the civilian and offered a "compensation payment." In the other half, U.S. authorities issued "condolence" payments, which are discretionary payments capped at $2,500 and offered "as an expression of sympathy" but "without reference to fault." Claims based on incidents that were not reported in the military's "SIGACT" ("significant act") database, despite eyewitness corroborations, are generally denied for compensation although a condolence payment may be issued.

The files provide a window into the lives of innocent Afghans and Iraqis caught in conflict zones. In one file, a civilian from the Salah Ad Din (PDF) province in eastern Iraq states that U.S. forces opened fire with more than 100 hundred rounds on his sleeping family, killing his mother, father and brother. The firepower was of such magnitude that 32 of the family's sheep were also killed. The Army acknowledged responsibility and the claim resulted in two payments: a compensation payment of $11,200 and a $2,500 condolence payment. In another file, a civilian in Baghdad states that his only son, a nine-year-old (PDF), was playing outside when a stray bullet hit and killed him. The Army acknowledged responsibility and paid compensation of $4,000.

"As these files remind us, war imposes heavy burdens on innocent civilians," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Director of the ACLU's National Security Program. "Although these files are deeply disturbing to read, they allow us to understand the human cost of war in a way that statistics and the usual platitudes do not."

The ACLU noted that a significant number of the files - 92 of 496 - relate to deaths at checkpoints (50 files) or near American convoys (42 files). In one file, a civilian states that his son drove up to a checkpoint (PDF) in Kirkuk, was shot at through the roof of the car and hit in the abdomen; he later died from his wounds. An e-mail in the file from an Army sergeant states: "How was he supposed to know to get out of the vehicle when they fired warning shots? If I was in his place I would have stayed put too." The claim was denied although the sergeant suggested that the civilian might seek a condolence payment.

In another file, a civilian states that his mother was killed (PDF), his four-year-old brother suffered shrapnel wounds to the head, and his sister was shot in the leg after the taxi they were riding in ran through a checkpoint in the eastern Iraq town of Baqubah. An Army memorandum states: "[T]here is evidence to suggest that the warning cones and printed checkpoint signs had not yet been displayed in front of the checkpoint, which may be the reason why the driver of the Taxi did not believe he was required to stop." The Army suggested a condolence payment of $7,500. It is not known whether it was granted.

Attorneys on the FOIA project are Jaffer and Nasrina Bargzie of the national ACLU.

In a separate project, the ACLU filed a FOIA request in October 2003 for records concerning the abuse of prisoners held by U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay. To date, that request has resulted in the release of more than 100,000 pages, all of which are available online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia. Litigation regarding that FOIA request is ongoing.

The War of Terror and the US “National Interest”

by Kim Petersen

March 28, 2007

Why is it that US politicians feel compelled to appear before a small, delimited section of the United States and pronounce unwavering support for Israel -- which is de facto support for ethnic cleansing and slow motion genocide? Why is it the administration of a superpower feels forced to address this small segment of the US population? Is this in the US “national interest”?

US vice president Dick Cheney, a major figure in the drive to invade and occupy Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, claims that it is in the interest of US security. He shirks responsibility for the massive devastation wreaked by the occupiers in Iraq and denounces critics of the destruction for exercising 20/20 hindsight. But many progressive commentators were opposed prior to the invasion-occupation of Iraq. They had attacked the nugatory evidence for Iraq’s possession of outlawed weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) as propagandistic.

While eschewing hindsight, Cheney has the audacity to claim foresight. This past 24 March, Cheney spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition leadership in Florida. He said, “But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance: A sudden withdrawal of our coalition [in Iraq] would dissipate much of the effort that has gone into fighting the global war on terror, and result in chaos and mounting danger.”

Cheney declaimed, “We must consider . . . just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our other efforts in the war on terror, to our interests in the broader Middle East, and to Israel.”

Let’s consider this. First, besides exposing the fraudulent casus belli of possessing WMD, the aggression of Iraq adduced that it was no threat by quickly toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein. The aggression has given rise to a vigorous resistance that has dented the notion of an invincible US military. Second, as Cheney noted, it was not US interests in Israel, but US interests to Israel! Why does the US vice president genuflect to Jewish-Israeli interests? Certainly Palestinian-Israeli interests are not considered.

Twice this month in the build-up to an attack on Iran, Cheney has spoken publicly to Jewish groups but not publicly to Arab or Muslim groups. But that is not surprising, as the enemy is identified as being among Arabs and Muslims, and there is no talking to that “enemy.” Cheney stated, “An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for negotiations. . . . The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive -- facing the threat directly, patiently, and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed.”

The Bush-Cheney regime’s focus is on violence. “The first priority is to remember that we are a nation at war . . .” So in Iraq, there is a push for a troop build-up, and in Afghanistan the US and NATO forces prepare for further violence.

Cheney undermined his raison d’être for the invasion-occupation of Iraq when he stated the mission’s focus is based on the “attacks of September 11th, 2001, and the loss that morning of nearly 3,000 innocent people here in the United States.” Iraq’s involvement in those attacks has never been demonstrated. None of the 9-11 suspects were Iraqi. No connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been demonstrated. Yet, Cheney asserted ex cathedra that Iraq’s non-involvement is a myth.

Cheney concluded, “If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us.”

It is easy to demonize the “enemy” with language, but what is clear is that the killing of one million Iraqis is a genocidal campaign. Americans and citizens of the world do have a choice: support US terrorism and the continued destruction of the cradle of civilization or stand for peace.


Kim Petersen, Co-Editor of Dissident Voice, can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org.

West Point prof says torture encourages enemy to fight to the death rather than surrender

West Point: Canada way off-base on Afghan PoWs

Harpers disturbingly shallow grasp of the strategy and tactics (condoning torture) is counterproductive.

The Prime Minister may believe that talking like a cowboy about the Taliban and human rights make the government appear tough. But in reality, it only makes it dangerous, both to the mission, and our soldier's lives.

It would rob our soldiers of possibly their single most important tactical and strategic tool – moral integrity.

RE: U.S. Lt-col. and professor at West Point, David Grossman book On Killing:

Adhering to the Geneva Conventions and treating PoWs humanely is of supreme strategic and tactical importance to any organized army.

In short, enemy forces are much more willing to surrender when secure in the knowledge that in doing so they will be treated fairly and humanely. Otherwise they will fight to the death and inflict greater casualities - even in a losing effort.

In Iraq: “America's moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets. It saved innumerable lives ..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PM off base over Afghan PoWs

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments regarding the Liberal's "passion" for the Taliban reveals the government's disturbingly shallow grasp of the strategy and tactics necessary to win in Afghanistan.

In his landmark book, On Killing, a U.S. Army lieutenant-colonel and professor at West Point, David Grossman, describes the psychological implications of killing, both legally and illegally, in battle.

Of specific interest is the psychological argument and historical evidence that explain why adhering to the Geneva Conventions and treating PoWs humanely is of supreme strategic and tactical importance to any organized army.

In short, enemy forces are much more willing to surrender when secure in the knowledge that in doing so they will be treated fairly and humanely. Enemies that believe otherwise are likely to fight to the death and inflict greater casualities even in a losing effort.

During WW-II, the Allies' adherence to the Geneva Convention resulted in German soldiers surrendering to U.S. forces in large numbers. This was in sharp contrast to the experience of the Soviets, who cared little for PoWs.

IRAQ: Lieutenant Paul Rieckhoff, who fought in Iraq and then founded and became executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, makes a similar argument regarding today's conflicts.

Prior to the Abu Ghraib debacle, he noted how "(O)n the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America's moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets. It saved innumerable lives ..."

When MPs and ordinary Canadians ask questions about the treatment of Afghan prisoners they don't do so out of contempt, but out of a deep respect and concern for Canadian soldiers. Canadians know we can ill afford to treat enemy combatants inhumanely. They know this because it is in opposition to our values and our very purpose in Afghanistan.

However, they also know there is a compelling military reason: It would rob our soldiers of possibly their single most important tactical and strategic tool – moral integrity. Without this, who knows how many Canadian lives will be needlessly lost in battles where an insurgent, believing that surrender is tantamount to execution, instead opts to fight to the death.

The Prime Minister may believe that talking like a cowboy about the Taliban and human rights make the government appear tough. But in reality, it only makes it dangerous, both to the mission, and our soldier's lives.

NATO to Legalize Afghanistan's Opium?

SPIEGEL ONLINE - March 27, 2007, 12:04 PM

THE POPPY PROBLEM

Despite efforts to eradicate Afghanistan's opium production, the problem keeps getting worse. And the Taliban insurgency is the primary beneficiary. Now, some European governments are weighing a legalization of the drug trade.

Corruption. Crime. Addiction. And money for the Islamist Taliban insurgency. The list of ills engendered by opium and heroin production in Afghanistan is long. So too is the list of buyers -- the country accounts for over 90 percent of all opium produced on the planet. And international efforts to cut that output have proven fruitless.

But a change of strategy may be on the horizon. Governments in Berlin, Paris and Rome, along with NATO leadership are discussing a potentially explosive new idea: the legalization of Afghanistan's opium production. The plan envisages farmers being able to sell their poppies to officially licensed buyers for the same price they currently get from the drug barons. The product could then be sold to the pharmaceutical industry for pain medication and other products.

"We are not bringing drug cultivation under control with the concepts we have had up to now," a NATO general responsible for Afghanistan told SPIEGEL.

A quick glance at production statistics proves the general's point. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) found that the amount of raw opium produced in Afghanistan in 2006 had increased by 49 percent over the previous year to around 6,100 tons. Much of the proceeds -- an estimated $3 billion -- are pumped back into the Taliban, as the Islamists continue to gain ground against NATO and US forces in the southern part of the country.

Worse, battling opium production is made more difficult by the country's instability. Zalmai Afzali, a spokesman for Afghanistan's Ministry of Counter Narcotics told Reuters earlier this month: "If we do not have peace in the coming months, we will probably end up with another boom in opium production for 2007."

The UN also suspects that many in the Afghan government may be complicit in the opium trade. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's brother is likewise suspect.

So far, the coalition forces and the Afghan government have focused on trying to eradicate the poppies used to produce opium and heroin and attempting to convince poor farmers to plant something else. The US likewise prefers destroying poppy crops. The strategy, though, has served to force many desperate farmers into the arms of the Taliban.

Legalization, though, could pose its own risks. Critics of the plan warn that as long as some members of the state apparatus are in the pay of the drug barons, the legalized cultivation of poppies could just serve to increase their income.

spiegel

---

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH