by Gordon Duff
IF THERE IS ONE VIDEO THEN THERE IS TEN OR A HUNDRED
DID BUSH WHITE HOUSE AUTHORIZE WANTON MURDER OF CIVILIANS IN IRAQ?
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
Today’s leak of an uncensored 2007 Iraq combat video showed troops operating without any regard for international law, rules of war and human decency. This “real” video does one thing, it proves the others we have been seeing for years to be either staged events or total fabrications. The rules of engagement observed in the leaked video tell the exact same story that the leaked photos did of our prison torture.
If America believed it is legal to torture and call it “interrogation” then it is just as likely that our former Attorney General, advising Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and working closely with President Bush and Cheney had authorized equally illegal rules of engagement.
The “real” rules, as demonstrated, seem to allow, not only the wanton killing of civilians. I am familiar with the region and with typical rules of engagment. There were a number of misrepresentations made, serious inconsistencies. Such inconsistencies under these circumstances, involving evidence withheld, misrepresented and outright lies are war crimes, murder and conspriacy.
Seldom have so many done so much to violate so many laws, all starting from what may have been mistakes but soon moved into outright wanton murder.
- When the initial “armed group” was spotted and tagged with planning an attack on an American convoy, there was no convoy nearby. In fact, it turned out they were miles away.
- The “armed group” was not a militia group at all but appeared to be two camera men/reporters with a number of unarmed civilians and two armed security people, each carrying their weapons in a manner considered less than threatening. No RPG was seen.
- None of the “fighters” were dressed as militia, nor did they have extra ammunition, grenades or heavy weapons. In fact, it seemed odd that only two people would have weapons in such a large group of unarmed people. That they were with Reuters news staff made this even clearer.
- Clear misrepresentations of the position of nearby forces, the threat implied, the number and type of weapons seen were made. The crew of the Apache was “fishing” for permission to fire and misrepresenting the nature of the threat.
- When the group was attacked, including the unarmed civilians who proved to be news crew, attacked though always unarmed, never a threat, never aggressive and fired on although they never posed any threat, continual misrepresentations of fact were made. Unarmed and never armed civilians were slaughtered.
- When, somewhat later, a civilian vehicle drove up and attempted to render aid, it was clearly misrepresented that this was part of the original group. This assumption was utterly groundless and not based in reality. There was no reason to think of the second group as anything but totally innocent people rending aid. Now weapons were seen and only aid, as required by law, was administered.
- The order to fire on this unarmed ambulance, found to contain two small children was a war crime, and in no way consistent with any possible interpretation of rules of engagement. Only through misrepresentation of fact and violation of rules of engagement, was the attack made.
- It was relatively clear that the only reason for the attack was amusement, seeing damage done to a vehicle. Never did a passenger in the vehicle display a weapon or act in a threatening manner. They were clearly giving medical aid only. It was admitted several times that the reason for the attack was to prevent them from rendering medical assistance to the wounded, in violation of international law and the rules of engagement.
News sources make too much of the tone of voice and too little of the continual misrepresentations or simply lying if you will that all involved in this incident had involved in.
A careful examination of all statements made when compared to what was seen will show continual inconsistencies indicating an obvious pattern of intent to attack the intital group said to threaten an American force miles away, a force that could never have been threatened nor harmed by a group of people who were largely unarmed and only secured in a dangerous environment by a small force with minimal small arms.
The attack on the second group was murder. Everyone involved in the crime or subsequent misstatements about the crime is guilty of a felony and deserves punishment.
This was no accident, there was no confusion, this was simple murder done, as it seemed, with the surety that murder was a policy of state and that killing innocent and unarmed civilians could be done with impunity. The suppression of the film and the continual lies since has made it clear that such a policy of criminal acts did, in fact, exist and that those who supported the initiation of this and other such attacks need to be made accountable.