US troops talk about their actions in Iraq.

[theweaselking]

"My commander told me, 'Kill those who need to be killed, and save those who need to be saved', that was our mission on our first tour," he said of his first deployment during the invasion nearly five years ago.

Lemue continued, "After that the ROE changed, and carrying a shovel,or standing on a rooftop talking on a cell phone, or being out after curfew [meant the people] were to be killed. I can't tell you how many people died because of this. By my third tour, we were told to just shoot people, and the officers would take care of us"...

"We were encouraged to bring 'drop weapons' or shovels, in case we accidentally shot a civilian, we could drop the weapon on the body and pretend they were an insurgent," he said, "By the third tour, if they were carrying a shovel or bag, we could shoot them. So we carried these tools and weapons in our vehicles, so we could toss them on civilians when we shot them. This was commonly encouraged"...

"Apr. 18, 2006 was the date of my first confirmed kill," he said sombrely. "He was innocent, I called him the fat man. He was walking back to his house and I killed him in front of his father and friend. My first shot made him scream and look into my eyes, so I looked at my friend and said, 'Well, I can't let that happen', and shot him again. After my first kill I was congratulated."

Turner explained one reason why establishment media reporting about the occupation in the U.S. has been largely sanitised. "Anytime we had embedded reporters, our actions changed drastically," he explained. "We did everything by the books, and were very low key."

To conclude, an emotional Turner said, "I want to say I'm sorry for the hate and destruction that I and others have inflicted on innocent people. It is not okay, and this is happening, and until people hear what is going on this is going to continue. I am no longer the monster that I once was."

Comments

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I suppose there aren't enough reporters to go around, but the ideal might be to embed a reporter with every unit.

[autobotsrollout.livejournal.com]

Man, these guys are gonna get thrown under the bus when the crazy right finds out about this article.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

Since I just mailed this article to my mother in response to her sending me a "Wife of an Honourable Military Man Stands Up To Evil Liberal Naysayer in Restaurant, Proclaims Freedom isn't Free, gets bought dinner by Other Honourable Military Bystanders in Appreciation, Pray for Our Honourable Soldiers, Our God is an Awesome God and The US is a Christian Nation, Pass This On To Ten Of Your Friends Keep The Chain Going" - the kind that is a well-but-simply-written, entirely fictional story ...

I'd say, uhm, too late on the Crazy Right finding out about this kind of thing? They're still pumping out plenty of glurge propaganda onto their plain-folks-can't-bear-the-thought-of-being-part-of-an-evil-empire-gossip-web.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Man, I usually just Snopes those things. Mind you, my Mom doesn't tend to pass along stuff that's quite so politically charged.

(Though I *did* collect a bunch of information and links and send them along to her after we got into an argument about what did or did not happen to the 9/11-earmarked donations to the Red Cross. Factual inaccuracies drive me utterly batshit. Don't even get me started on the commonly circulated version of the McDonalds/coffee/suing incident.)

[elffin.livejournal.com]

Uhm, what?

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Erm--are you saying that particular article was fictional (as opposed to, say, one written by another author), or are you saying that the statements of the IVAW members were fictions?

[elffin.livejournal.com]

I won't call you a nasty name. I believe /ad hominem/ is a fallacy.

I will point out that you are committing an /ad hominem/ fallacy for discounting the article simply because it is written by "a known anti-war activist".

Accepting or discounting uncritically are both mistakes.

The article provides a place and time for the conference, names of the soldiers speaking - who can be tracked down and this story verified from them - and jibes with private accounts I've had from acquaintances who served.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

Questioning the credibility of a writer /to discount the stories of the people he is reporting upon/* is the definition of /ad hominem/.

They may not have been prosecuted because whomsoever would prosecute them cannot find corroboration, or may be under orders to not lend their story credence by prosecuting them.

every soldier in our armed forces is aware of the fact that their oath requires them to refuse to follow illegal orders.

Every soldier in our armed forces is also aware of the fact that refusing to follow illegal orders will get them shot in the head, blanket parties thrown, dishonourable discharges after being framed, etcetera etcetera.

A "merely rational" conclusion is that evidence doesn't exist. A comprehensive view of the nature of military service through the ages and how soldiers behave and how military units behave and are trained leads to the opposite conclusion.

Simply because these soldiers are being reported on by a particular reporter does not make their testimony any less credible.

EDIT: * added clause in // for clarity.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Uhm--is that "involved in" as in "was taken in by and reported on" or "involved in" as in "was actively attempting to deceive"? Clarity is key.

> They lack credibility and the onus is on them to provide evidence
> more substantial than testimony.

Is that statements from the IVAW specifically, or statements from every individual who claims membership?

> Since what they describe violates military code, and they haven't
> been prosecuted, the rational conclusion is that such evidence
> doesn't exist.

Actually, I think that's a bit of a leap. It requires the supposition that all violations of code or law committed by members of the US Army are prosecuted.[1]

Additionally, for the sake of clarity: it does not follow from a lack of evidence (voice recordings matched to the commanding officer? Film from a video camera that just happened to be handy and didn't get in the way of any more necessary equipment? Would you dismiss sworn testimony in a court of law as well?) that the events described didn't happen.

At some point, it may very well come down to a question of whose statement you choose to believe.

(I would feel that I was getting a much more balanced perspective if veterans or active soldiers came out and said there was no such behaviour going on. This does not appear to be happening. A link, if you ccould provide me with one, would be rather appreciated.)
---
[1] Oh, hey, look what the first link on the Top Headlines U.S. Army site was; I can't bold the "Under "restricted" reporting [of sexual assault], victims receive medical help and counseling, evidence is collected but no investigation is started." on the page. Golly gee, a special category of reporting which eliminates investigation of illegal behaviour.

And have I mentioned how much the social infrastructure's (not just the army's) treatment of the soldiers pisses me off?

[kadath.livejournal.com]

Since what they describe violates military code, and they haven't been prosecuted, the rational conclusion is that such evidence doesn't exist.

UCMJ violations in a war zone only tend to get prosecuted if they are the "striking a superior officer" sort, gore the ox of someone with connections, or become so publicly embarrassing the brass is left with no choice.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

(And can I just add the whole "Oh, the veteran is saying something that fits plausibly with examples of events that we do have evidence for, regulations say this would have been prosecuted so they must be lying and I'll call it all fiction!" is *right* up there on the list of disgusting ways for a society to treat its soldiers?)

(Thank you.)

[elffin.livejournal.com]

The claims are also not spectacular, when we know that the United States is using private mercenaries, the administration is claiming that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to those mercenaries, that Iraq is a domestic police action and therefore tear gas may be legally used on people, and when we know that our administration and the chain of command under him are trying their damndest to get away with an unprecedented amount of abuse, such as kidnappings from foreign soil, holding US citizens without due process because the President declared them a "terrorist", re-defining "torture" and overlooking, denying, and failing to pursue investigations - up to and including removing highly decorated military personnel from appointed posts for refusing to meet the "Don't ask and Don't Tell" policies regarding troop misdeeds, torture, abuse, neglect ...

This is hardly extra-ordinary. It's expected to anyone who studies human nature and has a basis in the science of human behaviour.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Well, the author is actually just claiming that those statements were made--that doesn't seem exactly "spectacular".[1] And IVAW is posting videos from the Winter Soldiers event, so it really shouldn't be hard to check.

At that point, of course, you can get into whether the veterans in question can produce evidence for their statements, and how reasonable you think it is to assume they're lying. But that is another detail.
---
[1] Honestly, nothing in the article strikes me as "spectacular". Depressing, yes. But spectacular? After the last three years? Not so much.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

presents no evidence for its spectacular claims and cannot be taken seriously.

#1: The claims are not spectacular. Video evidence of incidents of most of the things described can be found, trivially.

#2: They've got names of speakers, and those people have real, checkable records. Take a look.

Unfortunately, given the widespread and well-documented torture, rape, and murder of prisoners, and the documented behaviour of the same troops and the same mercenaries in other situations, believability is very strongly weighted to the people who say they did and witnessed these things.

Put another way: They're making entirely believable claims that are similar in nature to other events that we have absolutely no doubt of. This tends to mean that I want a reason to *not* believe them, rather than dismissing them as facially unbelievable.

[autobotsrollout.livejournal.com]

That you include Scott Beauchamp, whose sin was writing entirely plausible accounts of frontline life that weren't even terribly dramatic (oh, running over a dog, THAT'S AN ATROCITY) and then coming forward to claim the comments as his so politicized Army leadership could crucify his ass, as a fictionalizer - well.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

*thinks*

You appear to be accepting that there is evidence of examples of torture, rape, and murder.

You are also noting that there are examples (two? three?) of lying intended to denigrate soldiers (personally, I would have said intended to denigrate the army or the US, but take it as you see fit).

(The initial by-line of the story doesn't seem to be an issue, as you've been provided with a direct link to videos of the statement and an article written by a different individual. Either he is accurately reporting on the Winter Soldiers event, or he is not; in either case, you have dismissed it as "fiction" and have been given links to a primary source.)

Because the entire group of people recounting these new stories of unacceptable behaviour in the US Army were previously associated with one (two?) of the liars, you are chosing to dismiss all testimony given and label the (even cautious) acceptance of accounts which jibe with events for which there is substantial and repeated evidence as "credulity".

Okay. Good to know where you're coming from.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> Yes. Credibility, like virginity, is something you can't loose twice.

Ahhhh.

Okay. So because there's evidence of some US soldiers torturing people, you'll never again credulously take the word of a member of the US army who says they didn't do it, and demand that they produce evidence?

Kind of like because there's evidence of one member of IVAW lying, you'll never again credulously take the word of a member of IVAW who says that they're telling the truth, and demand that they produce evidence?

I gotcha. I kinda think the two things might be contradictory, but I gotcha. :)

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

It would be interesting to find out whether the (classified) ROE were altered, or whether this was simply a change implemented "unoficially" by word-of-mouth to NCO's by officers on the ground who were watching it all fall apart.

[sivi-volk.livejournal.com]

In response to a bunch of the above, didn't you previously post an article about snipers "baiting" in Iraq using materials that could be construed as suspicious? I remember reading about that in the Washington Post, I'm pretty sure.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

He did.

(Will be shot if I can find it on short notice, though--oh, damn, probably not the best phrase to use.)

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Actually, James Bermeister was one of the soldiers who broke that story.

Here you go:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/06/29/deserter-070629.html