[News] U. S. Military Kills Pregnant Women, Government Officials and Journalists

[Anti-Imperialist News]

http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz04062010.html

April 6, 2010


U. S. Military Kills Pregnant Women, Government Officials and Journalists

Covering Up Civilian Deaths

By STEPHEN SOLDZ

The recent news brought reports of two incidents in two countries 
where US troops killed civilians and then lied to cover up the 
evidence. These are but the latest of a steady stream of lies from 
military and Pentagon sources about the killing of civilians.

Afghanistan: Killing Pregnant Women and Government Officials

In Afghanistan, the military has finally 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?ref=world>admitted 
that Special Forces troops killed two pregnant Afghan women and a 
girl in a February raid in which 
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7060395.ece>Afghan 
government officials were also killed, according to excellent 
reporting by Jerome Starkey of The Times of London. They have, 
however, failed so far to account for their falsehoods spanning 
several months.

Previously the military had insisted that they killed 
"terrorists,"  and claimed that the women were killed by knife wounds 
administered several hours before the raid. But now it appears that 
the knife wounds may have been inflicted by the Special Forces troops 
excavating their bullets from the dead or dying women's bodies. As 
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7087637.ece>The 
Times' Starkey reported Monday:

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, Afghan investigators have told The Times.

Military spokespersons went further in attempting to cover up the 
killing by 
<http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00440>attacking 
Starkey, the reporter who challenged the official story. As Starkey explained:

[T]hey [US military] have... tried hard to discredit me, personally, 
for bringing this to the world's attention. In an unprecedented 
response to my original story about the Gardez night raid they 
<http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/isaf-releases/isaf-rejects-cover-up-allegation.html>named 
me individually, twice, in their denial of the cover up.

They claimed to have a recording of my conversation which 
contradicted my shorthand record. When I asked to hear it, they 
ignored me. When I pressed them, they said there had been a 
misunderstanding. When they said recording, they meant someone had 
taken notes. The tapes, they said, do not exist.

In this case, as in so many, one can only assume that there was a 
deliberate attempt to cover up US involvement in the killing. 
Otherwise, officials would long ago have admitted their error and, 
one hopes, taken action against those responsible for the combat 
errors and the lies that followed. One wonders, for example, who told 
military officials about the knife wounds? If those wounds were, in 
fact inflicted by Special Forces troops trying to cover their 
mistake, then someone is responsible for relaying this false 
information. Or was the information known all along to be false by 
those relaying this claim to the press? Were the officials just 
hoping that the press would tire of exploring the incident, allowing 
their falsehoods to stand?

Iraq: Shooting Photographers From the Air

The news also brings evidence of another civilian massacre, this time 
from a  July 27, 2007 incident near Baghdad in Iraq. 
<http://wikileaks.org/>Wikileaks 
<http://www.collateralmurder.com/>released a video apparently showing 
a US helicopter crew firing upon a group of Iraqis hanging out on a 
street corner, and on a van that stopped to carry the wounded to the 
hospital. Over a dozen people, including two Reuters reporters, were 
killed and two children in the van were wounded.

As in the Afghan incident, the military initially denied that any 
error had taken place. The New York Times article on the incident was 
entitled 
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED81E3EF930A25754C0A9619C8B63>2 
Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias, relaying 
the military's false account in the headline. The article also 
relayed the US account in the text:

The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 
people had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According 
to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they 
were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The 
American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In 
the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and 
nine insurgents were killed.

In the video we see the incident from the perspective of the 
helicopter gunship.

While those in the helicopter assumed those on the ground had 
weapons, there are no weapons apparent, though it is possible that 
one person may be armed, hardly a rare occurrence in Iraq. And, more 
important, there is no conflict and no shots or RPGs are fired at the 
Americans. Rather, there are the Reuters photographers hanging out 
with a relaxed group of other Iraqis making no attempt to hide until 
deadly fire is rained down upon them from the helicopter.

When a van pulls up, no attempt is made to identify the van or its 
occupants before they are blown away, with permission of an authority 
on the other end of the radio. Several men from the van were killed 
along with two children.

With the video, we see that the US military account, while perhaps 
believed by officials immediately after the incident, could not have 
been believed by anyone who examined the evidence.

Also apparent in the video is the glee with which the troops executed 
their attack, laughing as people were killed, cheering when a Bradley 
tank drives over a body, and blaming the Samaritans in the van who 
stopped to help the wounded for the wounded children:

"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle. " [From 
the <http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html>transcript.]

After seeing the video, it is easy to explain why the military has 
for years <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965>refused 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965>Reuters permission to 
view it. The US military has been systematically lying, covering up 
the killing of over a dozen Iraqis.

Occupation

In neither the Afghan nor Iraqi incidents is there reason to believe 
that the killings of civilians were intentional. What is more 
disturbing is that, in both cases, they seem to be, rather, the 
result of routine actions. These deaths are the expectable result of 
occupations by foreign troops who view the citizens of the occupied 
country as potential enemies. Such situations are inevitably going to 
lead to dehumanizing of the occupied population, who may, after all, 
harbor "enemies" at any moment. In Iraq, the Iraqis 
<http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz01232007.html>are called "hajis" by 
the occupiers. One is less careful about killing "hajis" than one 
would be when killing one's peers.

These types of incidents, and the dehumanizing attitudes behind them, 
are facilitated by the "force protection" concept underlying the 
occupation. Military and political leadership know that domestic 
support for the occupation cannot be sustained if US casualties grow 
too rapidly. Thus, an emphasis is put on protecting US troops in 
ambiguous situations, increasing the risk to  civilians.

The troops involved are less to blame than are those who sent them to 
occupy another people's land. For the dangers of dehumanization in 
war are well known, as are its increased risk in counterinsurgency 
situations. Every occupation, indeed, virtually every war has its 
massacres. Those in charge know this while pretending otherwise to 
the people back home. Hence the need for lies, lies, and lies.

Unfortunately, they usually get away with their deceit. And, in only 
a few instances is there any accountability for the lies.

Thankfully, in the two instances recently in the news, brave 
reporters risked personal attacks and threats to ferret out the 
truth. But how many such incidents can they investigate? Despite 
their efforts, occupation and lies will continue to exist together. 
While accountability for the liars should be sought, it is even more 
important to pull our troops out of these foreign lands they do not understand.

Note: The video was released through the intensive efforts of 
Wikileaks staff. Unfortunately, the Wikileaks web site has not been 
operating at full capacity for several months due to a financial 
shortage. Why not <http://wikileaks.org/>contribute to help them 
remain available to uncover future abuses. As the traditional 
investigative media collapse, we need sites like Wikileaks more than ever.

Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health 
researcher, and faculty member at the <http://www.bgsp.edu/>Boston 
Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He edits the 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/>Psyche, Science, and 
Society blog. He is a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical 
Psychology, one of the organizations working to change American 
Psychological Association policy on participation in abusive 
interrogations. He is President-Elect of 
<http://psysr.org/>Psychologists for Social Responsibility [PsySR]. 
He can be reached at: <mailto:ssoldz at bgsp.edu>ssoldz at bgsp.edu




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100406/1bea24aa/attachment.htm>