Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

On March 12, 2006 a 14-year-old Iraqi girl named Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi was brutally gang raped and murdered in the village of Mahmoudiya. Members of her family, including her 5-year-old sister were also murdered. Five American soldiers stand accused of these heinous crimes. The preliminary hearing for four of the accused soldiers is currently taking place in Iraq.

CNN reported on the graphic testimony earlier today in an article on its website. However, something was curiously absent from the coverage. Below is a screen shot from CNN’s report:

Notice the caption under the picture: "Steven Green is alleged to have shot and killed the woman’s relatives, raped the victim, then fatally shot her." Since when have you heard of a 14-year-old being referred to as a "woman"? In fact, this article never once refers to Abeer as a "girl", instead referring to her as "an Iraqi" or a "woman". Only toward the end of the article do we learn that:

Identity cards and death certificates obtained by Reuters news agency suggest the rape-murder victim was 14 years old.

And further down still:

The identity cards and death certificates of the victims, obtained by Reuters, show that the alleged rape victim was Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, with the birthdate August 19, 1991. The mayor of Mahmoudiya confirmed her identity and birthdate to CNN.

The U.S. military had previously referred to the alleged rape victim as a "young Iraqi woman." A Justice Department affidavit in the case against Green says investigators estimated her age at about 25, while the U.S. military said she was 20.

Thank you CNN for some excellent reporting!

CNN also filed a second story on the hearing this evening. This time someone at CNN figured out that a 14-year-old is not a woman. Here’s a screen shot from the second article from CNN:

This time Abeer is referred to as a "girl" all throughout the article. In fact the contrast between the first and the second articles could not be greater. (Someone still forgot to update the caption under the photo).

It appears that by the second story editors at CNN may have decided to give up trying to spin this story. This crime is so heinous that no amount of lipstick will pretty up the facts.

Try as it might, CNN failed to capture the ambience at the hearing. Reuters reports on the seriousness of the proceedings:

Defense Attorney Captain Jimmie Culp was blowing chewing gum bubbles while Yribe, sitting to his left, began sucking on a red lollipop during the testimony.

Apparently testimony about the brutal rape and murder of a child is best enjoyed with bubble gum and lollipops.

Hearts and minds. No doubt CNN was thinking about hearts and minds when it massaged the facts just a bit in the first story of the day. Considering the levity at the hearing and the willingness of the media to shape the story, I wonder if the Iraqis think that they will ever get any justice from the Americans.

Israel late Saturday night killed more than 60 Lebanese civilians including at least 34 children in an airstrike on a building in the Lebanese village of Qana. I was up last night blogging as part of the Blogathon 2006 charity event when the news flashed on CNN.

The Israeli defense of their actions was articulated last night by a very angry young IDF spokesman on CNN. He insisted that Israel was not to blame for killing civilians because of the following reasons:

• Hezbollah started it.
• Hezbollah fired rockets from around the village of Qana.
• Israel asked civilians to flee Southern Lebanon therefore cannot be held responsible for killing the ones who stayed behind.

In a combative interview with CNN International’s Shihab Rattansi, the IDF spokesman insisted that it was Hezbollah who was to blame and Israel was only defending herself. So, this is Israel’s idea of self-defense. Most sane people call this a war crime.

First, let’s list the facts:

• Israel fired a missile at a civilian building in Qana.
• Over 60 civilians were killed.
• Zero Hezbollah were killed. 

Last night, the CNN anchors kept asking the openly exasperated CNN reporters who had been to the scene if they had seen any rocket parts at the scene. To which one CNN reporter (I believe it was Karl Penhaul) replied, with frustration in his voice, that he had seen lots of dead children, and body parts, but he had yet to see a rocket part. Tonight as I write this, General David Grange is on CNN complaining that Hezbollah waits for Israelis to kill civilians and then videotapes the scene for political purposes. He complained that there was "overreaction" on the part of the international community. His only suggestion for Israel was that perhaps they should change tactics because they were losing the propaganda war.

I have news for General Grange, it was CNN who was on the scene of this one rather quickly. It was CNN reporters who were visibly shaken by this incident. No amount of spin from you or anyone else will wash away this war crime.

Here’s is how The Guardian newspaper saw the war crime:

It was an unremarkable three-storey building on the edge of town. But for two extended families, the Shalhoubs and the Hashems, it was a last refuge. They could not afford the extortionate taxi fares to Tyre and hoped that if they all crouched together on the ground floor they would be safe.

They were wrong. At about one in the morning, when some of the men were making late night tea, an Israeli bomb pulverised the house. Some witnesses describe two explosions a few minutes apart, with survivors desperately moving from one side of the building to the other before being hit by the second blast. By tonight, more than 60 bodies had been pulled from the rubble, said the Lebanese authorities, 34 of them children; there were only eight known survivors.

The bombing, the bloodiest single incident in Israel’s 18-day campaign against Hizbullah, drew instant condemnation from around the world and sparked furious protests outside the UN headquarters in Beirut. The Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, accused Israel of committing "war crimes" and called off a planned meeting with the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. Israel apologised for the loss of life but said it had been responding to rockets fired from the village.

Mohamad Qassim Shalhoub, a slim 38-year-old construction worker, emerged with a broken hand and minor injuries, but he lost his wife, five children and 45 members of his extended family. "Around one o’clock we heard a big explosion," he said. "I don’t remember anything after that, but when I opened my eyes I was lying on the floor and my head had hit the wall. There was silence. I didn’t hear anything for a while, but then heard some screams."

"I said: ‘Allahu Akbar [God is great]. Don’t be scared. I will come.’ There was blood on my face. I wiped it and looked for my son but couldn’t find him. I took three children out - my four-year-old nephew, a girl and her sister. I went outside and screamed for help and three men came and went back inside. There was shelling everywhere. We heard the planes. I was so exhausted I could not go back inside again. "

Ibrahim Shalhoub described how he and his cousin had set out to get help after the bombs hit. "It was dark and there was so much smoke. Nobody could do anything till dawn," he said, his eyes still darting around nervously. "I couldn’t stop crying, we couldn’t help them."

Said Rabab Yousif had her son on her knee when the first bomb fell.

"I couldn’t see anything for 10 minutes and then I saw my son sitting in my lap and covered with rubble," she recalled. "I removed the dirt and the stones I freed him and handed him to the people who were inside rescuing us.

"I then started freeing myself, my hands were free, and then went with two men to rescue my husband. We pulled him from the rubble. I tried to find Zainab, my little daughter, but it was too dark and she was covered deep in rubble I was too scared that they might bomb us again so I just left her and ran outside." She was in hospital with her son and husband, who was paralysed and in a coma. There was no news of her daughter.

In addition to being a war crime, this is also an act of cowardice by Israel. Faced with the launching of a rocket containing up to a 90-pound warhead, Israel’s response was to launch a bunker buster to destroy a nearby building. Given that these rockets, the Katyushas, are small enough to be man portable, what is the military justification of using a bunker buster bomb to destroy a mobile launcher? What was Israel trying to achieve?

It seems to me if Israel wanted to take down a guerrilla force like Hezbollah, they would engage in ground combat with them. But, perhaps it is easier to bomb buildings full of civilians rather than to fight men with guns. That is an act of a coward. At the beginning of this conflict, Israel’s military already stated Israel’s intention to go after civilians and civilian infrastructure:

Israel called Wednesday’s abductions an act of war, and Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of Israel’s Northern Command, said he has "comprehensive plans" to battle Hezbollah throughout Lebanon, not just in its southern stronghold.

"This affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon," Adam said. "Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate — not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts." (Watch as Israeli forces enter Lebanon — 2:29)

Earlier, Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel’s Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon’s clock back 20 years."

"Everything is legitimate" indeed! Seldom have war criminals declared their intentions so plainly ahead of the crime.

Who else is complicit? Why, it is the Bush Administration. Fragments found at the site of the bomb that murdered the women and children had this label on it: "GUIDED BOMB BSU 37/B". That is the label of an American 5000 pound bunker buster, courtesy of the Bush Administration. Just last week the Bush Administration rushed a new shipment to Israel so they could blow up more civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Today, as the entire world demanded an immediate ceasefire, the United States stood alone at the United Nations in rejecting any cessation of hostilities. Just as it did last week, the United States has blocked a ceasefire. In doing so, it is complicit in this Israeli war crime.

The most disingenuous comment on this tragedy so far has come from none other than George W Bush:

President Bush on Sunday renewed his call for a "sustainable peace" in the Middle East while his administration urged Israel to avoid civilian casualties in the wake of a deadly airstrike in Lebanon.

"Our hope for peace for boys and girls everywhere extends across the world, especially in the Middle East," the president said before the start of a T-ball game at the White House.

"Today’s actions in the Middle East remind us that friends and allies must work together for a sustainable peace particularly for the sake of children," Bush told the teams of youngsters and visitors. [Emphasis added by me.]

George W Bush pays lip service to the killing of Lebanese children while supplying the very bombs that killed them. A reporter asked Mr. Bush after his comments if he was putting principle ahead of lives. Mr. Bush walked away without answering - no doubt with thoughts of his "culture of life" agenda dancing through his otherwise empty thoughtscape.

Ehud Olmert began this orgy of killing to rescue 2 Israeli soldiers. What has he achieved so far? He has killed civilians in their homes. He has killed civilians as the fled the carnage. He has killed civilians in ambulances. His warplanes have strafed civilians as they lay dying on the highways of Lebanon. His missiles have found their mark on the helpless forms of sleeping infants.

What has he achieved? He has failed to damage Hezbollah. In fact, Hezbollah is stronger today than they were at the beginning of this conflict. Hezbollah is stronger today because of Ehud Olmert’s actions and George W Bush’s inactions. The only certainty is that the blood of Lebanese children is on Olmert’s hands. This stain will not wash off - no matter how much spin and what justification is spun by Israel or the Bush Administration.

Israel says it needs two more weeks to bring Hezbollah to heel. Instead what Israel will get is two more weeks of killing civilians. Hezbollah will do just fine.

This war is over save the killing.

In Vietnam, the United States Military carried out many missions in what the military calls "Free-Fire Zones" . These "zones" where areas where, according to the military’s "rules of engagement", an unidentified person was considered an enemy and the soldiers could shoot anyone they considered hostile. Activities in "free-fire zones" have led to massive civilian casualties and would have been violations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The sergeant who led the raid in Haditha has indicated through his lawyer that he and his squad did not violate the "rules of engagement" and did not intentionally kill innocent civilians. He conceded that "collateral damage" had occurred but it was not intentional:

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He’s really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

The Marines’ defense strategy for the Haditha massacre is beginning to emerge. According to the lawyer, the Marines received AK-47 fire from the direction of the houses where the civilians were later killed by the Marines. After receiving fire, the Marines attacked the houses:

A four-man team of Marines, including Wuterich, kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it, Puckett said. They then kicked in that door, tossed a fragmentation grenade into the room, and one Marine fired a series of "clearing rounds" through the dust and smoke, killing several people, Puckett said.

The Marine who fired the rounds — Puckett said it was not Wuterich — had experience clearing numerous houses on a deployment in Fallujah, where Marines had aggressive rules of engagement.

Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women and children — most likely civilians – they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said. The Marines stealthily moved to the second house, kicking in the door, killing one man inside and then using a frag grenade and more gunfire to clear another room full of people, he said.

Wuterich, not having found the insurgents, told the team to stop and headed back to the platoon leader to reassess the situation, Puckett said, adding that his client knew a number of civilians had just been killed. [Emphasis added by me.]

The sergeant is claiming that the "rules or engagement" allowed them to enter and fire indiscriminately inside civilian homes without confirmation that there were enemy elements inside. They also entered a second house on a hunch that someone may have left the first house and gone to the second house. They proceeded to kill the occupants of the second house based on their hunch. The door that was left ajar apparently was by the woman fleeing the massacre with the surviving infant.

The sergeant’s explanation of the killings in the third house is as follows:

After going through the houses, Wuterich moved a small group of Marines to the roof of a nearby building to watch the area, Puckett said. At one point, they saw a man in all-black clothing running from one of the houses they had searched. The Marines killed him, Puckett said.

They then noticed another man in all black scurrying between two houses across the street. When they went to investigate, the Marines found a courtyard filled with women and children and asked where the man was, Puckett said.

When the civilians pointed to a third house, the Marines attempted to enter and found a man with an AK-47 inside, flanked by three other men; the first Marine to enter tried to fire his weapon, but it jammed, Puckett said. The Marines then killed those four men.

It is worth noting that this explanation differs from the Iraqi version of events. The apparent point blank gunshot wounds also contradicts the sergeant’s version of events. This explanation also directly contradicts the two versions of events offered by the Marine Corps to the press. The sergeant’s lawyer believes that those versions were the result of "miscommunication".

The irony here is that if the Marine sergeant is successful in his defense, then the Marines who committed the killings will be innocent but the United States Military will be guilty. Either these killings were perpetrated in cold blood by rogue Marines or these killings were a result of very loose "rules of engagement".

Let us assume for a moment that the sergeant is telling the truth and the "rules of engagement" allow American soldiers to go into Iraqi civilians’ homes and shoot everyone inside without establishing that they are the enemy. Let us assume that it is good enough for American soldiers in a civilian populated urban area to establish that gunfire originated from the general direction of some houses and then to enter those houses and kill everyone inside. The obvious question is how many more massacres have taken place under these "rules of engagement"?

These "rules of engagement" are a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. If in fact, the United States is an "occupying power" in Iraq, which it certainly is, it has the obligation to protect the civilian population. Iraqi urban areas with civilian populations are not enemy territory. This is a counter-insurgency, not a war on a battlefield. You cannot indiscriminately shoot women and children. You cannot assume that someone is the enemy first. If you are doing that, you are committing war crimes. If the United States Military "rules of engagement" in Iraq allow for the killing of persons in their homes indiscriminately, those "rules of engagement" are designed to lead to war crimes.

For those who might be tempted to answer that this is a "different" kind of war and the enemy has no regard for human life and hides within the civilian population, I say to you learn some history. This is not the first counter-insurgency operation in the history of the world. All insurgents have hidden within the civilian population. If the Bush Administration has decided that it must kill civilians in order to stop the insurgency than it should say so. Instead of hiding behind the nonsense of how we have "freed" the Iraqis, we should just admit that we consider them the "enemy" and we are ready to kill them without provocation. Let the chips fall where they may and let the world cry war crimes! After all, who will try the United States? We have not ratified the International Criminal Court.

So, here is the ugly reality then. Either the Marine squad is guilty of war crimes, or the United States is guilty of war crimes. Take your pick. The outcome is not pretty. Either way, the people of Iraq are losing their lives as freedom continues to march over their corpses.