Incompetence, deliberate or a genuine mistake?
 

I'm surprised no-one's started a thread on this yet.

The kidnapped Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena believes that it was no accident that US troops shot at her car as she made her way to Baghdad airport after being freed from her kidnappers. She claims that the US targeted her as they are vehemently against negotiating with kidnappers (it is claimed that a sum of up to $10million was paid for her release), but the US (obviously) deny this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4323361.stm

Myself, I still think it was just gross negligence on the part of the trigger-happy (and probably spaced-out) US troops. If they really wanted her dead, she would be.

But it does shed new light on the other, similar incidents that "merely" involved some poor Iraqi families. Sgrena's bodyguards were experienced military personnel who had passed through numerous checkpoints before - they were very familiar with the procedure. They all claim to have received no warnings, either lights, arm-waving or shots in the air. They also say they were not speeding, travelling at only 40-50kph.

Makes you wonder if there exists a policy of "shoot first, make up excuses later."

Scary stuff, hard to know who/what to believe when it comes to that war

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I doubt seriously the soldiers was "spaced out" considering the extensive drug testing the military does. Trigger happy maybe, but if you seen suicide bombers on a daily basis I surmise you would be just a little trigger happy yourself in the same situation. I vote to allow the investigation to be completed before hanging the blame on anyone. There will be tremendous political pressure applied on the military to do a proper investigation.

By "spaced-out" I'm refering to the practice of distributing amphetamines among selected personnel in the armed forces in order to keep them on the job longer (due to the well-publicised troop shortage).

I was actually thinking about this myself. What probably happened, is that the terrorists negotiated with Italian/European socialists bent on the destruction of America. As part of the negotiations for the release of the reporter, they were instructed to rush the American checkpoint in an attempt to create an international incident to create more anti-American feeling. Any survivors were to deny that they did anything wrong, so that there would be outcry against the "trigger happy" or "spaced-out" American soldiers in Iraq. Looks like they succeded, score one for socialism and terrorism worldwide.

Not to mention sarcasm.

"The US military, who said troops fired on the speeding car after it failed to stop, has opened a full investigation.

...

She said Italian officials knew her car was on the airport road and she assumed they had informed the Americans. "

So, somone forgot to make a phone call and let guards know that the good guys wee coming, the good guys assumed that the call had been made, and a speeding car came toward the roadblock with the driver showing no intent of stopping. That's what has happened when insurgents drove car bombs into roadblocks in the past, so that's what the guards assumed was ahppening. There's no conspiracy. We're not shooting our allies because their governments paid for a hostage to be released.

The simplest explanation is most likely the right one, and the simplest explanation is that the guards thought they were about to be bombed and shot at the car to stop that from happening.

MrSelfDestruct youre mostly right, but there are certain problems with this case.
The Car passed 2 or 3 checkpoints before without a problem, they were not speeding (according to the rescued hostage), they were shot by a patrol not at a checkpoint.
It sounds like the soldiers were overly nervous (quite understandably) and overreacted.

*Agrees with Pacifier, mostly*
Patrol not informed? Someone missed a link in the communications chain? Occam's razor all over again. It's likely that someone forgot that there was a patrol out around there and missed making a vital call.

Maybe I have a cynical view of reporters but I think she's jumping on this to get herself a little more attention, adding a few more minutes to her fifteen. She has been anti-american in her writings to date, this is a prime opportunity to lob a few more insults to the US military and government.

I have to agree with DJ, if the US military wanted her dead she would be. This was most likely a horrible yet honest mistake.

Please explain
 

Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Our military is very anti-drug. I would like to know what branch and units are practicing the distribution of amphetamines? What proof do you have?

if you watch the film "control room"

or read this, which covers much teh same information:

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Journa...ings_Fisk.html

or this:

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../01/16/1524222

or this:

http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?index=2509&Language=EN

and connect it to this:
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/stor...432655,00.html

it is clear that the americans have been at the least enforcing in their special way the notion that being part of the pooled press is better for the health of journalists than actually reporting what might be going on.

the implication above, that somehow folk who try to report on what is happening outside the limits of the pooled press are necessarily "antiamerican" and therefore (by implication) expendable is really nauseating.

as is the refusal to consider that what the press pool gets from american military officials might--just might--be false.

the whole idea of a tightly enforced press pool was tried out by the british during the falklands war. it was picked up by the reagan people and routinized. it is a mechanism that works to eliminate what the right sees still as the cause of the delusion they call "the vietnam syndrome"--that opposition to the war in vietnam was fueled by allowing the press to report on what was going on without having the american military spin built into the information itself.

that this is the case, and has been, should give anyone--anyone at all, regardless of your position on the war in iraq in general--pause when it comes to thinking about particular controversial actions.

that control of information is part of war is not a surprise: that you would believe this controlled information is a surprise. it seems to me totally irresponsable intellectually.

Wouldn't it be nice if people gave the benefit of the doubt to our troops instead of to a journalist for a communist newspaper and a govt that paid a ransom for the woman's release?

A number of friendly fire incidents have been blamed on US forces being under the influence of amphetamines, which although increase alertness and reduce fatigue (while under the influence) also severely impair judgment and rationality:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...406-iraq02.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...868547,00.html


I don't believe this could merely be blamed on a communication breakdown. Even if the troops didn't know that Sgrena was on the road, there is a procedure they have to follow. They can't just go around shooting at anything that moves. I do think that this was a mistake, but there have been too many mistakes like this one. Only this time it involved people other than some Iraqis, who nobody seems to care about anyway.

like i said, in a context shaped by a tightly pooled press, it is intellectually irresponsible to not treat releases from the military as questionable. it is not a matter of giving individual troops the benefit of the doubt or not. it is a question of understanding the nature of the information you are being fed.

ncb: do you imagine that reporters for residual left papers should be shot? it is a pretty loathesome position. quite a champion of a diversity of views....

So "communist negotiators" equates to "liars"? Why?

US troops have been given the benefit of the doubt for years when it comes to these kind of incidents. But the incidents never stop. How long should you just "give the benefit of the doubt" before you realise that there is something seriously wrong?

I read about this.

I also read some of the thing's she's reported on and many of her articles (more like rants against America), and suddenly all validity seemed to vanish.

I agree that they were probably charging a checkpoint, were shot at to stop (read: no casualties) and now are making a huff about it because they can.


There's a LOT of assumptions in that part alone... leading to some very hefty finger pointing without cause.

No.

Communist journalists who spew out anti-American rhetoric in their papers equates people with an agenda.

Also, they should no longer get the benefit of the doubt when car bombs and suicide bombers are no longer blowing our boys to smithereens. Can we at least agree on that?

In the same vein, you could say that the troops knew she was coming and that they shot at her because they regard her as anti-US.

Given the huge number of incidents like this one that have happened in Iraq, and the fact that they had already passed through numerous other checkpoints without incident, why on earth would you just assume that they would charge a checkpoint while ignoring repeated warnings? And what do you mean by "no casualties"? One of her bodyguards died.

ncb: so you really are saying that reporters for left newspapers are expendable.
and you are rationalizing that by the usual mawkish nonsense about "our boys"

in the middle of the above post, you talk about "people with an agenda"--which obviously means they should die and no-one should say anything about it. but if you think about it, the american military press officials are folk with an agenda too...how do you square that?

And the furtherment of that agenda is to charge a checkpoint, get shot at (but pray that you don't die in the process), so that you can show the world how horrible Americans are? That seems somewhat far-fetched to me.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your last point either. Being at war should not lead to an alleviation of responsibility.

1. I'm not saying it was done intentionally, but it is clear that the Italians were not sensative (nice lib word ;)) to the realities of what is happening in this war. Our soldiers have been killed in scores by cars doing exactly what the Italians were doing. Do you not find any fault with the Italians, either by their driving tactics or their lack of communication with the Iraqi or US security forces?

2. The rules of engagement in war are different than the ROE for police officers. The only alleviation of responsibilty in this case would have been if our troops did not fire upon a speeding car coming to our checkpoint

Your articles both refer to pilot incidents of Friendly fire. Where are the reports of drugs and fratricide from the boys on the ground?

Why could it have not been a communication error? Most deaths from friendly fire are just that. Communications errors. Having been through a "communication error." And lived. Which is more than I can say for two of our other troops. I can tell you they do occur more often than reported. But none of the infantry units I have been with tolerate the use of drugs. This might be accepted with the fly boys. But not on the ground in the RA. I cannot understand how you feel we do not care about the Iraqi's. Nice try.. but I won't jump. :lol:

What do you mean "the Italians were not sensitive to the realities of what's happening in this war"? I don't understand what you'd have them do differently. According to them, they were not speeding and received no warnings. You think they should just accept that driving along the road is cause to get shot? Your thinking seems to justify the targeting of any car on the road.

Do all cars traveling on the roads have to check in with the US forces in order to prevent getting killed? How can you say that the Italians failure to communicate their plans is another justification for US troops to shoot at them?

You fail to address some simple points in your arguments - the people in this car had been through numerous checkpoints before and were well-versed in the procedure that should be adopted when approaching one, and had successfully done so many times previously. They were experienced military personnel who knew what's what, yet you still say that they were just speeding down the road ignoring all the warnings. It just doesn't stack up.

First of all, if you were held hostage for a month then released, would you expect to do your own communications to get out of the country? And where is a link that there was a lack of communication on their part. They were the ones shot at, not the other way around. Or does the U.S only provide for a safe exit if it is one of their own?

And how can you say responsibility would be eclipsed if they didn't open fire? Are the U.S forces so incapible of stopping a vehicle that they need to shot the shit out of it first? Is there one patrol covering hundreds of square miles? Hopefully the next time Rumsfeld is on the road to the airport after a pep talk those 21st century hi tech communications will be in working order.

Or maybe the attitude in my signature is more widespread than people realize.

If it is distributed to pilots, then why wouldn't it be distributed to ground troops? I know there is no evidence that they were definitely under the influence, but given the above, how can you say that it is definitely out of the question?

If it you're blaming it on a communication breakdown, you're implying that everyone who uses the roads in Iraq has to inform the US troops of their movements. I don't see how that is plausible.

150m is pretty fucking far away to be saying they they were 'charging' a checkpoint. Something isn't right.

according to the italians, the car had never gone more than 40 km/hour and had come to a stop when they were fired upon. according to the italians. the american command was informed of the efforts to gain the release of guiliana sgrena.

the american story is different on each point.

someone is lying.
it appears pretty obvious that it is the americans, in this case.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=280837

Is that article available in English?

When you take into account the amount of explosives able to pack into a car... no it's not.

i havent found it in english--i dont read italian very well or i would have bypassed libe altogether.
the core elements i cited are translated from the third and fourth paragraphs of the piece, which is why i posted the link.

I can't wrap my mind around the fact that the Italian driver, knowing the history of car bombs in iraq (and the resulting carnage the U.S. puts on them if they try to head to a checkpoint without stopping), would deliberately try to speed through a checkzone. This is especially true considering his country just paid a HUGE ransom to rescue the hostage he was carrying in the car. Why would he compromise her (and everyone else's) life in that manner?. It just doesn't add up. We're not being told the whole story, and frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of these incidents.

lol, That is such BS. Why does your response not surprise me at all? You can't tell anything about a car at 150M.

I highyl doubt that it was a deliberte attack. I think they would be above that. I think this was just another incident of gross negligence by our troops.

Do you have any documentation of this? I know the airforce uses them, but I haven't heard of any boots on the ground with them. I have talked to well over 30 people who have been to Iraq.

EDIT: I have absolutely no sympathy for this woman. It is a war zone, people get shot.

A soldier in one of my friend's platoon saw a truck coming towards their check point. They got 1 warning shot, then he opened up the 50cal on them. Good thing too. There were enough explosives inside the truck to kill him and his friends 10 times over.

Fark had a pretty good article written by the Christian Science Monitor regarding checkpoints, worth a look-see in my opinion.

What Iraq's checkpoints are like

That being said, I highly doubt this woman was targeted.

There are a couple of stories floating around, in Italy, not here, that they never told the U.S. because they knew how we would react to paying a ransome.

Either way, at night, I don't think the troops could've known who was in the car.

If they didn't know, how could this not be an accident as this woman claims?

On a side note: I'm not too happy about hearing ransomes being paid, that ain't gonna help anything.

this is ridiculous--look, it is pretty obvious that the car stopped at the chcekpoint and got strafed anyway.
it is obvious that the americans simply fucked up.
and it is also obvious that this happens enough that patterns begin to suggest themselves.
if you look at the record in terms of fatalities for journalists who are not of the american press pool, then another pattern begins to suggest itself.
it is equally obvious that lying about it in the press helps nothing--rather than allay suspicions, this kind of action generates them, multiplies them, gives them fertile ground in which to grow.

what i really dont understand--and this i write as my way of checking out of this thread--is why it is that support for war in iraq seems to go along with an absolute, unquestioning support for the military.
i dont understand how the two things go together.
you can support the war and still be critical of how particular aspects of it go.
but not in the right's america, apparently.

i dunno folks--i keep thinking that in another time, another place, this kind of attitude informed the cheering throngs that greeted those coming back from expeditions in quest of lebensraum...
which would be of a piece with cheering the deaths of people from the left
of blaming left journalists for their own murders.

it is really repellent.

Why is it so obvious? Were you there? Do you have proof?
What are these patterns that are so obvious to you? Journalists from other countries are dying? It is a war zone, is dangerous place. You think friendly-fire incidents are cases when the Bush Administration was targeting troops that just weren't loyal enough?

Foreign journalists that don't coordinate with the US military are putting themselves at risk.

Obvious, huh?

I didn't realize you were there and witnessed the account.

I would say that the journalist is going to portray this in her favor and that the troops will portray this in their favor.

I would also say that it is obvious, unless you were a bystander that witnessed the account, that you cannot claim anything as obvious.

I would guess, since I wasn't there, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Nothing is obvious, however.

What I don't understand is your willingness to blame everything conservative.

What if the troops involved were Democrats? Would it still be obvious? Since you have abolutely no idea, I would say, again, nothing is obvious about this situation.

I honestly do not understand this kind of hatred, I really don't. There are many things about the left and far left that I don't like, but I can honestly say that I don't hold any of the hatred you do.

There is absolutely nothing that I or any other conservative can do that wouldn't bring your wrath down upon us. We are guilty just because of who we are. If we followed your playbook to a tee, instituted communism and took all the money from anyone deemed rich, you would still find something to bitch about.

That is ridiculous. I really don't understand where you are coming from.

Edit: jinx....again

after reading that article on what constitutes a checkpoint in Iraq, I'm suprised these incidents do not occur alot more. Especially with the troops being (understandbly) jumpy

Allow me to explain what happened.


It was dark (2055) with only about 20% illumination. The troops saw a car approaching, considered it a threat, and shot. Manning a checkpoint at night is a hairy situation. Usually all that you can see are blinding headlights until the car is right on top of you. The troops did not know the Italians were on the way, the rule of thumb is that informations takes 1/2 hour to pass through each echelon of command (and I don't even know how that begins to equate if an embassy is involved).

Also consider that the offending unit was part of the 3rd ID, in country for less than a month, and the last time they were here they were driving on Bagdad in 2003. They are in a warfighting mentality still, not a stability and support frame of mind.

To suggest that the US Army attempted to execute Nicola Calipari is simply inane.

if you read the reports about this incident--if you do a simple websearch----you will find abundant, clear evidence that journalists outside the american pool "put themselves at risk"--from who?---from the americans. why is that?
clearly the platitude "war is dangerous" as usual says nothing about it.

you could make the argument that information control is part of war--in which case you would have maybe for a moment risen to honesty--in which case there could be an argument about whether this understanding is or is not acceptable--but you didnt.

if you read non-us-filtered sources--which tend to come in languages not english--like italian (my reading is slow and labored but i can manage it) or french or german (of those which i can read)--you get both sides of the story positioned right next to each other.
reading these, it because pretty clear which version is closer to what happened.
hint: it is not the american.
proof: read for yourself the accounts. it is pretty straightforward. it does not take a rocket scientist to sort this out. all you have to do is put in a little effort. (sort out at least insofar as what is available in the press from various places is concerned)
that is where i am coming from on this.

the comment "what were you there" is preposterous. par for the course no less.


ok now kma:

"blame everything conservative?"

in this particular instance, i see nothing but a sycophantic repetition of american military press pool releases from the conservatives who chose to enter into this discussion.
i read quite a bit over the past couple days about this story
i decided to call them--and you--on that
now you think i hate people.

great.
nice evasion.

fact is that about as worked up as i get about debates like this is impatient with the cookie-cutter views i routinely see here from the right, and really impatient with the ideology from which it comes. i have outlined the general position i adopt toward conservative ideology several times, and am not going to repeat it all here.

except this:
the arguments i make do not extend to the complexity of the individual relationships to that ideology (sound famliar? i already said this once in this thread) nor to individuals who happen to be conservative, for whatever reason--those whom i know, with whom i am quite close to personally i accept despite their politics, as they do me--we have occasional tavern debates about things, like any other group of friends--we do not agree, sometimes quite heatedly--but so what? we are still friends

as for right wing people here, none of whom i pretend that i know, i pass no judgements about you as people. i simply think your politics are surreal, that they lead you to a kind of myopia, and that sometime, like this thread, that myopia can become really pretty repellent in its content and implications.
there is nothing wrong with percieving right politics in this way, nothing wrong with saying it. it is well within the bounds of debates in which basic political positions are at issue. try to keep this in mind please--the one thing i am tired of beyond all other things here is the recurrent accusations from conservatives that i think this or that of them personally, which i assume is a reversal of the type of relation they maintain to people who they encounter here--a strange way of seeing a message board that has nothing to do with politics.

[[aside: you probably would respond with parallel views of "the left"--and i would have to ask what left you are talking about--and if you said the democratic party, there would be a long long pause while i tried to stop laughing. there is no coherent left at the mass politics level in the states. to see the democratic party that way--particularly the dlc-dominated democrats--is to either resort to more repetition of limbaugh-style talking points or to position yourself as hovering in the political space of the militia movement and/or christian identity churches]]

i can understand you as holding convictions i disagree with fundamentally without letting it extend to any judgement about you as a person. jeez, this is a message board--you do not know me, i do not know you--why would any reasonable person waste their time imagining who they talk to in enough detail to waste their time hating them? what good would hatred do in that----or any---context?

last point:
you conclude your complaint about my supposed hatred of conservatives with a bit of old school red-baiting--i really dont know what you were thinking when you wrote it. it kinda reduces your post to nothing.

Some of the people posting in this thread have obviously never been in the military and have absolutely no idea what it is like to be 20 yrs. old thousands of miles away from home in the middle of the night and have the responsibility of not only your life but the lives of their fellow Americans, some of whom you are closer to than your own brother. Not to mention the millions of dollars in equipment for which you are equally responsible. You can be assured considering the severity of this international incident more than one promising military career will have ended by the time this makes it off the headlines.

I truly believe this was a very unfortunate accident.

And the sources you cited weren't there either.

Poo-poo it all you want roach, but unless the account is firsthand, it has to be taken with a grain of salt--whether we are referring to the soldiers accounts or the reporter's.

However, these sources match what you want to have happened, so, of course it works for you and you will sing the praises of the unbiased and completely above reproach French and German presses who happen to be the only beacons of truth we have in this world.

I say that none of the non-firsthand accounts are accurate because you have to take the source into account.

Soldiers protect their own, it is how they survive, so, of course, their version is going to put them in good light.

The reporter is obviously anti-war and anti-American (which is fine, she can be however she wants to be), but I hardly think she is going to say anything that doesn't make her look like a "targeted victim" of the evil empire and all of the Bush cronies.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

But, that wouldn't work for you now would it?

That's my opinion too, since she's still alive and spewing.

Yeah, no sense investigating. If anyone has a question about what happened, they can just ask you.