You are herecontent / War Crimes and Cover-Ups

War Crimes and Cover-Ups


War crimes and cover-ups
Veterans and human rights experts are asking why footage of U.S. soldiers committing atrocities against Iraqi civilians is being treated like an anomaly.
By Dahr Jamail | Socialist Worker

THE WIKILEAKS video footage from Iraq taken from an Apache helicopter in July 2007 showing soldiers killing 12 people and wounding two children has caused an explosion of media coverage. But many Iraq vets feel it is too little and too late.

In contrast to most of the coverage that favors the military's stated position of forgiving the soldiers responsible and citing that they followed the Rules of Engagement (ROE), Iraq war veterans who have spoken to the media previously about atrocities carried out against innocent Iraqis have largely been ignored by the mainstream media in the United States.

This includes Josh Steiber, a former U.S. Army specialist who was a member of the Bravo Company 2-16 whose acts of brutality made headlines with the WikiLeaks release of the video "Collateral Murder."

Steiber told Truthout during a telephone interview on Sunday that such acts were "not isolated incidents" and were "common" during his tour of duty. "After watching the video, I would definitely say that that is, nine times out of ten, the way things ended up," Steiber was quoted as saying in an earlier press release on the video, "Killing was following military protocol. It was going along with the rules as they are." Read more.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Exceptional, exclusive arguments, while at the same time normalizing criminality.

Quote: "In an interview on the ABC News This Week program, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the soldiers were operating in "split second situations," and that, "It's unfortunate. It's clearly not helpful. But by the same token, I think--think it should not have any lasting consequences.""

He HOPES there won't be any lasting consequences; the kind that'd be bad, say, for the U.S. "leadership". It clearly is the only consequences they care about, for it's all they've been proving for the past nearly nine years now.

And the soldiers in the video leaked by Wikileaks does NOT show anything like being of "split second situations,". We clearly see, in the videos, the shorter and full versions, that the soldiers took their time, and had plenty of time to avoid shooting at, let alone killing, that is, murdering unarmed and non-hostile Iraqis.

But that's okay. After all, since when would we have reason to believe that the U.S. "leadership" is honest, tells the truth, cares, instead of being cold-bloodedly callous and psychopathic, extremely violent, murderous sociopaths? Since never. We've never had cause to believe they're honest or that they care about the U.S. Constitution and the international laws, conventions and treaties that our Constitution obliges us to treat as supreme law of the land.

Mike Corbeil

I made a post with the subject based on the weak statment of Mark Taylor in the complete article, and explained why it's weak. And I also said that Marjorie Cohn's words are a little too weak as far as I'm concerned, but while also having stated wherein she said some crimes, what she called violations, were evident, yet also said they are only possible violations, which is somewhat contradictory, for once they're evident, which is to say obvious, then it's no longer a question of them being possible violations. In that case, they'd be definite violations, they'd definitely be violations; instead of being only possible violations.

Either, it's one or both of those two things that I stated that got the post censored, i.e., deleted, due to some ADS moderators being against free speech when they perceive it as offensive in their own opinions, uncritically; or it's what I added about 9/11 being an inside job and [provably] so that got the post deleted and, therefore, censored.

Or maybe the post was censored for all of these reasons, but it was nevertheless done in biased terms, for I said nothing offensive or false. It's arguably true that the words of Mark Taylor and Marjorie Cohn are weak, especially Mark Taylor's. But if it's only the 9/11 content that caused the post to be deleted by some moderators, then they are again biased; instead of critically objective thinkers. And they'd evidently be seriously uninformed about what's really been professionally ascertained with a high degree of real competence about the 9/11 attacks.

Such actions, as the latter, are to make oneself complicit in the extremely criminal cover-up the gov't has been conducting all along about 9/11 and there's NO way to truthfully deny that this cover-up has always been going on and that the media and many citizens have been complicit in this crime. The media, many pundits, journalits, and editors anyway, has been wittingly complicit, while there are citizens who've been wittingly complicit, also, but some citizens only did this out of ignorance and immaturity; instead of having been wittingly and, therefore, criminally and treasonously complicit in the HUGE cover-up.

NO one who claims to be for human rights, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and truth, has any moral right to censor what is very competently proven in very professional ways just because it is something that is not pleasing to them. Anyone who commits such censorship can not truly claim to be for truth and rights, and law. In that case, they are only for these values and law when it suits them, their biases, and such conduct is not of a true activist.

I'll have to treat such biased censorship, especially since it is of a kind that is complicit with the criminal cover-up behavior of the gov't, as something all of ADS is guilty of doing and, therefore, the founder. Such people would not get my support. After all, it doesn't really matter if the deleters are wittingly complicit with the gov't cover-up(s), or not, it's the consequence of their actions anyway. Accidentally complicit is not acceptable.

Because of the 9/11 content, the deleters censored among the most important content that has been posted in comments at ADS; and this is probably true over the past several years.

DO NOT DOWNPLAY the critical importance of 9/11! If you do, then word should be spread, broadly, about ADS being another censorship website on a very critical topic that everyone needs to very seriously study up on.

Otherwise, your so-called activism is nonsense, childish, based on fantasy.

I will hold this against ADS, because this was definitely an example of blatant censorship that is easy to prove to be [unacceptable].

Welcome to censorship USA media at ADS!

Mike Corbeil

Then make sure to also look back to 9/11 and carefully study up about this critical date and topic! I'd post very important links about this again now, but just had a post with links to highly important articles and videos to read an view deleted, that is, CENSORED, by some malicious ADS moderator or moderators who, wittingly or not, accidentally or not, prefer to be complicit in the HUGE 9/11 cover-up.

That includes high U.S. military command being complicit, extremely so, in that huge cover-up that everyone really needs to dedicate some serious time to studying up about. There's much information available and it's very well, competently ascertained information; even if there's also a lot of dis- and mis-info spread by people who falsely claim to be for 9/11 truth, and others who are for 9/11 truth, but incompetently going about it.

ADS calls itself an activist, anti-war, ... website, but censors 9/11 truth, so it's clear that this can't be much of an activist website, since it censors people who post about this truth research that has been very carefully conducted with a very high degree of competence by clearly qualified people.

People who pretend that we can disregard the 9/11 attacks and the HUGE gov't cover-up about these attacks, a cover-up that has been greatly unmasked, are NOT friends of peace, justice and truth, so their so-called activism is, at best, only of a wannabe kind.

The 9/11 attacks are the pretext upon which the wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, and now northern Pakistan are all based, and it is also a pretext that has been used for greater U.S. and NATO militarisation, globally, especially in Eurasia, Eastern Europe, and Africa.

9/11 and the related cover-up by the gov't cannot be ignored or censored by any true activists of peace, justice, and truth.

It's a more difficult truth for some or perhaps many people to accept, compared to the cover-ups by military command for actions in Iraq, etcetera; actions that are not of national scope in the USA. But true activists don't hide their heads in holes in the ground to avoid seeing even the most difficult of truths. Instead, they want the whole truth and nothing but the truth, justice and peace, and they fervently work for these ends. It's why such people will think in critically objective ways, instead of letting biases control them; and these people will usually or always have no biases that interfere in any ways with human rights, law, justice, peace, and TRUTH.

Most people, however, are rather blatantly biased, though some apparently are only too ignorant to be able to realise that they are biased, instead of critically objective, which we need to be, if we wish to truly be fair with or towards others. To be biased is to be prejudiced!

Mike Corbeil

You may be running into ADS's "Auto-Spam" filters . . .

Do you recall how many "links" you included in the post in question?

I have found by experience that if I put more than 7 or 8 links in a single post, it will not get posted . . .

. . . which is why you will see some of my longer posts broken up into nested sections.

As far as "topical censorship" at ADS, I can only speak for myself and my own experiences . . .

. . . I think you long time readers will all agree that when it comes to "pushing the envelope" on "sensitive topics", this ol' fool from North Cackilacki has from day one been at the top of the list!!! . . ;-)

I have NEVER felt that I was being "censored" because of "topic" . . .

I feel we went through a "rough patch" about a year ago when a moderator policy change was basically insuring that practically no one's articles were getting posted, and the few that were posted showed up with as much as a 24-48 hour delay.

Several of us thought that this wasn't worth it based on "Cost-Benefit" and "S.W.O.T." (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threats) analysis . . . and this moderator policy was obviously changed back to allow "real time posting".

One more thing, the few times that I have "stepped out of line" . . . usually while attempting to expose a not-so-obvious "COINTELPRO" type "Megaphony" . . . the staff at ADS clearly . . . and FAIRLY . . . called me out on it.

. . . but even in these few cases, ADS did NOT censor my posts involved.

One technique I have developed over the years is that I keep either a WORD document, NOTEPAD, or an E-MAIL open as a "scratch pad" . . . As I am working, I cut-and-paste my post to this scratch pad. This also helps in case of any type of virus/spyware suddenly closes my web page or deletes my work on its own.

If my post contains too many links, or a questionable link, and does not post, I then rewrite it as either multiple nested posts . . . or isolate the questionable post (usually something linking to a blog) . . . until I can get the post to clear.

Once it posts, I either delete the scratch pad copy or archive it locally.

Again, my magic number seems to be between 7 and 8 links before the post bounces. . . your mileage may vary . . ;-)

I hope this helps . . .

. . . but then again, maybe you're just looking for something to bitch about and I just spoiled your fun!!! . . . ;-)

"Keep a knockin' but you can't come in
Keep a knockin' but you can't come in
Keep a knockin' but you can't come in
Come back tomorrow night and try it again"
- "Keep A Knockin'" by Little Richard

peace.

Quote: ". . . but then again, maybe you're just looking for something to bitch about and I just spoiled your fun!!! . . . ;-)"

Other than for that remark, thanks for the reply.

However, your "not-so-obvious "COINTELPRO" type "Megaphony"" that annoyed ADS a little, or a lot, raises my curiosity. F.e., could what you wrote about have been worse than Operation Gladio? I doubt it, but maybe what you wrote about was worse, in some way or ways.

It also causes me to wonder about my text that got rejected or deleted yesterday. I'm not sure whether it was auto-rejection as you describe with the anti-spam filtering, or if the post initially appeared and subsequently was deleted, which I assume would've been done manually. This could be tested in maybe 15 minutes or so , but I won't do this right now.

Anyway, what you say about having had a little friction with ADS in the past due to whatever you wrote about COINTELPRO causes me to wonder about what I submitted yesterday, for it certainly contained links for research results that are highly incriminating for the White House administrations, especially the prior Administration, as well as for the military brass; 9/11 and "terrorism" matters many people may still be unaware of and which some people may still be too sensitive about to be able to bear anyone mentioning these findings. One of the links is about factual history that's about clearly criminal, rogue conduct of the CIA, the U.S. State Dept, the Justice Dept, FBI, and the Congress, and this is according to the experience and public testimony of Mike Springmann.

He doesn't say anything of kooky conspiracy sort and what he says is clearly of serious importance, but maybe it's a topic many people would prefer to keep as secret as possible. I don't know, and don't see why what he says would be ignored by any real activist organisations.

My 9/11-related links were and are all to and based on professionally conducted research and analysis, with a very high degree of competence. A lot of it is information from people who are experts in fields relevant to 9/11 research; physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, jet pilots, and others, like former intelligence professionals and officials, f.e. All of those people, of the U.S. and other countries, have many years of relevant experience. And then there are many witness accounts from first responders who worked at "Ground Zero", as well as from other citizens or civilians who were witnesses in NYC and near the Pentagon. There's also some content that's from people who possess real common sense, which is all most of us need, but these people nevertheless rely on the witness accounts and the findings of experts conducting 9/11 research.

One of the articles is a 9/11 topic that perhaps most people still are unaware of, the "mystery plane" that was flying over and around the Capitol when the Pentagon was hit; this major Pentagon-in-the-sky military plane that evidently does not look like a military plane to most people who see it, for it is painted white (apparently to protect if it's ever flown in nuclear battlefields, the white serving as a reflector against heat). The U.S. has only four of these military E-4B's that could be used in place of the Pentagon if something earthshattering to it ever happened, such as a nuclear strike, or a huge worm swallowing it up, f.e. The E-4B's evidently are full command centres-in-the-sky sort of planes and one was right over the Capitol when AA 77 hit the Pentagon, and many people witnessed this plane. One woman photographed it when she was across the street from the White House, while the plane was pretty much directly overhead, and one man caught the plane in a video recording that eventually was included in a BBC docu-drama. But the White House and Pentagon have always denied that the plane was over the Capitol the morning of 9/11; like they deny everything else that is incriminating for or against them. The article is easy to find by doing a Web search of 911review.com (not to be confused with .org, which is a dis- and mis-info website) using "mystery plane" for search term. The excellent two-part article was by Mark or Mike Gaffney in 2007.

Another topic that might possibly be a little too sensitive for some people is the fact that it's extremely unlikely that the planes were really hijacked to begin with. I've read plenty over the years from 9/11 research, but hadn't, until over the past couple of weeks, read or heard anyone saying that the planes were not really hijacked, which is a welcome analytical finding, in my opinion; for it complements the reasons I already knew of for 9/11 evidently being an inside job and not only a job that the Bush-Cheney administration deliberately allowed to happen, but, instead, a real and full inside job. There are many elements of strong proof for blatant inside job, and there's no real evidence for the contrary. But i recently learned that there's an extreme lack of plausibility about or for the alleged hijackings and the explanations for this are very clear and strong; enough to really make the allegation that the hijackings were real laughable (darkly).

None of these 9/11 topics are mere conspiracy theory. It's all based on highly competent research or analysis. But some people would or might not be able to tolerate the thought that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks really were and are not foreigners, but, instead, domestic enemies, traitors, "money junkies" (an expression learned from Gerald Celente), etcetera. And the topic and the research findings must be very sensitive, for many or most so-called alternative news media extremely ignore the 9/11 research that has been accomplished with a high degree of competence by truly qualified people.

Seeing information of this sort being deleted, if it was done wittingly, would really be cause for anger. But I think and hope that you're right about the automatic anti-spam filter and will just have to take a little time one of these days to see if a post with an identical or very similar set of links will get rejected, or only deleted after being initially posted.

After writing the above few paragraphs, I think that the post must've had at least seven links. It definitely did have more than seven links if we count homepage links, which I suppose the anti-spam filter would check for or count as links.

Mike Corbeil

Happy to help . . . ;-)

As far as the "Auto Spam filters" goes, one other thing you and other posters like "perfect1" may run into . . . since it appears you like to re-edit your posts like I do sometimes . . .

. . . if you edit then re-submit the same post over and over around 5-6 times in a given 24 hour period . . .

. . . I have found that it will "auto block" the post as spam . . .

This gives the "appearance" of a post being there and then "disappearing" like it has been deleted by the moderator.

Mike Corbeil writes:
"Anyway, what you say about having had a little friction with ADS in the past due to whatever you wrote about COINTELPRO causes me to wonder about what I submitted yesterday, for it certainly contained links for research results that are highly incriminating for the White House administrations, . . ."

Again, based on my personal experience with the ADS staff on this site, I have NEVER had a problem that was "topical" in nature . . .

. . . and believe me, I have brought up some "doozies" over the years . . . ;-)

. . . the "friction" as you call it, in the very few instances has always been in reference to MY bad manners on demanding another poster "identify" themselves after being repeatedly subjected to their "ad hominem" attacks on my posts.

In my defense, all of these instances centered around when someone in The Movement died . . . mysteriously . . . (i.e. 9-11 widow Beverly Eckert, the Barksdale airmen "Missing Nukes" whistle-blowers, etc.) . . . and I wasn't in the mood for obvious text-book "dis-info" tactics . . .

But even that is no excuse for being a rude guest . . . ;-)

Alas, I guess this ol' fool will never be as cool as "David Watts" . . . or brother Richard Gage . . . ;-)

(link to video - approx. 8 minutes)
"News Anchors SCARED after hearing Richard Gage Architect talk about 911 as inside job"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=249_1271625202

Good luck with your posting . . . I look forward to looking at your 9-11 research data. . . ;-)

"What would you think if I sang out of tune,
Would you stand up and walk out on me.
Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song,
And I'll try not to sing out of key.
Oh I get by with a little help from my friends"
- "With A Little Help From My Friends" by The Beatles

peace.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.