New Documents Describe U.S. Response After Its Soldiers Kill Civilians
|
SAN FRANCISCO, Apr 12 (OneWorld) - On February 18, 2005 an Iraqi man was driving his vehicle from his house to work at his farm. On the way, U.S. forces shot him when they passed, damaging the vehicle and killing the man. His case is among the hundreds detailed in internal Pentagon documents released today.
The man's father, from the city of Balad, just north of Baghdad, lodged a request under the 1942 Foreign Claims Act, which allows foreign nationals harmed by U.S. forces outside of military combat operations to seek compensation. The father asked the Army for $8,450, but his request was denied. "Claimant's son approached U.S. Forces in a threatening manner forcing them to take appropriate action," reads an internal Pentagon document: "firing on the vehicle and killing his son." That document was one of 496 Department of Defense records released this week by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The documents, which demonstrate how the U.S. military responds after its soldiers kill Iraqi and Afghan civilians, were obtained by the ACLU in response to a Freedom of Information Act request it filed in June 2006.
"Since U.S. troops first set foot in Afghanistan in 2001, the Defense Department has gone to unprecedented lengths to control and suppress information about the human costs of war," ACLU director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement. "Our democracy depends on an informed citizenry, and it is critical that the American people have access to full and accurate information about the prosecution of the war and the implications for innocent civilians." In cases catalogued in the documents, the military turned down two thirds of compensation claims. "We've been asking for this information for quite a long time," added Sarah Holewinski, who directs the Washington-based Campaign for Innocent Victims of Conflict (CIVIC). "We now have tangible proof that when innocent civilians are harmed, they are not always appropriately helped by our American forces."
"Iraqis and Afghans don't know the difference between a Foreign Claims Act claim and a claim for a condolence payment," Holewinski said. "How are they supposed to know the difference? What we expect from the U.S. military is clarity and fairness across the board." The New York-based group Human Rights Watch charges that the U.S. military's compensation policy is mired in confusion. The problem is illustrated by documents relating to Iraqis killed by U.S. soldiers traveling in military convoys, the group says. The documents show one Iraqi family was granted payment for a relative killed because U.S. soldiers fired to clear the road -- a violation of the rules of engagement, according to the judge advocate general (JAG) on the case. But similar claims were denied on the basis of opinions by other JAG officers that clearing the road ahead of a convoy is a legitimate combat action and therefore not open to payment. Human Rights Watch's senior military analyst, Marc Garlasco, told OneWorld that is ultimately unproductive for the military. "If the payments are being made to compensate people for their loss, and you don't pay someone for their loss, that can do a lot damage to you," he said. "That's a great way to create more insurgents." Another problem, Garlasco said, is that the military often fails to pay bereaved families when no U.S. soldier admits to killing a civilian. When a U.S. soldier kills a civilian, he or she is supposed to file an incident report, but because of the stresses of combat, that paperwork doesn't always get done. "So when an Iraqi comes to make a claim he's told there's no incident report, and the claim is turned down," Garlasco said. "Meantime, Iraqi witnesses are pushed aside and not taken into account. Even members of the Iraqi police and military are not considered." Holewinski's group CIVIC is working with the office of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to standardize the options open to innocent civilians harmed by U.S. forces and monitor their success in filing claims. Those discussions could result in the introduction of a single "Civilian Claims Act" to replace the mixed system that currently exists. The organization is also working with the military's main JAG school and legal center in Charlottesville, Virginia. ....................................................................................
.................................................................................... |
Printable version
Back to top
