US troops 'told to lie' about Iraqi civilian slaughter

[YukonTrooper]

From Al Jazeera:

A US soldier has told a military jury in California how his commander killed five Iraqi civilians in the western al-Anbar province in 2005 and then asked him to lie about it.

At a trial stemming from one of the Iraq war's most controversial episodes, Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz testified on Wednesday, the third day of Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich's court martial.

Wuterich was Dela Cruz's squad leader, who Dela Cruz said gunned down the Iraqis after they pulled up in a car near the scene of a bombing in which a US marine had died.

In all, 24 Iraqi civilians including women and children were killed in the revenge attacks - 19 in several houses along with the five men who pulled up in a car in the town of Haditha on November 19, 2005.

He testified that the Iraqis did not appear to have any weapons and were not making any quick moves toward the car. He said he then saw a man drop to the ground.

"That's when I saw Staff Sergeant Wuterich kneeling with his gun aimed at the Iraqi. He was by the road holding the weapon in a firing position," said Dela Cruz, demonstrating that position in the courtroom.

"I run through there and crouched on the side of the vehicle. I saw four to five Iraqis dead near the trunk area of the car," he said.

"I saw Sergeant Wuterich approach the bodies, he shot at them," said Dela Cruz, adding that Wuterich went around to each corpse and shot it in the upper body from close range.

"Sergeant Wuterich approached me and told me if anyone asks, the Iraqis were running away from the car and the Iraqi army shot them," Dela Cruz said.

Dela Cruz, a veteran of three combat deployments, said he later urinated on the mangled head of one of the bodies, adding that he was "regretful" of his actions.

The Haditha victims included women and children who were shot dead at point-blank range. Six people were killed in one house, most shot in the head, including women and children huddled in a bedroom.

Good on the man for speaking up. I'm sure it feels good to do what's right after doing so much wrong.

He even admitted to urinating on the head of one of the civilian bodies. Are urinating incidents quite common in war or something?

[Kanaric]

From Al Jazeera:

[Blaze86420]

Al Jazeera

And?

[Kanaric]

And?

Not a credible source to use to back up ones argument.

I would trust a BBC or a CNN or a Spiegel. Not a blatant biased source. Then again I have standards for my sites.

[motiv-8]

Not a credible source to use to back up ones argument.

I would trust a BBC or a CNN or a Spiegel. Not a blatant biased source. Then again I have standards for my sites.

Al-Jazeera is run in part by former employees of BBC... What a fail. This is what happens when you measure credibility by.. Well, I have no idea what rationalization you used here because none of it was rational.

[Kanaric]

Al-Jazeera is run in part by former employees of BBC... What a fail. This is what happens when you measure credibility by.. Well, I have no idea what rationalization you used here because none of it was rational.

This is a news agency in Qatar that has to answer to a monarchistic Islamic government. You may trust news agencies run in dictatorships, I however have standards.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[mike^_^]

Al-Jazeera is run in part by former employees of BBC

What is the evidence that supports this claim?

[mrmouth]

Al-Jazeera is run in part by former employees of BBC...

Yes, and ask yourself why they are former employees. Many also went to RT...

Its not an issue of credibility. Its an issue of bias. That comes into play when you don't just report something, but write an editorial.

Not to mention the fact that the OP left facts out, purposely.

And where is the thread on the BBC yesterday about UK troops involved in murders in Afghanistan? Or the UK not persuing investigations into prisoner abuse by MI6? Again, just yesterday.

These threads suck less, when people are not pushing an agenda. Same with media orgs.

[Ketnix]

Not a credible source to use to back up ones argument.

I would trust a BBC or a CNN or a Spiegel. Not a blatant biased source. Then again I have standards for my sites.

I lold. Can't be serious.

[Imperial]

Why did you leave this out Yukon?

Defence lawyer Haytham Faraj questioned Dela Cruz's credibility, contending that he had a record of lying numerous times to military investigators in Iraq

[Kanaric]

Seems he doesn't have evidence to back up his claims here. I think we need another source.

[xcorps]

Good on the man for speaking up. I'm sure it feels good to do what's right after doing so much wrong.

Why did you leave out the part about the lying to investigators and the promises of immunity?

Imperial wants to know. I want to know.

[Sphere]

I would trust a BBC or a CNN or a Spiegel. Not a blatant biased source. Then again I have standards for my sites.

Al Jazerra is well respected, has international reporters of all backgrounds across the globe, and is the main stream news source for a good chunk of the world. Peruse its website and you'll find little fundamental difference to CNN or BBC as they are all competitors.

Though I understand how the "Al" might throw you.

[alhoon]

Al Jazerra is well respected, has international reporters of all backgrounds across the globe, and is the main stream news source for a good chunk of the world. Peruse its website and you'll find little fundamental difference to CNN or BBC as they are all competitors.

Though I understand how the "Al" might throw you.

That. Although truth be told, Al Jazeera is slightly biased in favor of arabs, as is CNN in favor of Americans.

[motiv-8]

This is a news agency in Qatar that has to answer to a monarchistic Islamic government. You may trust news agencies run in dictatorships, I however have standards.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Demonstrate that Al-Jazeera has to answer to the Qatari government. The original funding for the station came from a Qatari amir who specifically wanted a channel to demonstrate the ability of free press to exist in the Middle East, and has always had editorial independence. It also has offices around the world, not just in Doha...

Your argument is that because it is headquartered in Qatar, and Qatar is monarchy, it MUST be government controlled. This is a non-sequitur owing to a lack of sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion.

Mike: look up the history of the channel, its core came from the defunct BBC Arabic channel when it was shut down.

[Kanaric]

Demonstrate that Al-Jazeera has to answer to the Qatari government.

People claim that Fox News is beholden to conservatives and republicans. That is my basis it is opinion not fact so I dont need to demonstrate a thing.

Al-Jazeera is run in part by former employees of BBC

I seriously do not know if this is true or not. Can you post evidence of this?

[Kitsunegari]

Al-Jazeera was actually quite controversial in the Muslim world for not walking the "party line" at times, even interviewing Israeli officials IIRC.

[motiv-8]

People claim that Fox News is beholden to conservatives and republicans. That is my basis it is opinion not fact so I dont need to demonstrate a thing.

This is a red herring. I asked for demonstration that al-Jazeera is required to answer to the Qatari government, not what people claim about Fox News. But beyond that, why would you hold an opinion that you don't feel the need to demonstrate justification for? How is that rational?

So what is it about al-Jazeera that makes it a puppet of a dictatorship? Is it the in-depth, supportive coverage of the Arab Spring? Is it the opinion articles blasting Arab governments? Is it the interviews with Israelis? Hm?

I seriously do not know if this is true or not. Can you post evidence of this?

Luck played a big role in Al Jazeera’s creation and expansion. In 1995 Qatar’s Crown Prince Hamad bin Khalifa overthrew his father and immediately set to reforming the country’s media and governance. His aim was to transform Qatar into a Persian Gulf version of Switzerland. He thought good publicity would help. So would opening up the emirate’s media. An Arab version of CNN would attain both objectives. The BBC in 1994 had started just such a station in Qatar, with Saudi money. The Saudis soon discovered that the BBC’s independence wasn’t what they were paying for. The venture dissolved, leaving 250 BBC-trained journalists unemployed. Qatar’s emir swooped in, hired 120 of them, and Al Jazeera was born.

About.com

Based in the tiny Gulf state of Qatar, al-Jazeera began broadcasting in 1996. Initially, many of its staff were recruited from the BBC which had launched an Arabic TV channel a couple of years earlier, only to close it down as a result of censorship attempts by Saudi Arabia, which controlled the relevant satellite.

al-Bab

The claim that these deaths resulted from revenge attacks, rather than collateral damage, was the central issue in this case. What's more, the claim has already been rejected by the court because it was not supported by the available evidence. That's why the charges against all of the other Marines involved have already been dropped, and why Wuterich is not facing murder charges now. He is now accused of negligent homicide, with the central issue being whether he followed the rules of engagement and took sufficient care to prevent civilian deaths.

So Al Jazeera isn't just picking sides, they are reporting as a fact that Wuterich is guilty of a much more serious crime than he is even charged with.

See, that's useful criticism.

[Kitsunegari]

So what is it about al-Jazeera that makes it a puppet of a dictatorship?

I don't agree with everything they do, but IMO al-Jazeera has great potential for raising the standards of objectivity in the region's journalism and enhancing intellectual life in general, which in turn can hopefully lead to greater liberalization as a whole. In the past the majority of the people could be relatively easily controlled due to lack of exposure to any other viewpoints with the state and/or religious censorship.

[Phier]

I don't agree with everything they do, but IMO al-Jazeera has great potential for raising the standards of objectivity in the region's journalism and enhancing intellectual life in general, which in turn can hopefully lead to greater liberalization as a whole. In the past the majority of the people could be relatively easily controlled due to lack of exposure to any other viewpoints with the state and/or religious censorship.

When the only direction you can look is up, thats not exactly high praise

Heck there are still forum members here who think stories run in AJ-English are the same as the Arabic ones.