NATO is not willing to accept civilian casualty it caused in Libya

[hellheaven1987]

Nato has hit back at a report urging the alliance to investigate fully the deaths of civilians in air strikes in Libya last year.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said at least 72 civilians had been killed in the strikes and the bloc needed to bear responsibility where appropriate.

But Nato's spokeswoman said the campaign was conducted "with unprecedented care and precision".

She said Nato "did everything possible to minimise risks to civilians".

"But in a complex military campaign, that risk can never be zero," spokeswoman Oana Lungescu acknowledged.

She added that the alliance "looked into each credible allegation" of harm to civilians and "confirmed that the specific targets struck by Nato were legitimate military targets".

Aircraft from the US, the UK and France conducted most of the 9,658 strike sorties last year, targeting forces loyal to Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi.

The point of the Nato air campaign in Libya last year was to protect civilians, so how many innocent people died is still a sensitive issue, BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall reports.

Source

Interesting, wonder why NATO does not even try to investigate those cases and continuing deny the claim of civilian casualty they possible caused?

[Bobz]

Let's just quote a little more of that article okay?

Nato has stressed that it is ready to co-operate with the new Libyan authorities in assessing what further action is appropriate.

However, the alliance says it cannot take responsibility because it has had no presence on the ground to confirm the deaths.

So it seems like they are willing to investigate, in conjunction with the proper authorities.

[hellheaven1987]

So it seems like they are willing to investigate, in conjunction with the proper authorities.

However, Human Right Watch says NATO has not done any investigation about those cases.

In its report published on Monday, the US-based HRW said it had examined in detail evidence of claims of civilian deaths from eight separate Nato strikes.

In one instance, it said a first bomb killed 14 people and a second, moments later, killed 18 more who had rushed to help victims.

"We're calling for prompt, credible and thorough investigations," HRW's Fred Abrahams, the main author of the report, told BBC News.

Mr Abrahams says Nato refuses to acknowledge the deaths and has offered no compensation to families.

"Until now, Nato has taken a position of denial," he said.

"I think it will lead to unnecessary civilian deaths in the future if Nato refuses to look at what went wrong and make corrections."

In March, another human rights organisation, Amnesty International, said it had documented 55 cases of named civilians, including 16 children and 14 women, killed in air strikes.

It said Nato had failed to investigate these cases thoroughly.

The question now is not NATO is willing to investigate those cases or not, but rather why after one year no proper investigation was done by NATO.

[Azog 150]

However, Human Right Watch says NATO has not done any investigation about those cases.



The question now is not NATO is willing to investigate those cases or not, but rather why after one year no proper investigation was done by NATO.

If by one year you mean the two months since the investigation by Amnesty International?

[Bobz]

However, Human Right Watch says NATO has not done any investigation about those cases.



The question now is not NATO is willing to investigate those cases or not, but rather why after one year no proper investigation was done by NATO.

Umm, did you completely miss this paragraph:

She added that the alliance "looked into each credible allegation" of harm to civilians and "confirmed that the specific targets struck by Nato were legitimate military targets".

Is that not a basic investigation? And they are willing to investigate fuller, should they get the support of the Libyans to do so.

[Sphere]

Ghaddafi would have owned up to civilian casualties.

[YukonTrooper]

So it seems like they are willing to investigate, in conjunction with the proper authorities.

Which means they aren't willing to investigate, or at least they're stalling an investigation by hiding behind the "proper authorities." It's a good idea not to take your cues from spokespersons. If NATO wanted to report the civilians they killed, they'd have an investigation already done or underway, however rudimentary. However, why would NATO want to do such an investigation? Clearly it's not in their interest, as killing civilians looks bad when your mission was based on protecting civilians. Of course, it's not in the NTC's interest either, which makes hiding behind them apropos for NATO.

I'm sure NATO also realizes that an official investigation would uncover a lot more than 72 civilian deaths, as that figure came from Human Rights Watch investigating only 8 reports. With a full investigation, I'm assuming that number would climb quite a bit higher, even if statistics were fudged and repressed in an official report.

Clearly, NATO isn't chomping at the bit to investigate civilian deaths.

Ghaddafi would have owned up to civilian casualties.

Ironically, Ghaddafi did own up to killing civilians in the beginning of the uprising. Something like 250 in Benghazi, if I remember correctly. Regardless of the accuracy of that number, it's still 250 more than NATO has admitted to. You'd think a coalition of democracies would have a hard time being less transparent than a dictatorship, but I suppose not.

[priam11]

When you say "proper authorities", would you be referring to the government of Libya? That authority?

[Phier]

Actually I think by definition, they are perfectly willing to accept the civilian causalities caused.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Source

Interesting, wonder why NATO does not even try to investigate those cases and continuing deny the claim of civilian casualty they possible caused?

I don't see where NATO has denied the operation caused zero civilian casualties.

[fkizz]

NATO never denied any unwanted civilian casualties.

Their intervention had no ground troops. Only air strikes. Most of the killing was done by muslim rebel forces. They had the aproval of the lybians who were being tortured, and the aproval of arab league (even muslims agreed), and aproval of UN.

Plus, as Bobz said, NATO is even willing to colaborate on that issue with the proper lybian authorities.

Nothing out of ordinary to see here.

[Menelik_I]

The staff at Amnesty ought to take some fresh air, and maybe go investigate some other atrocities.

Sure it is of NATO responsibility to investigate any unwanted civilian death, for operational and moral purpose, but they certainly don't bear the only responsibility as the operations where in part coordinated the forces of the the current leadership in Libya. They share responsibilities.

More interesting is the incentives here, for at one hand NATO was begged save the day, and the dust have barely settled, people are pressing them on civilian casualties ?

Do you want Humanitarian invasions or not ?

[Menelik_I]

del

[Poet]

Source

Interesting, wonder why NATO does not even try to investigate those cases and continuing deny the claim of civilian casualty they possible caused?

Color me shocked that North Atlantic Terrorist Organization is not willing to accept that they killed civilians in their normal routine of "liberating" same civilians.

[fkizz]

Color me shocked that North Atlantic Terrorist Organization is not willing to accept that they killed civilians in their normal routine of "liberating" same civilians.

You're a Qadaffi supporter? People literally begged NATO to the intervention, with your Arab League aproval.

You against the Arab League?

[Poet]

You're a Qadaffi supporter? People literally begged NATO to the intervention, with your Arab League aproval.

You against the Arab League?

Who begged before NATO? Please don't paint Nato's support for ferocious rebels as Egyptian revolution. It was victory of one group of militants on other group of militants because former had western support and no, I despise Qaddafi.

[Menelik_I]

Who begged before NATO? Please don't paint Nato's support for ferocious rebels as Egyptian revolution. It was victory of one group of militants on other group of militants because former had western support and no, I despise Qaddafi.

Drop the western hatred already, Nato was begged to intervene by Libyans and various Arab states, case closed.

[Blaze86420]

Who begged before NATO?

The NTC? Libyan civilians?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Color me shocked that North Atlantic Terrorist Organization is not willing to accept that they killed civilians in their normal routine of "liberating" same civilians.

Except NATO does accept that.

[Poet]

Except NATO does accept that.

See the OP with ......... more opened eyes.