|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
April 12th,
2007 - Civilian Claims on U.S. Suggest the Toll of War |
|
Civilian
Claims on U.S. Suggest the Toll of War By Paul von Zielbauer New York Times April 12, 2007 In February 2006, nervous
American soldiers in Tikrit killed an Iraqi fisherman on the Tigris River
after he leaned over to switch off his engine. A year earlier, a civilian
filling his car and an Iraqi Army officer directing traffic were shot by
American soldiers in a passing convoy in Balad, for no apparent reason. The incidents are among many
thousands of claims submitted to the Army by Iraqi and Afghan civilians
seeking payment for noncombat killings, injuries or property damage American
forces inflicted on them or their relatives. The claims provide a rare
window into the daily chaos and violence faced by civilians and troops in the
two war zones. Recently, the Army disclosed roughly 500 claims to the
American Civil Liberties Union in response to a Freedom of Information Act
request. They are the first to be made public. They represent only a small
fraction of the claims filed. In all, the military has paid more than $32
million to Iraqi and Afghan civilians for noncombat-related killings,
injuries and property damage, an Army spokeswoman said. That figure does not
include condolence payments made at a unit commander’s discretion. The paperwork, examined by
The New York Times, provides unusually detailed accounts of how bystanders to
the conflicts have become targets of American forces grappling to identify
who is friend, who is foe. In the case of the fisherman
in Tikrit, he and his companion desperately tried to appear unthreatening to
an American helicopter overhead. “They held up the fish in
the air and shouted ‘Fish! Fish!’ to show they meant no harm,” said the Army
report attached to the claim filed by the fisherman’s family. The Army
refused to compensate for the killing, ruling that it was “combat activity,”
but approved $3,500 for his boat, net and cellphone, which drifted away and
were stolen. In the killings at the gas
station in Balad, documents show that the Army determined that the neither of
the dead Iraqis had done anything hostile or criminal, and approved $5,000 to
the civilian’s brother but nothing for the Iraqi officer. In another incident, in
2005, an American soldier in a dangerous Sunni Arab area south of Baghdad
killed a boy after mistaking his book bag for a bomb satchel. The Army paid
the boy’s uncle $500. The Foreign Claims Act,
which governs such compensation, does not deal with combat-related cases. For
those cases, including the boy’s, the Army may offer a condolence payment as
a gesture of regret with no admission of fault, of usually no higher than
$2,500 per person killed. The total number of claims
filed, or paid, is unclear, although extensive data has been provided in
reports to Congress. There is no way to know immediately whether disciplinary
action or prosecution has resulted from the cases. Soldiers hand out instruction
cards after mistakes are made, so Iraqis know where to file claims. “The Army
does not target civilians,” said Maj. Anne D. Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman.
“Sadly, however, the enemy’s tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan unnecessarily
endanger innocent civilians.” There are no specific
guidelines to tell Army field officers judging the claims how to evaluate the
cash value of a life taken, Major Edgecomb said. She said officers “consider
the contributions the deceased made to those left behind and offer an award
based on the facts, local tribal customs, and local law.” In Haditha, one of the most
notorious incidents involving American troops in Iraq, the Marines paid
residents $38,000 after troops killed two dozen people in November 2005. The relatively small number
of claims divulged by the Army show patterns of misunderstanding at
checkpoints and around American military convoys that often result in
inadvertent killings. In one incident, in Feb. 18, 2006, a taxi approached a
checkpoint east of Baquba that was not properly marked with signs to slow
down, one Army claim evaluation said. Soldiers fired on the taxi, killing a
woman and severely wounding her daughter and son. The Army approved an
unusually large condolence payment of $7,500. In September 2005, soldiers
killed a man and his sister by firing 200 rounds into their car as it
approached a checkpoint, apparently too quickly, near Mussayib. The Army
lieutenant colonel who handled the claim awarded relatives a $10,000
compensation payment, finding that the soldiers had overstepped the rules of
engagement. “There are some very tragic
losses of civilian life, including losses of whole families,” said Anthony D.
Romero, the A.C.L.U.’s executive director, in an interview. He said the
claims showed “enormous confusion on all sides, both from the civilian
population on how to interact with the armed services and also among the
soldiers themselves.” Of the 500 cases released,
204, or about 40 percent, were apparently rejected because the injury, death
or property damage was deemed to have been “directly or indirectly” related
to combat. Of the claims approved for payment, at least 87 were not
combat-related, and 77 were condolence payments for incidents the Army judged
to be combat-related. About 10 percent of the
claims were rejected because the Army could not find a “significant activity”
report confirming an incident. A summary of the cases is
online at www.aclu.org/civiliancasualties. In Iraq, rules for
evaluating claims have changed. Before President Bush declared major combat
operations over, in May 2003, commanders considered most checkpoint shootings
to be combat-related. Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the former commander of
day-to-day operations in Iraq, stiffened rules at checkpoints. In late 2003,
as more Iraqis were accidentally injured or killed, the Army began offering
condolence payments. It has not always worked as planned, said Sarah
Holewinski, the executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in
Conflict, a nonprofit group in Washington. “Sometimes families would
get paid and sometimes their neighbors wouldn’t,” she said. “It caused a lot
of resentments among the Iraqis, which is ironic because it was a program
specifically meant to foster good will.” The Army usually assigns a
captain, major or lieutenant colonel to accept claims in Iraq and Afghanistan
and decide on payment. But in and near combat zones
in Iraq, a claim’s merit is quickly judged by an officer juggling dozens of
new claims each week, said Jon E. Tracy, a former Army captain and lawyer who
adjudicated Iraqi civilian claims in the Baghdad area from May 2003 through
July 2004. “I know plenty of lawyers
who did not pay any condolences payments at all,” said Mr. Tracy, who is now a
legal consultant for the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict. “There
was no reason for it. It was clearly not combat, and the victim was clearly
innocent, all the facts are there, witness statements, but they wouldn’t pay
them.” Half of the claims he
adjudicated were property damage claims from collisions with military
vehicles, he said. Most fraudulent claims were property claims; few were for
wrongful killings. “You just had to read people,” he said. About a quarter of claims
were for personal injury or deaths. In his year judging claims, Mr. Tracy
said he paid 52 condolence payments, most for deaths. “I had three to four
times more,” Mr. Tracy said, “I just didn’t have enough money.” Andrew W. Lehren contributed
reporting from New York, and Edward Wong from Baghdad. External link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/world/middleeast/12abuse.html |