Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: [Tratto dal Washingtonpost] Gli USA s'interrogano ...

Salve,
vi propongo un articolo (che ho opportunamente ridotto) tratto dal wpost:
 Shootings by U.S. at Iraq Checkpoints Questioned
"The deadly shooting of an Italian intelligence officer by U.S. troops at a
checkpoint near Baghdad on Friday was one of many incidents in which
civilians have been killed by mistake at checkpoints in Iraq, according to
military records. U.S. soldiers have fired on the occupants of many cars
approaching their positions over the past year and a half, only to discover
that the people they killed were not suicide bombers or attackers but Iraqi
civilians. They did so while operating under rules of engagement that the
military has classified and under a legal doctrine that grants U.S. troops
immunity from civil liability for misjudgment."
E gia' questo ci puo' far presagire come finira' questa storia ...
"Human rights groups have complained that the military's rules of engagement
for handling local citizens at checkpoints are too permissive. The groups
have accused U.S. forces of making inadequate efforts to safeguard civilians
and to comply with laws of war that prohibit the use of excessive or
indiscriminate force and permit deadly action only when soldiers' lives are
clearly threatened.
 The military has responded that in a time of widespread suicide bombings,
precautions that troops take to protect themselves are fully justified."
Successivamente un ufficiale americano, che ha voluto restare anonimo,
descrive la sparatoria di Venerdě:
"The automobile was traversing onto a route -- the road to the airport --
where soldiers have been killed in shootings and by roadside bombs. U.S.
soldiers had established an impromptu evening checkpoint at the entrance to
the road about 90 minutes earlier and had stopped other vehicles. They knew
a high-level embassy official would be moving to the airport on that road,
and their aim was to support this movement."
E qui cominciano i dubbi: perche' gli americani continuano a parlare di
*checkpoint* e la Sgrena di pattuglia?
"But no specific coordination occurred between those involved in Sgrena's
rescue and the military unit responsible for the checkpoint, according to
the source"
Perche' e' mancata la coordinazione?
"Soldiers at the checkpoint have told U.S. military officers that they
flashed lights, used hand signals and fired warning shots in an effort to
stop the car, which they believed was traveling at more than 50 mph, a
typical speed for that road.
 But Sgrena, who had just been released by Iraqi captors, recalled later
that the car was not traveling very fast and that soldiers started firing
"right after lighting" a spotlight -- a decision she said was not
justified."
Perche' le due versioni sono diametralmente opposte?
The absence of advance communication between the Italians and the U.S.
soldiers at the checkpoint appears to have put the occupants of the car in
grave jeopardy, given what many U.S. officials describe as the military's
standard practice of firing at onrushing cars from their checkpoints in
Iraq.
E l'abitudine di aprire il fuoco con estrema facilita', e' normale?
"In my view, the main contributing factor was a lack of prior coordination
with the ground unit," the source said. "If requested, we would have
resourced and supported this mission very differently."
inquietante
"Military officials have declined to estimate how many civilians such as
Calipari have been killed accidentally by U.S. forces -- at checkpoints or
elsewhere in Iraq."
Chissa' perche' ...
"But Army documents indicate that the 3rd Infantry Division -- the military
unit that includes the troops responsible for shooting Calipari -- was
involved in other shootings of civilians at checkpoints.  The Army's
investigation was begun after assertions that the unit had committed
multiple war crimes and fired indiscriminately at civilians in 2003, but
investigators concluded last July that there "was insufficient evidence to
prove or disprove" allegations of wrongdoing. They said women and children
had indeed been shot near checkpoints, but on a presumption -- which turned
out to be wrong -- that they were combatants. The Army decided the soldiers
who fired would be held blameless. "
 Finira' cosi' anche la storia del povero Calipari, fidatevi :-/
"A senior official of the U.S.-led military task force in Iraq, briefing
reporters in August on the issue of compensation for damages to Iraqis and
wrongful killings, spelled out the legal basis for this position. He said
that "when an individual approaches a checkpoint" and is fired upon, "that
is a combat activity of United States forces" and thus is excluded from
civil liability or compensation under U.S. law that grants up to $15,000 per
incident. U.S. officials say that in those cases in which some U.S. payment
has been made, it comes from money allocated to field commanders for
"sympathy payments" of as much as $2,500 per incident or killed victim. The
family of the Italian officer killed Friday has no standing to seek legal
redress. "
Prima di cominciare ad indagare, mettono gia' le *mani avanti* ...
Human Rights Watch published excerpts from an Army task force's internal
study that described its soldiers as untrained and unprepared to conduct
checkpoint operations. The study asked: "How does the soldier know exactly
what the rule of engagement is" when shifting from combat to policing?
"Soldiers who have just conducted combat against dark-skinned personnel
wearing civilian clothes have difficulty trusting dark-skinned personnel
wearing civilian clothes."
E questo non ci sorprende affatto :-(
"Nicole Choueiry, spokeswoman on the Middle East region at Amnesty
International in London, said the shooting of Calipari "is not the first
incident. It came to light because she [Sgrena] is a journalist. We have
heard of many incidents involving the deaths of civilians in unclear
situations." She said that although "U.S. troops have a duty to protect
themselves, this must not be done at the expense of civilians and it should
be done within the rules of law."She said that the main purpose of the
occupation is to protect civilians, not place them in jeopardy"
proteggere i civili?
Utopia
Staff Sgt. Nick Minecci, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, responded
that checkpoints are extremely dangerous and that because of the threat of
bombs, "plus insurgents driving by and shooting, the troops have to maintain
a constant level of awareness. It's a pretty scary situation to have a
vehicle bearing down on you." He said that military convoys must have prior
military clearance but that he was not sure about diplomatic convoys".
Sono convinto che questa storia sara' insabbiata (come al solito) dai nostri
presunti Alleati :-(
Saluti
Luca
PS: Un anno fa ho pubblicato un articolo riguardante l'omicidio di un
bambino di 3 anni in una situazione analoga a quella che ha portato alla
morte di Calipari:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2B212F9A

E gia' questo ci puo' far presagire come finira' questa storia ...
cut
Guarda sono d'accordo su buona parte di quanto affermi, ho visto i
servizi sia della BBC che di CNN e mi pare che i dubbi sulla versione
ufficiale li abbiano anche loro.
Non è la prima volte che l'esercito americano, ed in particolare
alcune unità sono accusate di scarsa professionalità, e pessimo
addestramento, ci sono episodi sintomatici, gli inglesi non li
vogliono a distanza di tiro perchè sostengono che un nemico è
sufficiente senza doversi guardare le spalle da cowboys isterici.
nella prima fase dell'invasione dell'Iraq i casi di frinedly fire
statunitense contro le trubbe britanniche furono talmente numerosi che
si arrivò alla divisione delle zone di operazione e un aereo
britannico in fase di rientro fu costretto a tirare un missile contro
una batteria antiaerea Usa che lo aveva preso come bersaglio, nessuna
vittima ma batteria distrutta, nessuna punizione contro il pilota,
direi che da un idea del clima.
La storia del fuoristrada non identificato che tiene un comportamento
"strano" e viene mitragliato dal solerte marine di turno è roba già
vista, è già successo al nostro ambasciatore in Iraq, l'autista
iraqueno è morto e nonostante la testimonianza del nostro diplomatico
evidenziasse il comportamento assurdo del marine in questione
l'esercito USA ha deciso che il soldato aveva seguito le regole,
evidentemente l'ambasciatore si era sbagliato visto che versioni erano
diametralmente opposte.
questo tipo di comportamento ha fatto si che in queste truppe, ripeto
spesso male o frettolosamente addestrate, si ingenerasse un sentimento
di impunità ed onnipotenza posso fare tutto, loro sono gli USA, gli
altri, alleati o meno, non esistono.
oggi hanno fatto fuori senza motivo un soldato bulgaro, molti di quei
marines non sanno nemmeno cos'è la Bulgaria, i più colti sanno che è
un posto da qualche parte in Europa, figuriamoci distinguerne
l'uniforme...loro prima sparano poi chiedono chi va la!
probabilmente andrebbero ripagati dagli alleati con la stessa moneta
ma, al di la del fatto che non è questo il punto principale, poi
esistono nazioni che sarebbero capaci di difendere i propri uomini
dall'arroganza dello zio Sam?
in Iraq non ci sono, UK a parte, in EU forse si, ma si sono ben
guardate dal mettere piede in quello scenario a quelle condizioni.
In conclusione di questo lungo post un paio di punti: uomini esperti
come quelli del Sismi non fanno i cretini davanti ad un Check point,
sapendo quanto siano ottusi certi militari americani seguono le
regole, dire il contrario è un insulto all'intelligenza.
tutti a citare la Sgrena, badate che l'autista ex CC, presumibilmente
corpi speciali, ora Sismi conferma ciò che dice la "Giornalista
comunista" niente posto di blocco, niente segnali semplice faro
puntato e raffiche senza avere il tempo di fare alcunchè.
Pattuglia americana in preda la panico, hanno visto l'auto all'ultimo
e si sono fatti prendere dalla paura sparando come dei deficenti, poi
con arroganza tutta USA hanno cercato di coprire la cosa in qualche
modo.
ciao
Giovanni