Buhriz Follow-Up

June 29, 2005 12:28 PM

Officer in Charge Responds to Buhriz AllegationsArmy Ranger 1LT TJ Grider in a letter to Cryptome responds to allegations that his unit may have killed Iraqi children and then planted weapons before taking photos. The photos and allegations were discussed on Metafilter here. When my medic said the wounded were stable we picked them up, threw them over our backs, and moved with them and the detainee over 200 meters to the road where we had coordinated for a field ambulance, at this time we were still taking fire but could not locate the origin. We saved the lives of the very kids that had shot at us and attempted to kill us. And what you all do not realize is that the detainee admitted to an interpreter that he and his friends had attacked us and had been paid to fight by a local insurgency leader. Although I feel it is not warranted, I welcome any investigation into the events that day. I am confident that my actions were right and in accordance with the Geneva Convention and the laws of land warfare. I hope you feel comfortable with your actions, Mr. Kraft. You have managed to skip any investigation and associated an honorable, very accomplished platoon with a crime that did not exist.
posted by MLIS (92 comments total)

Like I said.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:34 PM on June 29, 2005

insomnia_lj pay you to post this?
posted by quonsar at 12:50 PM on June 29, 2005

here's a clue for the honorable Lieutenant:

Don't plant what looks like to be the same RPG next to 4-5 bodies and you won't have this problem of civilians second-guessing your actions in the future.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:50 PM on June 29, 2005

well, that dosn't explain the RPG.

I'm not saying that war crimes were commited, however it does seem strange.
posted by delmoi at 12:53 PM on June 29, 2005

I then took pictures in accordance with the rules of engagement. The pictures were necessary for evidence against the surviving insurgents as well as documentation of the skirmish. The initial picutures were taken without weapons because we had consolidated the RPGs away from the individuals and were guarding them while we set up security and treated the wounded. It was the tactically right thing to do as well as the morally right thing to do by treating the wounded even though they had just tried to kill us.

In accordance with orders we then took a series of pictures of the insurgents with the weapons that they had on them. You are correct there was obviously only one RPG launcher there and a few warheads. The rest of the warheads they had were already fired at us minutes earlier. Were there more launchers that they dropped while attempting to flee as they realized the overwhelming force they had just engaged? I don’t know and we didn’t have time to search as we started taking fire and had audio on small arms fire from nearly every direction.

Wow. I feel a light shining on my noggin' right now.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:57 PM on June 29, 2005

Excellent post, MLIS, but I wish you all the luck in the world dealing with the angry Mefite uprising that will follow in 3... 2...
posted by Rothko at 12:59 PM on June 29, 2005

well, that dosn't explain the RPG.

Actually, further down in his letter, he does explain it. His version, as I understand it, is that they moved away the weapons (although some had been dropped in the fight) so that they could give immediate medical attention to them without worrying about getting shot. Afterwards, according to the rules, he had to take photos, so he just got one of the RPG's he had just confiscated and put it back next to the body for the shot.

I honestly don't know whether he's telling the truth or not, but he does give an explanation.
posted by unreason at 1:02 PM on June 29, 2005

There shouldn't be an "angry MeFite uprising" over this. I've read the previous discussions on these picutres, and my understanding was that the person with the photos felt that they might represent something that was Really Quite Bad and thought that the pictures should be investigated. The fact that this Army guy responded is healthy. The fact that it's been posted to MeFi is healthy. If we're actually interested in the truth of the matter, the we should relish finding new information.
posted by Medieval Maven at 1:04 PM on June 29, 2005

"To those obsessed with conspiracy theories or already convinced that the U.S. is fighting an unlawful war, I doubt these comments will change your views."

I don't see why believing this is an unlawful war would have any bearing on one's ability to gauge this single event. Can't the two be mutually exclusive?

For example: Yes, I believe that this administration flat-out lied in order to push this war forward, but I also believe that the soldier now on Iraqi soil bears no responsibility for giving that initial "Go!" command. It's all assess and respond at this point.

With that said, its a shame that he made that statement at the beginning, because it presents to me the outlook that anyone against the war on a whole must be against the soldier as an individual (which I think is a common misconception/generalization).

Like the bumper sticker says, "I support our troops, but not this administration".

Otherwise, thanks for the update MLIS.
posted by numlok at 1:08 PM on June 29, 2005

Until we hear from the actual source of the photos, the releaser himself, we will not know the real reason or reasons why he (or she) did.

It could've been anywhere from knowledge of a fudged account to the ubiquitous "making oneself look interesting."

In the mean time, Mr. Hunt/insomnia_lj is taking his usual beating over at Baghdad Dweller.
posted by jsavimbi at 1:11 PM on June 29, 2005

Don't plant what looks like to be the same RPG next to 4-5 bodies and you won't have this problem of civilians second-guessing your actions in the future.

That's rather optimistic. This war's got more arm chair generals than a freakin Counterstrike tournament.
posted by spicynuts at 1:13 PM on June 29, 2005

I support the war, but not our troops.
posted by mullingitover at 1:15 PM on June 29, 2005

You know, I've never been in the Army, so I don't really know anything, but the more I think about it, the more this explanation does sound pretty plausible to me.
posted by unreason at 1:15 PM on June 29, 2005

I think he's being fairly accurate and concise in that quote. He speaks directly to the facts and opinions at play here. "Unlawful" could be interpreted as "started under false pretenses", or "carried out in an illegal manner". The photos were presented as possible support for the 2nd meaning, and he's addressing it quite directly.

Only a soldier, or someone who has researched what military policy would be in this situation has the basis for a qualified evaluation of these photos, IMHO. That's why Mr. Hersch didn't work with them. Without this background, it just gets more complicated, as many people are bound to disect his words looking for an analysis that supports their view.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 1:20 PM on June 29, 2005

Me lie.
posted by telstar at 1:23 PM on June 29, 2005

It seems alot more plausible after reading his account of the events. Still, the pictures were incredibly creepy to look at without the RPGs and then with them and easy to note that it was the same RPG in each picture.
posted by fenriq at 1:25 PM on June 29, 2005

1LT Grider engaged the enemy in accordance with the Law of War and Geneva Conventions. It's unfortunate that he's correct on one point " those obsessed with conspiracy theories or already convinced that the U.S. is fighting an unlawful war, I doubt these comments will change your views."

Get over yourselves.

On preview: Did you not read his account of why there are the same weapons in the various pics? Hopeless.
posted by Juicylicious at 1:27 PM on June 29, 2005

The initial problem with the photos was not what was in them, but their provenance. Now that question is answered.

It is also very clear that the person who took the pictures and the person who transmitted them to insominia_lj with the initial story of an artillery strike are not the same person.

As usual, a closer look does not necessarily make things much clearer. There also appears to be disagreement about the people in the pictures being alive or wounded. Patience.
posted by warbaby at 1:27 PM on June 29, 2005

What's the big deal about the Geneva Convention anyway? Our current set of leaders seem to believe that they don't apply since we're not fighting against "lawful combatants", soldiers in uniform. That being the case, the soldiers could say, "We killed them for sport, so what?" and nothing would come of it.
posted by mullingitover at 1:35 PM on June 29, 2005

In the democracynow.org interview, Sy Hersh seems to be talking about a video, which confuses me. (search for "13" in the interview text)
posted by Jack Karaoke at 1:45 PM on June 29, 2005

That was an interesting read. And a perfectly plausible explanation. These photos, and the suppositions that went with them, suffered from the same problem most conspiracies do - the people spouting them aren't armed with the facts.
posted by fire&wings at 1:46 PM on June 29, 2005

What's the big deal about the Geneva Convention anyway? Our current set of leaders seem to believe that they don't apply since we're not fighting against "lawful combatants", soldiers in uniform. That being the case, the soldiers could say, "We killed them for sport, so what?" and nothing would come of it.

Most soldiers know that the Geneva Convention is there to protect them just as much as it is the other guys, and that it's in their best interests to follow it just in case they ever find themselves on the other side of the POW equation. The level of care exercised following the conventions will obviously vary, but I doubt you'll find too many folks in the line of fire as casual about them as a DOJ lawyer.
posted by Cyrano at 1:51 PM on June 29, 2005

and that it's in their best interests to follow it

Also, believe it or not, a lot of soldiers have real moral problems with not following the conventions. They're not all Guantamo guards in the military.
posted by unreason at 1:55 PM on June 29, 2005

I have looked at the letter. It proves what exactly?

I am very happy that LT Grider has taken the time to explain that day as he experienced it. It provides further clues as to what happened, which is all anybody is asking for.

However, I think many of you gloating *cough jsavimbi cough* over this explaination need to go back and reread your attitudes in the original thread. There is no reason to believe Mr. Grider is being less than 100% honest in his letter, but if you apply the same standard of proof to this piece of evidence that you applied to the photographs, you'll see that we are not really any closer to knowing the absolute truth than we were last week.

It's enheartening that Mr. Grider is open to further investigation, but his bosses in Washington have proven time and again they are not interested in the telling the truth and I fully expect this will be the last we hear of this topic.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:59 PM on June 29, 2005

juicylicious, relax. I did read the whole thing and know why it was the same weapon in the pictures. I was just commenting that it was kind of creepy.
posted by fenriq at 2:03 PM on June 29, 2005

Also, believe it or not, a lot of soldiers have real moral problems with not following the conventions. They're not all Guantamo guards in the military.

I am quite aware of that. Just went with basic self-interest since it's something all soldiers would have in common whether they have moral issues or not.
posted by Cyrano at 2:05 PM on June 29, 2005

enheartening?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:10 PM on June 29, 2005

I have looked at the letter. It proves what exactly?

Silly me. And here I thought that one of the differences between us and Bush's crew was that we considered someone innocent until proven guilty.

I am very happy that LT Grider has taken the time to explain that day as he experienced it.

Which is a nice way to call him a liar without actually saying it. There is no "as he experienced it". It's an open and shut case. Either he's telling the truth, and deserves an apology, or he's lying, and deserves a court-martial. But either way he's not relating a subjective experience. The fact is that as I see it he's explained everything, and there's no objective reason to doubt him. But, as I expected, a lot of people would prefer that there's some dark conspiracy afoot, despite their being no evidence. I also predict that insomnia won't apologize, since it would mean no longer being that guy with the incriminating photos. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect I'm right.
posted by unreason at 2:12 PM on June 29, 2005

....I will not allow you or anyone else to insinuate that we embarrassed our country by doing anything wrong....

Dear Lt. TJ Grider:

I'll do more than insinuate. You embarassed yourself, this country, and humanity when you made yourself a tool for our gutless "foreign policy". You are perpetuating enormous suffering in this world. You do bear some responsibility for the suffering taking place there, regardless of whether you are acting "under orders" or not.

I have no idea what you and your "honorable platoon" (an oxymoron if ever there were one) have done (and your "explanation" doesn't shed much light on it, except to confirm that apparently you did place weapons next to bodies to "take the pictures according to how the Iraqi government wanted them for evidence purposes"), but ask yourself this: exactly how much of a willing tool have you and the men you lead become? How exactly did you find yourself killing other human beings in their own country?

I wish you well. I think you'll find that introspection will be healthy. You're long overdue for some.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:13 PM on June 29, 2005

fold_and_mutilate: So in other words, you're upset that they might not be guilty of a war crime, so you fall back on the old "if they're in the military, they must be evil" schtick. Cute.
posted by unreason at 2:15 PM on June 29, 2005

posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:13 PM PST on June 29 [!]

There's the rational "I support the troops, but not the war" position, and then there's the fold_and_mutilate position of "the troops can go to hell for all I care because I don't support the war."

Truly a shining example of humanity and compassion.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:16 PM on June 29, 2005

heh. now that was enheartening.
posted by quonsar at 2:17 PM on June 29, 2005

cromulent, too.
posted by quonsar at 2:17 PM on June 29, 2005

Which is a nice way to call him a liar without actually saying it.

No, it isn't. In fact, I stated explicitly there is no reason to believe he is not telling the truth. My point is that one man's letter, in itself, is proof of nothing, just as the photographs are proof of nothing (except yeah I did say it a lot nicer than folks in the original thread).

Yes, enheartening. If it's relevant to the topic, please expound on whatever it is you're calling me on.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 2:31 PM on June 29, 2005

fold_and_mutilate: I think you should be the embarrassed one. That was weak.

BTW - it's spelled "embarrassed" not "embarassed".
posted by Guerilla at 2:31 PM on June 29, 2005

But doods, do you not get it? Insomnia is friends with some soldiers on LiveJournal. They are his dawgs. They correspond and stuff, and sometimes Sy Hersh joins in. Often this leads to copy-pasting blog entries from LJ to MeFi, a popular political warblog which keeps us constantly apprised.

Sometimes, though, when one of these loyal compadres starts a fire or gets caught with misleading pseudo-incriminating wartime photographs, it becomes cool to paint them as baby-killing savages. Otherwise, insomnia's sober, comprehensive & well-researched contributions are doing us all a service. Because, unlike you poseurs, he Really Cares™ (when it's convenient) while you toads sit there with your impotent yellow ribbon pretending to "Support the Troops".

Are you guys getting it yet?

You embarassed yourself, this country, and humanity when you made yourself a tool for our gutless "foreign policy". You are perpetuating enormous suffering in this world. You do bear some responsibility for the suffering taking place there, regardless of whether you are acting "under orders" or not.

You once told MeFi you'd served time as a "tool" in the military—so how does that make you a saint and this guy so unforgiveable? If some country launched a domestic attack on us tommorrow out of the blue, you'd be tripping all over yourself with gratitude that there was a volunteer army rushing to defend us.

Yes, enheartening. If it's relevant to the topic, please expound on whatever it is you're calling me on.

You're being called on this.
posted by dhoyt at 2:35 PM on June 29, 2005

Given the number of atrocities committed in war, any war, it seems self-defeating on the part of those (myself included) who feel the war was entirely unjustified and illegal to focus on individual troops who, lets face it, are programmed to be soldiers with all that implies. Whether the photos are innocent or not is currently irrelevant. Personally I have no opinion on the providence of either explanation for the anomalies found in the images. These are small fry. We know torture took place on a massive scale. We know about private contractors, Halliburton, lies, oil, and whatever else it is we currently know. Yet, somehow, the people responsible are untouchable. A man can be impeached for a few rather pathetic extramarital indiscretions, why is it we can't touch the men responsible for this war? Because that is the issue. We can't touch the administration. Blame the media, the conservative control, the overall lack of sympathy for "liberal" concerns among those whose primary concerns are survival in an environment they are familiar with and know how to navigate, blame whomever or whatever you like but the fact is we -- liberals, democrats, moderate republicans, the international community -- are impotent to prevent the slow, painful death of everything this country supposedly represents and so, like all desperate freedom fighters, we're resigned to fighting the small battles, to harry the agents of the enemy rather than the enemy itself. We have become little more than flies, an annoyance to be swatted aside. Any damage we do is immaterial because we do it to people the administration regards as worthless. The troops were sent to die under false pretenses, brainwashed by masters of that art, they are little more than tools to those who wield them, tools worth less than the armor they wear.

Let's face it. We're screwed. Unless. Unless the media grows a spine, unless the protest movement gets focused, and unless big business starts to feel hurt, those who are ultimately responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of avenging an earlier atrocity and making the world safe from everyone but us, are untouchable.

sorry for the rant. Once in a great while I forget I'm not supposed to care.
posted by Grod at 2:41 PM on June 29, 2005

Does that mean EB doesn't understand asshat either?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 2:45 PM on June 29, 2005

Did you mean as shat?
posted by ludwig_van at 3:01 PM on June 29, 2005

Does that mean EB doesn't understand asshat either?

jeez, get enliterated, d00d!
posted by quonsar at 3:03 PM on June 29, 2005

Derails asside, the dis was the extra bit. In other news, 7,240 fans can be wrong.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 3:13 PM on June 29, 2005

Dhoyt, when did insomnia_lj portray all soldiers as baby-killing savages? I think the concern over these photographs (well, my concern) was excitement that it would provide more fodder to sling against conservatives but that there really were discrepancies between the photos and confusion about how those discrepancies appeared.

And y'know, you imply that he didn't do enough research, but I don't believe he would have been able to go farther with this if he hadn't put these things on the Internet. If you remember his account, he sat on the photos for months. He wasn't going to learn anything else. The backlash from posting the photos and the conclusions he drew from the information he had is what led to this soldier writing in and giving a full account.

That's what investigation is. If you only have part of a story, you don't twiddle your thumbs and wait until everything's spoon-fed to you. You go after it, and raise awareness of it, and the truth is revealed.

I guess I don't know what people are crowing over, here. "Stick it to those damn liberals, they were wrong!" So? Does that mean the next time an issue comes up we shouldn't investigate it? Are you saying we shouldn't ask questions about something until we have all the information about a situation--which would mean we didn't need to ask questions anyway?

And how does questioning the actions of one group of soldiers mean someone hates all soldiers? If I think Lynndie England and Charles Graner are sadistic pieces of shit, does this mean I hate all groups of soldiers? And does the turnaround work--if I do support the troops, does that mean I approve of what those bastards did?

Grod: we do have to go after the policies that lead to torture/war crimes/bad conduct if we want to stop these things from happening. That doesn't mean the individual soldiers who participate in these things are exempt from punishment, just as the officers who didn't participate but provided tacit or outright encouragement of the behavior should be exempt from punishment.

fold_and_mutilate, please take less crazy pills. Holding soldiers responsible for their behavior is one thing; blaming them for not having a mini-revolt against the Bush Administration is quite another.

Finally, I think we should be as cautious about blindly accepting this letter as credible as we should about blindly accepting the initial explanation. But from the way the guy wrote it, his tone and wording, I believe it. It sounds like a guy who was writing it down and got angrier and angrier thinking about the accusations against him and his men--I mean, you're getting pretty tinfoil-hat there when you start arguing someone purposely included that into the fake letter to give it realism.

The point is, I'm really, really happy that those kids were not killed while playing soccer.
posted by schroedinger at 3:37 PM on June 29, 2005

schroedinger: “
The point is, I’m really, really happy that those kids were not killed while playing soccer.”

So you’re happy they died while resisting an invasion?
posted by signal at 3:46 PM on June 29, 2005

To those obsessed with conspiracy theories or already convinced that the U.S. is fighting an unlawful war, I doubt these comments will change your views.

I don't think it's a lawful war, but the explanation sounds pretty plausible and I've sure seen video of a lot worse stuff that we've done over there.

We've got an awesome military and it's a strawfigure to claim that people like me that didn't support the war don't think so. It takes a lot of courage to go into combat, and I hope all our troops come back.
posted by norm at 3:49 PM on June 29, 2005

fold_and_mutilate: So in other words, you're upset that they might not be guilty of a war crime, so you fall back on the old "if they're in the military, they must be evil" schtick. Cute.

No, that's just foldy being, well, his looney self. He shows up every once in a while, always entertaining, always crazy.

Blame the media, the conservative control, the overall lack of sympathy for "liberal" concerns among those whose primary concerns are survival in an environment they are familiar with and know how to navigate, blame whomever or whatever you like but the fact is we -- liberals, democrats, moderate republicans, the international community -- are impotent to prevent the slow, painful death of everything this country supposedly represents and so, like all desperate freedom fighters, we're resigned to fighting the small battles, to harry the agents of the enemy rather than the enemy itself. We have become little more than flies, an annoyance to be swatted aside. Any damage we do is immaterial because we do it to people the administration regards as worthless. The troops were sent to die under false pretenses, brainwashed by masters of that art, they are little more than tools to those who wield them, tools worth less than the armor they wear.

Wow, that was beauiful. Almost brought a tear to my eye.
posted by justgary at 4:35 PM on June 29, 2005

This post has nothing to do with me. MLIS' is basically reposting a rather insulting exerpt of an anonymous comment.

Cheap shot, MLIS... but it still doesn't change the fact that there isn't a single thing I've alleged against Grider that isn't true. Grider's name was mentioned exactly once in my email to Cryptome, as being the officer in charge of the US patrol according to news reports for that day. He wasn't even the only U.S. soldier mentioned in my post, nor was he accused of a single thing himself, especially since he's in charge of more troops than those who were shown in the photos.

Grider is reading some kind of personal insult into the fact that I released the photos, which led people to question his unit's reputation, without somehow contacting him first? That might make sense... if I were an investigative reporter rather than a blogger.

But even if I had decided to take on the role of an investigative reporter by spending considerable time, effort, and expense to locate and contact Grider, I still would've released the pictures to the public. Why? Because Grider's statement is inconclusive, and basically defends the widespread practice of manipulating evidence by sticking weapons in front of Iraqi kids and photographing them with it for use in an Iraqi court of law. A court, which, I may add, that is little more than a kangaroo court (an article orig. published by the L.A. Times), with harsh sentences and few rights for defendants.

If you want to see a good analysis of the comments made by Grider, I suggest you read Xyphora's take on them. He's asked a whole lot of questions which Grider hasn't addressed, frankly.

The only way we can really know better what happened that day is for there to be an open investigation. We already know that there is was an American over there who wanted these pictures released, and apparently someone else who spoke with Seymour Hersh about that day too. Given the seriousness of this issue, attempts by Grider (or MLIS) to try to "shoot the messenger" are really off-base and inappropriate.

Failing an open investigation, all we are left with is uncertainty... which is really my point regarding the photos. Our soldiers, by planting weapons in the photos, tried to create certainty where no certainty exists.

I would think that a sense of gnawing uncertainty from anyone who has seen these pictures is entirely appropriate, frankly.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:38 PM on June 29, 2005

BTW, just incase it's not abundantly clear, I think the FPP should be edited to remove the following:

"I hope you feel comfortable with your actions, Mr. Kraft. You have managed to skip any investigation and associated an honorable, very accomplished platoon with a crime that did not exist."

Unless, of course, it's acceptable to use FPPs to smear fellow users.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:04 PM on June 29, 2005

Dhoyt, when did insomnia_lj portray all soldiers as baby-killing savages?

He didn't. dhoyt lives for personal attacks against those on his multi-page shitlist--riviera, fold_&_mutilate, Alex Reynolds, amberglow, nofundy--oh, the list is seemingly endless and they're all targets of his awesome wrath. He attack one for something and take a whack at another not even involved in the matter at hand while he's at it. So many attacks to make, so little time.

Consider dhoyt on metachat: 100% personal attacks. He joined there merely to carry on his MetaFilter vendettas from here. That's dhoyt--his number one priority and contribution to here or anywhere is personally attack someone on his shitlist. Time to craft a new withering put down? Time to slime someone by name ? --why, it's dhoyt time!

Grindin', grindin', grindin'
Keep them axes griindin'
Grindin', grindin', grindin'
dhoyt!

Never have so many been the target of one member. He sits in his cubicle and fumes--if we don't condemn who he condemns, we're defending them--like we are all personally responsible for what someone else says. He's got a list and he's checking it twice. He's probably Googling anton riviera right now just to find something new. Why are we all silently defending the objects of his obsessions ? Oh, where is the outrage ?
posted by y2karl at 5:05 PM on June 29, 2005

This post has nothing to do with me

Then why spend 5 more paragraphs talking about yourself?

and basically defends the widespread practice of manipulating evidence... Our soldiers, by planting weapons in the photos, tried to create certainty where no certainty exists

So you've twisted a need to document which groups used which weapons as "manipulating evidence" and "planting weapons"? Forget "innocent until proven guilty" around here, apparently. You are well aware that "manipulating evidence" and "planting weapons" are both loaded phrases that have moral implications of guilt. If it's so unclear (your word) then why jump to the conclusion that there was "manipulation" and "planting" going on?

Please. You would prefer that they drag the injured Iraqis to where their weapons fell so that the weapons aren't moved? Or would you prefer that no record be kept of who used what weapons? "Planting" is putting something in that they didn't have. The insurgents had the RPG launcher. A photo was taken of each of them with it. "Planting" would have been adding something they didn't have. "Manipulating evidence" is relevant only when something is being used as evidence and is intentionally made to decieve. If both the before and after pictures were going to be used at trial then there is no manipulation of evidence since there is no deception.

But, hey, why believe people on the ground you don't agree with when you can armchair general with your LJ buddies?

The only way we can really know better what happened that day is for there to be an open investigation.

Of WHAT? He admitted that they moved the RPG, and said that it was for a legitimate purpose. You want to somehow prove that they were "planting evidence", which is simply impossible. He admits that the weapon was moved, and his motivations are lost to history.

I still would've released the pictures to the public.

With the explanation given the photos prove exactly nothing. Releasing them had you known the explanation would have been just a cheap publicity stunt to get your views about the war more air. We know that you don't like the war. But that doesn't make every single action taken bad or in need of investigation. Had you posted the pictures and made allegations or implications you had known to be unsupported you would have been the one in the wrong.

By posting the pictures you imply that something uncouth occurred. You take attention away from more important issues. You slander the name of men who may not have done anything other than try to protect themselves despite being shipped out to a war they may not agree with. You also might be assisting in violation of the Geneva Conventions for releasing photos of prisoners of war (Article 2, Part 13, "public curiosity" section).

Unless, of course, it's acceptable to use FPPs to smear fellow users.

The two FPPs seem to be about balanced. You two deserve each other.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:14 PM on June 29, 2005

.. but it still doesn't change the fact that there isn't a single thing I've alleged against Grider that isn't true.

Surprise, surprise. Insomnia_lj doesn't want to stop being the guy that discovered the Big Conspiracy. It doesn't matter that Grider's explained his actions, and may well be innocent. It just matters that he gets to continue with his 15 minutes of fame. And then he has the audacity to say that Grider's response should be edited here, so that Insomnia doesn't look bad. You're a piece of work, friend.
posted by unreason at 5:14 PM on June 29, 2005

Never have so many been the target of one member.

Ever met matteo, y2karl?
posted by Kwantsar at 5:18 PM on June 29, 2005

dhoyt writes "But doods, do you not get it? Insomnia is friends with some soldiers on LiveJournal. They are his dawgs."

dhoyt: over the top, patronizing, and ad hominem. You can, and should, do better.
posted by orthogonality at 5:19 PM on June 29, 2005

Yeah dhoyt, you can totally do better. It's not real sarcastic commentary unless you throw in a "STFU lib'rul" or two.
posted by Galvatron at 5:34 PM on June 29, 2005

In answer to dhoyt, while I do interact with a lot of soldiers and have several who I'm friends with and who comment in my journal, I hardly refer to them as baby killing savages, or bumbling goons. If I made a post about the fire, it's because it took out all the buildings on a U.S. base in Iraq, which was pretty significant story which the press generally overlooked yesterday... there was only a somewhat belated article by one major paper, which didn't get picked up by any of the larger papers.

The soldiers over there know about the risk of fire, certainly, and about how stupidity could set the whole place on fire and get their people hurt, even if it doesn't make front page news.

It's not as though soldiers don't talk about this kind of stuff too, you know. They talk about a helluva lot of concerns they have, but somehow, when I bring their concerns to a larger audience's attention, I'm the bad guy.

Whatever.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:40 PM on June 29, 2005

So you’re happy they died while resisting an invasion?

[sarcasm]Ohhhh, yeah. I delight in the deaths of children. The sight of a glassy-eyed toddler with his intestines strewn all over a street is simply orgasmic.[/sarcasm]

OK, I understand where you're coming from. I phrased that really badly. How about "I'm happy the pictures aren't part of a disgusting attempt to cover up wrongdoing."

Kids are dead. Soldiers shot them. Given those two facts, if I'm choosing between "Soldiers shot kids playing soccer, attempted to cover it up" and "Soldiers shot kids who were shooting at them," well, at least with the second one you don't have soldiers being lying bastards.

Jesus, why are you dudes so personally pissed off at insomnia_lj? I mean, dang, there thousands of cases all over Metafilter where one member says something (or perhaps even posts an FPP about it), another member provides a counter-argument, and the first member questions the validity of the counter-argument and continues to believe what they believed in the first place. And the two members may get angry at one another, but they don't run into these kinds of vicious "OH YOU JUST DON'T WANT YOUR FPP TO BE WRONG" insinuations. Like, what's the deal?

I guess I think it's absolutely possible for insomnia_lj to be sticking to his ideas because he believes them, and not as part of a grand attention-whoring scheme. And that considering when he brought the story to light it was not on major news services, perhaps it is inevitable that he would mention himself at some point in order to explain where he got his source of information. And that it's rather silly to personally attack him as an attention-whore, and then use his self-defense against your attacks as proof that he's an attention-whore. And that, most importantly, when you attack him instead of discussing the actual story you're doing exactly what you accuse him of doing--focusing on the person who "broke" the story instead of the story itself.
posted by schroedinger at 5:46 PM on June 29, 2005

"It doesn't matter that Grider's explained his actions, and may well be innocent."

Look... I never said that Grider was guilty of any crime. That said, his troops took two sets of photos. The first set contained pictures of all the Iraqis involved. The second set, according to Grider, was taken after his troops put the same weapon in front of all the Iraqis.

According to Grider, his troops had to take this second set of pictures for evidenciary purposes -- are we to assume that the first, truer set of photos was not adequate enough? For what?! To prove guilt, presumably.

Grider says that his troop's behavior is not only legal, but was following orders. I don't deny that fact. That said, I think his orders, which basically lump the innocent and guilty together, are unjust, unethical, and likely to get a lot of Iraqis falsely committed of crimes they did not commit.

So, you get a case where every U.S. officer is supposed to have a camera on him to take pictures of evidence -- but if there's only one weapon found, it is perfectly acceptable behavior to put it in front of each Iraqi who was killed, wounded, or captured, to be turned over to an Iraqi court of law which apparently doesn't even need evidence or a defense in order to convict people.

Somehow, I think you'd think differently about this issue if this kind of "completely legal" justice was acceptable behavior in your own country.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:56 PM on June 29, 2005

Not that it really matters, but enheartening is in the OED (subscription required). Cromulent is not.

Interesting posts today (mostly). Let's avoid the ad hominem, shall we? We don't want to sink to their level or give them something to snigger at, now do we?
posted by tarheelcoxn at 5:56 PM on June 29, 2005

MLIS' is basically reposting a rather insulting exerpt of an anonymous comment.

Cheap shot, MLIS...

Given the seriousness of this issue, attempts by Grider (or MLIS) to try to "shoot the messenger" are really off-base and inappropriate.

Unless, of course, it's acceptable to use FPPs to smear fellow users.

How is that? When I saw Lt. Griders' letter on Cryptome today I was surprised. Before even reading it I checked the thread from last week to see if you had updated it. Negative.

Than I checked the front page to make sure someone else (at your behest) had not already posted it. Negative.

Today is Wednesday, June 29, 2005 and the letter was posted to Cryptome on Sunday, June 26, 2005.

Are you making the “cheap shot” allegation with a straight face? You honestly believe that Lt. Griders’ refutation of your (and the members who supported your position in the original thread) sensational allegations does not deserve the same placement on Metafilter as the original post?

It does make sense to me that you are raising the “cheap shot” and “shoot the messenger” card now. After all, I apologized to you in an email the day after the original thread. If I had it to do over again I would have called you out in MeTa and toned down my personal attack. Of course you know that already, so it is disingenuous of you to raise the whole “cheap shot” defense here. This is my first comment in this thread.
posted by MLIS at 5:58 PM on June 29, 2005

MLIS, the cheap shot of the Lt's message to cryptome, which you kindly included above in your fpp is:

I hope you feel comfortable with your actions, Mr. Kraft. You have managed to skip any investigation and associated an honorable, very accomplished platoon with a crime that did not exist.

This argument thread is totally garbage as usual so I will take my leave now.

It's like we don't subscribe to a common reality or something; it's very interesting how communication is apparently futile here.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:02 PM on June 29, 2005

MLIS' is basically reposting a rather insulting exerpt of an anonymous comment.

Really?

"When my medic said the wounded were stable we picked them up, threw them over our backs, and moved with them and the detainee over 200 meters to the road where we had coordinated for a field ambulance, at this time we were still taking fire but could not locate the origin. We saved the lives of the very kids that had shot at us and attempted to kill us. And what you all do not realize is that the detainee admitted to an interpreter that he and his friends had attacked us and had been paid to fight by a local insurgency leader. Although I feel it is not warranted, I welcome any investigation into the events that day. I am confident that my actions were right and in accordance with the Geneva Convention and the laws of land warfare. I hope you feel comfortable with your actions, Mr. Kraft. You have managed to skip any investigation and associated an honorable, very accomplished platoon with a crime that did not exist."

What exactly is insulting about that excerpt? Is 1LT Grider's displeasure with you smear campaign causing you discomfort? Poor poor insomnia.

Yet you continue your attack: Because Grider's statement is inconclusive, and basically defends the widespread practice of manipulating evidence by sticking weapons in front of Iraqi kids and photographing them with it for use in an Iraqi court of law. A court, which, I may add, that is little more than a kangaroo court (an article orig. published by the L.A. Times), with harsh sentences and few rights for defendants.

You insinuate, that 1LT Grider is responsible for the Iraqi court system; suggesting in not so many words that by following directives that he is "defending" a "kangaroo court." 1LT Grider is responsible not only to carry out the mission, but to ensure the safety of his subordinates and others under his control to include the wounded combatants. He did exactly that when he directed that the weapons be moved away from the combatants. Had one of the survivors regained posession of the weapons, it most certainly would have led to the soldiers' deaths as well as the their own. This is warfare, not Law & Order. The soldiers removed the weapons and then moved them again so that the photographs that were required could be taken. 1LT Grider clearly states that was the case. But that isn't enough for you, is it?

it's rather silly to personally attack him as an attention-whore, and then use his self-defense against your attacks as proof that he's an attention-whore.

I don't attack him because he's a DAW, but because I don't like his editorializing, his insinuations, his attack of my commrads' ethics. I don't like the way he touts the "I have friends in Iraq" line as if that makes him the omni Iraq reality king. I also don't like the fact that so many people here are so willing to drink his kool aid "ooooh photos of dead people, let's hang the soldiers after we impeach the commander and chief and of course after I shed a tear or two for the soldiers who I swear I support."
posted by Juicylicious at 6:05 PM on June 29, 2005

Oh, and dhoyt, for your information, when Raed suggested that U.S. troops let the Iraqi kids bleed to death, I called him on it.

I have tried to stick to what is known, but I can't help it if others read more into the pictures than what is there. Likewise, I cannot help it that others see only legal behavior, as if they would accept routine doctoring of the evidence in U.S. criminal cases.

I guess if I'm calling people out for saying that U.S. troops are babykillers, that makes me a neocon, right dhoyt?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:12 PM on June 29, 2005

Insomnia:"Look... I never said that Grider was guilty of any crime."

From the eyeball article:
"They indicate that a group of U.S. soldiers planted weapons..."

"I cannot authenticate whether Mr. Hersh is correct and that the teens in question were innocent or not"

"a situation where U.S. soldiers try to manipulate the reality of the situation"

This might have been productive with less loaded prejudicial language in the original article. "Planted" carries the implies that the weapons were not moved for documentation, the same goes for the line about manipulating the reality of the situation.

But here we are..
posted by Jack Karaoke at 6:19 PM on June 29, 2005

I apologize for the vitriol earlier, insomnia, et al. It was a silly way to use sarcasm to make a point. Upon reading insomnia's original thread on the Buhriz incident, I had had a strong feeling that the story resembled less of a Lt Calley sort of incident, and more like something Lt Grider described in his letter, so the temptation to jump in behind jsavimbi was strong. Kudos to MLIS for following up. In any case, what I was trying to say was much better said by Juicylicious...

I don't like the way he touts the "I have friends in Iraq" line as if that makes him the omni Iraq reality king. I also don't like the fact that so many people here are so willing to drink his kool aid "ooooh photos of dead people, let's hang the soldiers after we impeach the commander and chief and of course after I shed a tear or two for the soldiers who I swear I support."

...yet I still don't doubt insomnia's intentions are good. It's just the approach and delivery that consistently hurts his strategy.

I guess if I'm calling people out for saying that U.S. troops are babykillers, that makes me a neocon, right dhoyt?!

Again, it's about tone. Your (deleted) post from the other day was hardly respectful. Like so many of your others, it had a "Nyah Nyah Nyah!" tone to it that triggers crappy, going-nowhere-fast threads 90%* of the time.


*fake statistic


And what Jack Karaoke just pointed out.
posted by dhoyt at 6:21 PM on June 29, 2005

I also felt that too many people in the original thread desperately wanted the "cover-up scandal" angle to be true to serve their political purposes. It didn't seem much like they cared about the fate of the soldiers or the Iraqis one way or the other. Only whether the incident could support their larger position on the war—instant righteousness at the cost of lives.
posted by dhoyt at 6:25 PM on June 29, 2005

Grider is reading some kind of personal insult into the fact that I released the photos, which led people to question his unit's reputation, without somehow contacting him first? That might make sense... if I were an investigative reporter rather than a blogger.

Whether you are a newspaper reporter or a blogger, or even a person who puts xeroxed posters onto lampposts, you are still a publisher. You're still saying something. You seem surprised that he read some kind of personal insult into what you said, and I am willing to believe that you did not intend to insult him. However, I don't think you should be surprised that he felt insulted.

Grider's statement is inconclusive, and basically defends the widespread practice of manipulating evidence by sticking weapons in front of Iraqi kids and photographing them with it for use in an Iraqi court of law.

So (hypothetically speaking, of course) if an American servicemember moves weapons away from wounded and dead opponents in order to render aid, that precludes them from being able to take photographic evidence? Instead, they should shoot the pictures first, and stop the bleeding later?

Just making sure I understand...
posted by bugmuncher at 6:27 PM on June 29, 2005

- As a military member who served in theater during and after the war, I think 1LT Grider's account rings true in every detail, from both a policy and tactical perspective.
- Having said that, I don't blame insomnia for releasing the photos. He had questions and concerns, he didn't know the context or the situation.
- But now we have that information, and I don't understand the tenor of insomnia's (and others') subsequent posts, posts with accusatory language that turn the rules of evidence and law on its head: guilty until proven innocent.
- The link insomnia provided is even worse: parsing Grider's letter and looking for imagined inconsistancies in a brief explanation of a complicated engagement, while indirectly blaming him for evidentury procedures he is simply following, not developing.
- Many of us oppose the current administration's policies (to put it mildly) but that does not mean we need unobjective and vindictive reporting/blogging against individual soldiers.
posted by Osteo at 6:44 PM on June 29, 2005

I am glad that insomnia posted the original thread, because I believe the first world armies should be held to the highest possible standard of conduct, and the only way to do that is to publish what they do. Information is freedom.

I am glad that it turns out that the whole thing may be a tempest in a teacup. If Grider is a reputable source -- and, hey, it's the internet, so who really knows fersure, but let's go with it -- then it was on the up-and-up.

I am pissed off that the US Administration was so goddamn stupid and evil, first in launching this war and then in screwing it up so very badly.

I am happy that the soldiers were able to come unscathed through this little firefight, even despite the cost to the so-called insurgents. I'd rather American soldiers come home than be slaughtered, and I'm reasonably confident that if the insurgents would just stop shooting at them, there'd be some semblence of peaceful, if uneasy, co-existance over there until things get properly straightened out.

And, finally, I think a bunch of you have been complete and utter boobs about this whole debacle. Ferchrissakes, what a sadsack bunch of pissing and bullying.

Let's keep on ensuring that the soldiers, for as long as they're stuck taking part in this asinine invasion, do their jobs in the most professional, humane, and lawful manner possible.

How come I'm not on dhoyt's shitlist? What's a fella gotta do to earn that status? Piss me off. Especially if he's then gonna get all apologetic about it. Humbug.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:07 PM on June 29, 2005

But, a bunch more have not been boobs about it. Way to go, everyone else!
posted by absalom at 7:20 PM on June 29, 2005

'Fresh fish' made this week's grocery list, but not shitlist.
posted by dhoyt at 7:40 PM on June 29, 2005

You once told MeFi you'd served time as a "tool" in the military—so how does that make you a saint and this guy so unforgiveable?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that. So to quote myself: I've always got the impression from you past posts that that you severed in the military (in a medical capacity, if recalling correctly.) If that's true, that gives you more than enough cred to decry the horrors of war. It does not give you free rein to denigrate those currently serving. The arrogance that you display to condemn those who in their youth made the same decision you apparently made long ago is just staggering.

So, speaking as someone who spent most of Monday wondering if his brother was dead (two of his friends got it instead. Big-fucking-relief) I just have to say...

Fuck you.
posted by Cyrano at 7:48 PM on June 29, 2005

Dammit. I meant to say, "speaking as someone who has voted Democrat in every election where he could and was against this war from the start, and spent most of Monday etc., etc., etc...)
posted by Cyrano at 7:51 PM on June 29, 2005

Thanks MLIS. I applaud the soldier, TJ Grider, who posted his account. It seems plausible to me. Without any further evidence I would close the case and move on. If there is some let's see it. Is there another eyewitness account that contradicts what Grider says? We may never know the true story, but I think it takes more than some unexplained photos to start claiming war crimes have been committed. Without any explanation, other than insomnia_lj's inference of a throw down, the photos were troubling, if lacking in confirmation. Now, they seem less troubling, at least to me. Perhaps they are still photos of a throw down and cover up, but with no further evidence I will trust Lt. Grider's account with few or no qualms. [fff expressed it a bit more eloquently than I but the thoughts are similar]
posted by caddis at 9:05 PM on June 29, 2005

"So (hypothetically speaking, of course) if an American servicemember moves weapons away from wounded and dead opponents in order to render aid, that precludes them from being able to take photographic evidence?"

I didn't say that. If officers are going to be collecting evidence, then they should be trained in the same rules of evidence collection that police departments use every day -- nothing more, nothing less. Like any legit criminal case, bad evidence should be deemed inadmissable.

Soldiers aren't cops. If you send them in without suitable training to do a police officer's duty, you're going to have horrible injustices take place. This, frankly, should hardly be a new lesson for our soldiers in Iraq.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:27 PM on June 29, 2005

"The soldiers removed the weapons and then moved them again so that the photographs that were required could be taken."

So, in other words, it wasn't enough to take the initial set of photographs. What was required was to take photographs where the same weapon was placed in front of several previously unarmed teens.

Gotcha. That's not planting evidence, though... that's just required.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:44 PM on June 29, 2005

I wasn't sure that enheartening wasn't a proper word, that's why I just repeated it with a question mark. It does seem to me to be an ugly word considering that heartening seems to be synonymous.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:12 AM on June 30, 2005

"...several previously unarmed teens."
Because the first series of photos don't show weapons, that proves they were previously unarmed? These questions raise more questions than they answer, and IMO these photos are not an answer on this point.

"That's not planting evidence, though.."
Right-o! Kind of.. Because you didn't know the purpose of the photos you couldn't say the placement is intended to mislead. It might be misleading YOU, because you interpret them as "This guy had this weapon, this guy had this weapon, this guy had this weapon". Similarly, you apparently interpreted the photos without weapons as "previously unarmed".

I'm not arguing for either interpretation, I'm just trying to point out that you started this shitstorm right here in the third damn sentence:

"appear to show U.S. soldiers planting weapons on Iraqi teenagers" (repeated throughout article)

c. A misleading piece of evidence placed so as to be discovered.

You probably could have swapped out the tone you take at the end "Figuring out from Al Jazeera what their reporter saw and what the locals told him would probably be very revealing as to what happened that day." for the tone you use when introducing the photos. Did you talk to any of the soldiers you are in contact with? Did you talk to soldiers serving who may have sympathetic concerns, like "Nameless soldier" on Kos? Did you write to the admins at CompanyCommand or PlatoonLeader and ask if there are forums where you could talk about experiences in Iraq with soldiers? If so, you didn't put it up front in this piece.

Of course Grider still would have written that letter. But any research you present with the article informs the discussion, and reduces wiggle room for anyone trying to explain the circumstances, whether they think this fight was on the level or not.

What was the line in Spider-man "With great power comes great responsibility"

I might be coming off as a prick, or preachy.. but I just don't think these photos were handled properly, and that the arguments surrounding them stem from this. That pisses me off, because any importance they may have has been diluted and tainted.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 1:20 AM on June 30, 2005

evidently, insomnia_lj is just another pot-stirrer with his own agenda. Instead of trying to incite yourself into the spotlight with pictures of dead (male) kids, I suggest you try it with just females next time. That oughtta get them really going.

Gotcha. Ha ha.
posted by jsavimbi at 6:38 AM on June 30, 2005

Soldiers aren't cops. If you send them in without suitable training to do a police officer's duty, you're going to have horrible injustices take place. This, frankly, should hardly be a new lesson for our soldiers in Iraq.

Aside from the war in general, where is the injustice in this particular incident?

* If these guys were part of an RPG squad, as Grider says they were, and as Grider says one of them said, they were attacked and photographed next to an RPG they were found with, after the RPG was removed to render aid. Is it horribly unjust for the photos to show the weapon the squad was found with? Should medics start to take the viewing angle of a lens into account, and treat people really close to each other so they can all be captured in the same photograph? Should we just mount video cameras on the helmets of every soldier?

* If only one of them was carrying an RPG and all the rest were innocent observers, what the hell were they doing in the middle of a daylong battle advancing on U.S. troops in a dense palm grove? Not a credible scenario.

* If none of them were carrying weapons before the clash, then surely a great injustice has occurred.

If officers are going to be collecting evidence, then they should be trained in the same rules of evidence collection that police departments use every day.

Speaking of evidence collection...

Awhile back, a U.S. citizen working in Iraq sent me several photographs he obtained from a soldier in Iraq. Apparently, they had been passed along between several sources before reaching me.

OK. So let's look at the evidence: We have a series of photos, and we have a statement made by the photographer, who was there that day. He counts as a primary source. A primary source says those "kids" were threatening their position with RPGs.

Then there's your source, "a U.S. citizen working in Iraq." He was not there, which makes him (or her) decidedly not a primary source. He or she apparently didn't consult with anyone who was there (or else you would have said so, right?), which makes him (or her) not a secondary source. Could he or she be a "tertiary source?" Well, I guess that depends on how you define "several". In any case, it is clear that your source was not involved.

So the evidence stands at a primary source, a witness, with one account of the story, versus a non-source, who saw the photos and made inferences about their meanings, then sent them to you.

(It's not for me to speculate too much upon Mr. Hersh's reasons for not going forward with the pictures. He has his reasons, which I assume are valid.)

I'll speculate for you. Maybe it's because he has farther to fall than you do. He's a journalist. His work is held to a high standard by editors concerned about their publication's credibility and reputation, unlike pretty much the entire blogosphere. He's not going to write a story impugning American servicemembers based on a non-source.

If a major media outlet had published the photos, you can be sure they'd eventually have published Grider's account, probably with a "clarification" giving the public a chance to digest both pieces of information.

But since the photos were published and discussed in the blogosphere, a disjointed medium, there are still people all over the world who have seen the photos along with the (perhaps unintentionally) misleading, non-source text that accompanies them, but have not seen Grider's account. And they're using that information to form opinions of American troops and America in general.

I would encourage you to at least give Grider's account the same attention and dissemination as the photos. I'd also encourage you to stop using loaded phrases like "planting evidence" unless you really mean that U.S. servicemembers placed the weapons in the photos with intent to mislead.
posted by bugmuncher at 6:43 AM on June 30, 2005

bugmuncher writes "what the hell were they doing in the middle of a daylong battle advancing on U.S. troops in a dense palm grove?"

Watching
Playing
Doing what they usually do on an afternoon
Smoking cigarettes
Talking about girls
Talking about boys
Talking about the occupation

What would you be doing if you were in their shoes?

Remember we are assuming innocent until proven guilty.
An RPG 'unit' or perhaps a group of kids who found an RPG and hoped to use it against the invading forces. Maybe one of them told Grider they were a RPG 'unit' to increase the paranioa that every Iraqi is out to get the US soldiers. Maybe he didn't want to admit they had no idea how to fire the thing, they certainly seemed pretty shit as far as tactics went and didn't have any other weapons.

Grider is satisfied that he shot the right kids and helped 'to rid Iraq of insurgents and terrorist attempting to destabilize the government and terrorize the Iraqi people', that is his perogative.

Also, Grider seems a little confused as to how many weapons the kids had, and has photos taken of all of them with one RPG.

Reminds me of The Machine Gunners.

That the officer in charge believes his unit did the right thing is not really suprising. His story is interesting and shows a way of interperating the events. His condescending attitude and use of language do not help me to sympathise with his point of view.

Taking photos of the kids to prove they were insurgents resistance fighters for political reasons should not be part of a soldiers job. But that is far from the most dangerous task that may be asked of them, and for which they have not been trained.
posted by asok at 7:28 AM on June 30, 2005

insomnia_lj, you owe these soldiers an apology.

"a group of U.S. soldiers planted weapons"
"clearly, something significant is amiss"
"soldiers...apparently are willing to manipulate the evidence in order to justify their actions"
"a situation where U.S. soldiers try to manipulate the reality of the situation"

Similarly, the Seymour Hersh quote is intensely misleading. It looks like he was, at best, talking about another situation all together.

Your change of direction to argue that it's not the rules of war, but rather the rules of evidence, that these soldiers have violated does not hold water, either. Your accusations that "horrible injustices" could take place because of these photos only works if the photos were distributed exactly as you've distributed them: without any supporting documentation. It now seems obvious that LT Grider passed these photos to his commanding officers along with a report that explained exactly what he did.
posted by event at 7:42 AM on June 30, 2005

Oh for fuck's sake.

Not one goddamn one of you has any idea what REALLY happened. It is ALL SPECULATION.

This is just a friggin' bukkake bang.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:10 AM on June 30, 2005

"Then there's your source, "a U.S. citizen working in Iraq." He was not there, which makes him (or her) decidedly not a primary source. He or she apparently didn't consult with anyone who was there (or else you would have said so, right?), which makes him (or her) not a secondary source."

Did I say that my source wasn't there? No, I didn't. Neither did I say they were there. I said it was a U.S. citizen in Iraq, and that the photos had been passed along between several sources, which, as Lt. Grider admits, they had. In other words, I'm not going to tell you exactly how close my source is to the story, because I want to protect their anonymity and career.

I contacted Cryptome the other day to ask whether they were contacted at all by Lt. Grider. They were not, and Cryptome has been unable to verify Lt. Grider as being the source of the anonymous comment that was made at roadstoiraq.com regarding this matter.

In other words, those of you suggesting that I should apologize to Grider are all assuming that Grider both wrote the response *AND* told the truth *AND* that his anonymous comment accurately reflected what happened on the ground.

From my POV, what happened was, at best, a routine procedure for handling evidence in Iraq which frankly wouldn't fly in the U.S.A. Such evidence would be laughed out of court and get the whole case dismissed, and if it were shown that police policies caused such tainted evidence to be routinely taken, then people would lose their jobs, those policies would be changed, and there'd be mandatory training required on the proper collection of evidence.

FFF is right. This is all just speculation. I cannot say for sure what happened, nor can you, even if you had Lt. Grider personally tell you his side of the story. Why? Because this story hasn't been investigated.

There are a lot of potential scenarios as to what happened at Buhriz, but I stick by my original post: The same weapon was placed by U.S. soldiers in front of multiple Iraqis, essentially framing those Iraqis who were not carrying the weapon in question, and distorting what U.S. soldiers saw when they first arrived, and when the teens were first photographed. Only one of those teens could've had the weapon.

Do I know that they weren't carrying weapons earlier that they dropped and that U.S. soldiers failed to find when they searched and established their perimeter? No. Do I know that they weren't carrying clown shoes instead? No. I only know about the pictures and about what my source told me, which means I know little more for certain than any of you.

So, no, I am categorically not going to apologize for making these pictures public, or for citing news reports from the day indicating that Grider's unit was there. The public has a right to know, regardless of whether you'd prefer censoring the release of these photos or not.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:10 AM on June 30, 2005

And releasing photos is one means of shining a flashlight into the corners, making sure the cockroaches that would bring a bad name to the USA and/or troops are found and dealt with.

Should one suspect something is fishy when multiple pictures of dead boys claimed to be insurgents are shown with a single RPG between them? Yes.

Do we have a decent explanation as to why it's done that way? Apparently, yes: it's SOP.

Might we wish the procedure to change, so that no one else -- especially insurgents -- can not have their suspicions aroused by fishy dealings? Quite likely, we would.

Tempest in a teacup.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:22 AM on June 30, 2005

"Your accusations that "horrible injustices" could take place because of these photos only works if the photos were distributed exactly as you've distributed them: without any supporting documentation."

Really? Then do three things for me then:
1> Show me the report in question.
2> Prove to me that these misleading photos were not used during the interrogation of the teens in question to force a confession.
3> Prove to me that Grider -- and Grider himself -- made the anonymous comment in question that you base all your assumptions on, and that his comment is truthful and factually accurate.

After all, if you're making accusations, then you're a part of the story now too, right?
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:22 AM on June 30, 2005

"This is just a friggin' bukkake bang.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:10 AM PST on June 30 [!]"

As evidenced by the level heads being ignored.
I though the post ended shortly after Medieval Maven's comment that we should relish finding new information.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:06 PM on June 30, 2005

insomnia_lj did exactly what he accused these soldiers of having done. He took evidence out of its context and used it to incriminate somebody.

Prove to me that these misleading photos were not used during the interrogation of the teens in question to force a confession.

It doesn't work that way, insomnia_lj. You have to show that they were, and so far you haven't supported the claim.
posted by event at 1:17 PM on June 30, 2005

insomnia_lj did exactly what he accused these soldiers of having done. He took evidence out of its context and used it to incriminate somebody.

A most excellent point.

Might we stop with the masturbating, now? I think event has succinctly summed up why what ij did was questionable, just as what the soldiers did was questionable (at least by those who didn't know army protocol). Now the latter has been partially answered by a soldier, and ij has stated why he did what he did and clearly feels he did right.

This MeFi war can now be over, puh-lease!
posted by five fresh fish at 1:34 PM on June 30, 2005

So, has anyone created a firefox greasemonkey script that will omit posts by specific individuals in Mefi? Not to point fingers or anything.
posted by craniac at 2:27 PM on June 30, 2005

Yeah, but since I'm using it to ignore you, I can't see your request.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:29 PM on June 30, 2005

bugmuncher writes "what the hell were they doing in the middle of a daylong battle advancing on U.S. troops in a dense palm grove?"

Watching
Playing
Doing what they usually do on an afternoon
Smoking cigarettes
Talking about girls
Talking about boys
Talking about the occupation

What would you be doing if you were in their shoes?

Well. If a battle were raging as it had been all day, and I were not participating, and I heard lots of gunfire around, I would not leave my house...
posted by bugmuncher at 4:48 PM on June 30, 2005

"Then there's your source, "a U.S. citizen working in Iraq." He was not there, which makes him (or her) decidedly not a primary source. He or she apparently didn't consult with anyone who was there (or else you would have said so, right?), which makes him (or her) not a secondary source."

Did I say that my source wasn't there? No, I didn't. Neither did I say they were there. I said it was a U.S. citizen in Iraq, and that the photos had been passed along between several sources, which, as Lt. Grider admits, they had.

You are correct. I assumed your source was not there, because you didn't say your source was there. I apologize for that, and for how that assumption may have affected my tone. But until you can say your source was there, he or she is still decidedly not a primary source.

A reputable publication would require a journalist to tell their editor an anonymous source's identity. The editor would then decide whether the story is worth risking credibility over. In your situation, since you are your own editor, you are risking your own credibility until you can say your source was a primary source. That's just the nature of things.

In other words, I'm not going to tell you exactly how close my source is to the story, because I want to protect their anonymity and career.

I applaud you for respecting this person's confidentiality, especially since people are hounding you over this now. In some ways, this could be self-sacrificial because of the reaction you're getting.

In other words, those of you suggesting that I should apologize to Grider are all assuming that Grider both wrote the response *AND* told the truth *AND* that his anonymous comment accurately reflected what happened on the ground.

You're correct that I assumed the Grider account is actually from Lt. Grider. That is an assumption I and many other reasonable people are willing to make, only because of how the Internet works (you don't need a photo ID to get online ... so how do you know I am me, and not some U.S. intelligence agent, and that both the photos and the Grider account didn't come from a Saddam loyalist ex-intelligence agent?)

As for whether I assume his account is an accurate reflection: No, I am not ready to decide on that. But if the first assumption is valid, then Grider's account is the only *known* primary source account of the incident that exists on the Internet, and it deserves the same attention as the photos in any credible publication.

...I stick by my original post...

I probably would do the same, were I in your shoes. I know that being technically right can be unpopular at times.

But, if the authenticity of Grider's identity can be determined, are you willing to give it some attention? I imagine that doing so might make lemons into lemonade out of the situation, at least for those of us (like me) that didn't have preconceived animosity toward you.
posted by bugmuncher at 5:40 PM on June 30, 2005

Hmm... do you notice that all the kids are barefoot and their feet are really dirty suggesting that they soldiers didn't just remove their shoes. All the kids being barefoot fits really well with the idea that these kids were playing soccer. Barefoot soccer is really popular among poor Iraqis - such as this picture shows. If you do a search for web references to kids playing soccer barefoot-ed you'll find lots on the web.


For the life of me I can find any references to actual barefoot insurgents. All the pictures of the insurgents are older, at least 16 years or older and they all have shoes.
posted by bhouston at 7:47 PM on July 4, 2005