Article

2008-11-30 Iraq

New friendly fire coverup: Army shreds files on dead soldiers

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by logi_cal 2008-11-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 The Army attributed their deaths in Iraq in 2006 to enemy action; Salon's investigation, which included graphic battle video and eyewitness testimony, indicated that their deaths were likely due to friendly fire.

That is not inconsistent. You wouldn't have 'fire' enemy or friendly if there wasn't "enemy action" [at least we expect that discipline to be such that our troops didn't engage the weapons without the enemy present]. That does not preclude the fatal wounds were not inflicted just by enemy fire.

Now this will lead to a full investigation. Everyone had better lawyer up because several violations of the UCMJ have occurred whether or not all the facts are valid in the article. Both sides are subject to various Articles of the UCMJ.

Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
Art. 98. Noncompliance with procedural rules
Art. 107. False official statements
Art. 131. Perjury
for any commissioned officer
Art. 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman

and if the lads did believe they were ordered to do an illegal act they also could have gone with -

"Art. 138. Complaints of wrongs

Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon."

which is pretty much a nuke handgrenade, but considering where they are now, not much different.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-11-30 09:34|| 2008-11-30 09:34|| Front Page Top

#2 "two who were present in Ramadi during the friendly fire incident, one of them just feet from where Nelson and Suarez died -- were ordered to shred two boxes full of documents"

This doesn't pass the smell test unless they are using combat infantry as file clerks up at higher HQ.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-11-30 10:41|| 2008-11-30 10:41|| Front Page Top

#3 Just too much coincidence is required. This sounds like a conspiracy theory type of thing where there is actually only fog of war.

Of course Salon writers have lots of experience with commanding troops in combat to make that judgement, right?

Posted by OldSpook 2008-11-30 10:49|| 2008-11-30 10:49|| Front Page Top

#4 -- were ordered to shred two boxes full of documents"

Thinking more on that - two boxes? Hell of a lot of witness statements to be two boxes. Personnel records went digital and minimal well before then. So two boxes of what paper? Which, if anyone has done staff work would understand, would be multiple copies of various drafts sent to applicable offices for comments and reviews on work at hand. And the second and third rewrites because someone wants 'shall' rewritten to 'will'. Originals would normally be kept, but staffing copies would be destroyed rather than just trashed because of privacy requirements.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-11-30 11:42|| 2008-11-30 11:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Muh Dad sez send boxes to Parris Island. Have dem unshredded.

Posted by .5MT 2008-11-30 19:27|| www.cybernations.net]">[www.cybernations.net] 2008-11-30 19:27|| Front Page Top

#6 Comare wid RENSE: OBAMA IS AN INTEL SPOOK.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-11-30 20:37|| 2008-11-30 20:37|| Front Page Top

#7 I concur w/ Old Spoof #s 2. & 3.

When did Salon ever put our finest Men and Women FIRSTUS before their "Leftest Rag & Leftest Righters"??

Posted by RD">RD 2008-11-30 22:25|| 2008-11-30 22:25|| Front Page Top

#8 Please excuse my BAD TYPO!

I concur w/ OldSpook #s 2. & 3.

/sorry OS

Posted by RD">RD 2008-11-30 22:27|| 2008-11-30 22:27|| Front Page Top

23:07 phil_b
22:42 RD
22:41 crosspatch
22:27 RD
22:25 RD
22:24 OldSpook
22:06 OldSpook
21:58 phil_b
21:55 Grolush Darling of the Hatfields3195
21:48 OldSpook
21:46 OldSpook
21:43 Pappy
21:13 JosephMendiola
21:10 JosephMendiola
21:01 JosephMendiola
20:56 JosephMendiola
20:37 JosephMendiola
20:33 Hellfish
20:32 Hellfish
20:32 GolfBravoUSMC
20:27 Rob06
20:21 Hellfish
19:57 NoMoreBS
19:39 john frum