The palm trees....oh the humanity!

That is their livelihood, ass-hat.

That would be a crime in a democracy, punishable by prison time. If I knew of people who were conspiring to commit murder or had already commited murder and didn't report it I would go to prison. It seems this consequence is less severe.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize this war without trying to tug at heart strings about these poor people who are aiding thugs.

Bobby: Bzzt. You assume they're aiding thugs. They might all be aiding the insurgents, and most likely some of them are, but it's likely that some are innocent and have now been collectively punished for the crimes of others.

I don't know what country you're from, but there's no legal obligation to report committed crimes in the US (beyond certain limited situations where someone is responsible for dependents such as children and elderly). Knowing about planned crimes might make you responsible due to conspiracy charges, but it'd be an uphill battle. Where do you live that failing to report comitted crimes is a crime in itself?

Now, Iraq is still under occupation or martial law, so one can reasonably state that normal laws are surplanted by that, but collective punishment is still immoral and illegal under war crime statutes (Relevant Geneva conventions). I don't think international law should necessarily be slavishly followed, but there are still practical concerns. Does punishing innocent civilians accomplish more than the damage it does to Iraqis' perceptions of the US occupation? My suspicion is that this is a unwise thing to do. If one is running a terrorist group, collective punishment is great in that it removes any incentive for people to not work with you, since they already suffer the consequences for it. I don't think Iraq is Vietnam, but this kind of thing hurt the US there and it'll hurt the effort in Iraq as well.

I'll admit, however, that I'm not in Iraq and I don't have the information that the military does, but these actions are immoral. It's sick to see people defending this. Saying that the punishment of innocent people is wrong is not tugging at heart strings; it's the truth.

Has anyone checked out the credibility factor on this one? Or are we just accepting what this blogger has to say on face value just because we think this whole Iraq thing is a mistake?

I don't know about you all but I had to visit and read Radley's blog for a couple of times before I could say he was legit. I now have him bookmarked. There are a lot of other blogs out there that are just crap. The equvilant of the vagrant on the subway talking to himself, except it's now online.

V :)

Since this story is from The Independent, I would recommend taking it with a large grain of salt... and finding some reputable backup source for confirmation.

If this is true screw their palm trees.I would rather cut down a miilion palm trees than lose one US solider.

I'd have to agree with Dave on this one, The Independent has been known to, ahem, 'sex-up' their reporting from Iraq. Why have no other news organizations reported these heinous crimes against humanity? This story is more than likely crap...

Reb:

Ever consider the possibility that destroying ones means of survival might increase the chances of more dead US soldiers?

A policy of guilty until proven innocent not only fails as a means of winning friends and influencing people - it aids those who wish us harm.

Johnny Reb -

Though most of the time I disagree with you, I am glad you read this site and comment on it. I like hearing different voices.

I also like that you have learned to type without using all capital letters. That drove me nuts.

Charlie

Sgt. Stryker "Fisks" this one pretty well at the link below. Think about how little this story says and that the quotes are all from Sunni Muslims, i.e., both sides aren't being told.

http://www.sgtstryker.com/weblog/archives/003951.php#003951

I wish people in this country would become more upset here for the collective punishment we face in our country -- every day. Congress and regulatory agencies rack up additional laws and regulations that punish everyone as a result of a crime by one or a few. The IRS assumes you are guilty until you prove your innocence during an audit. What gives? And what exactly is an ass-hat?

Tony,

Ass-hat = one who wears his ass around his head.

I am positive that there is more than meets the eye to this story. . .for both sides concerned.

I am sure that the farmers are either worried about retaliation for information given or just plain not giving up their relatives and/or countrymen.

Also, the American military could surely come up with a better 'punishment' than ruining a person's livelihood. What the hell are we over there for? To install democracy (or instill it, rather?)? If this story is true than we are sending the wrong message with these actions. Perhaps an Iraqi Revenue Service audit? = ;)

Danno for all we know this was one or two trees being used to hide snipers or guerillas. The story is vague propaganda.

roach, I hear you. The fact is, we don't know what the truth is about it at this point. I hope we get some confirmation or debunking. . .I'll echo the sentiment about it being from the Independent. My salt scale is being used . . .

I think we can all agree that terrorizing civilians is the best way to rally them against you. Terroristic activities have NEVER worked as a means to an end.

As far as the legitimacy of the article: The Telegraph has been accused of "sexing up" stories in favor of invasion not against it so making that sort of claim regarding this story seems out of place.

Also, if the story is true, then it may indicate a turning point in the prosecution of this war. There's nothing wrong with destroying a person's crops during a war if those crop's are thought to provide sanctuary to the resistance. However, the Army ought to compensate those farmers not out of a duty to do so but out of a desire to prevent further resistance. I do not believe for an instant that compensating farmers will garner support for the U.S. but I do believe it may prevent an Iraqi from making the transition from angry farmer to armed rebel.

Oops, my bad, just realized the article came from the Independent not the Telegraph which is completely suspect. Geez, I need more coffee.

dragoon,

These people are only innocent if they are completely oblivious to what is going on. The piece in the Independent seems overly sympathetic to them and does try to pull at heart strings.

If they knew of the resistance using the farms then they are accesories:

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT - Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18

I would say that if they know who the resistance is they received, relieved, and assisted, wouldn't you? I also assume by resistance they do mean those who are killing U.S. soldiers not some peaceful protestors.

Well, Riverbend has confirmed it, and Salaam Pax has vouched for her, so I'm inclined to believe it's happened considering this seems like a fairly easy thing to verify.

roach: Did you read the article? It specifically mentions "groves" and 32 farmers being affected by this, and Riverbend states that it's occurred in other cities near Baghdad as well.

I agree that it's likely that we're not seeing the whole truth here, but some of this skepticism and disbelief seems awfully convenient.

Bobby: You're assuming that every farmer is complicit in giving aid to the guerillas. If they're running food and water to the fighters (Protestors? Where'd that come from?) then yes, the troops are fully justified in taking steps to stop that.

You're also claiming that because these farmers may know guerillas are using their farms and they don't tell the troops who, when and where, they deserve to be made destitute. That's different, and how do prevent sweeping up innocent people when the only criteria for punishment is "They should have known and told us"? Are you that eager to make the Iraqis inform on each other out of suspicion and fear of losing their farms? That's not a way to build a stable society.

If you're quoting US law codes, look at what they mean. If I know or suspect someone's committed a crime, I haven't done jack. If I hide them away, give the food and water and try to sneak them past the cops, then I'm an accessory.

Ok say its true. I think it's a sensible policy. Collective punishment is a classic feature of every counter-insurgency campaign since the beginning of time. If people won't cooperate--and that's the only way to get intel--they pacy the price. Smashing groves is a pretty minor price compared to reprisal attacks and the like.

Sorry guys, this ain't some IHS debating seminar. We're fighting a real war over there. You have to be harsh sometimes. Hearts and minds campaigns are important, but you need a carrot and a stick.

I'm still not convinced we're actually doing this other than to clear up areas actually used for ambushes adjacent to roads, intersections, etc.

Johnny Reb has it right. By the way, "War is Hell".

roach: I find your last response utterly reprehensible, evil, and un-American. Collective punishment is a common feature of counter-insurgency campaigns not because it's OK, but because power corrupts. The use of such tactics eats out the moral core of a society; it has done so in Israel and it is doing so here now, and the tenuous security it may gain us is not worth that price.

The right of innocent farmers not to have their livelihoods destroyed may not morally be sacrificed in order to maintain the occupation; if US forces cannot remain secure in Iraq except by such methods, they may not morally remain in Iraq. Moral principles are not negated by the presence of war, nor are the fundamental rights of individuals nullified.

"You have to be harsh sometimes" is the argument of a totalitarian. If you can't get what you want except by mass violations of the rights of innocents, you *have no right to get what you want*.

roach: collective punishment is a war crime. Period.

bobby: "These people are only innocent if they are completely oblivious to what is going on."

And what do you think will happen to them if they tell the soldiers? Do you think the soldiers will be able to protect them? Do you think they'll even try?

These Iraqis have two choices: don't tell the soldiers and have their trees torn up, or tell the soldiers and be killed, probably with their family.

Jon H that is simply false. There are certain ways and means by which collective punishment may be lawfully imposed in time of war, whether in the more familiar and minor forms of curfews, searches, etc. but also in more major forms like bulldozing groves, moving people etc.

See generally http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/trials/reprisals.html (details int'l law principles that permit some types of reprisals to show that Nazis basically ignored such limits completley and thus violated law of war).

As for people's "rights," I think the vanquished has the right to do what it's told. I never much bought into this war of liberatoin concept. Wars are not favors we do for other peoples. If the Iraqis can show themselves to be orderly and civilized--as opposed to hostile and barbaric--then they can slowly have the degree of liberty to which Americans are accustomed. But to give it to them overnight would be foolish and homicidal to your fellow countrymen serving in Iraq.

And, according to Nuremberg, (once again in criticism of Nazi practice) all of the following must be done before reprisals (i.e., killing innocent civilians in retaliation) may be also be done legally under the law of war:

Id. at 1249-50. One or more of the following measures are to be taken prior to a resort to reprisals:

(1) the registration of the inhabitants, (2) the possession of passes or identification certificates, (3) the establishment of restricted areas, (4) limitations of movement, (5) the adoption of curfew regulations, (6) the prohibition of assembly, (7) the detention of suspected persons, (8) restrictions on communication, (9) the imposition of restrictions on food supplies, (10) the evacuation of troublesome areas, (11) the levying of monetary contributions, (12) compulsory labor to repair damage from sabotage, (13) the destruction of property in proximity to the place of the crime, and any other regulation not prohibited by international law that would in all likelihood contribute to the desired result.

Source: http://www.tourolaw.edu/Publications/internationallawrev/vol6/part5.html#RFn381

If this is true (obviously jury's still out), it seems counter-intuitive. The money we use to rebuild Iraq "can't be in the form of loans because we are trying to win over the hearts and minds", yet we knowingly commit acts which will universally be seen as negative by those very people?

Something doesn't add up.

"These Iraqis have two choices: don't tell the soldiers and have their trees torn up, or tell the soldiers and be killed, probably with their family."

exactly.

let's just assume the groves were pulled up for legitimate, tactical reasons.

despite the possible negative outcomes, it has been deemed to be worthwile for the overall cause (which is to vanquish or liberate?).

break eggs: omelette.

the point of stories such as this is: civilians in war zones suffer.

forget motive, this is the real world, nothing will reduce their suffering.

if the current environment in Iraq and experiences of the people there, does not 'create' a single individual prepared to carry out a terrorist act.

this will be a major win.

however, if this story is true, it gives further cause to speculate that it will 'create' at least one terrorist - please note.

to ease our minds, we can think about the fact no Vietnamese (who suffered from similar tactics) have been convicted of perpetrating a terrorist act on u.s. soil.

dragoon,

It seems we are both making assumptions then. I'm assuming that they know that they are using their farms (not so far fetched seeing as they know who the people are) and you are assuming that they have no idea what is going on and that they only know who these people and not what they are doing. If my assumption is correct then they are indeed accesories and if yours is correct then I suppose they are innocent. Since neither of us is on the ground and knows for sure I guess there's no reason to discuss it any further.

Jon H.,

That would be a similar dilemma as someone who knows of crimes commited by gangsters and fears reprisal if they report it. Difficult position but I would rather err on the side of justice, but I can see why they might be hesitant. That hesitation, however, cost them their trees and they probably won't hesitate next time, or their neighbors won't hesitate once word gets out. It's a dirty business.

Jon H --

How can collective punishment be a war crime? War is, in and of itself, a form of collective punishment.

And--since everyone's been ragging on Ben Shapiro--maybe the libertarian and liberal critics of the Army should sign up to humanize it with their deep perspective on how to (1) fight and win wars while (2) not destroying anyone's palm trees, asking for permission before taking over a house as a forward base, and doing all the other nasty things you need to do to win.