Hasan wanted patients to face war crimes charges
Fort Hood massacre suspect Nidal Malik Hasan sought to have some of his patients prosecuted for war crimes based on statements they made during psychiatric sessions with him, a captain who served on the base said Monday. . . .
It wasn’t clear Monday what information Hasan received from patients and what became of his requests for prosecution. ABC News, citing anonymous sources, reported that his superiors rejected the requests, and that investigators suspect this triggered the shootings.
Hasan may have been legally justified in reporting what patients disclosed, said Patrick McLain, a Dallas lawyer who specializes in military defense work and is not involved in the Hasan case. But it’s impossible to be sure without knowing exactly what they said, he added.
"He was right on his authority to report it," said the ex-Marine, who formerly served as a court-martial judge. The Army teaches all service members that they have a duty to report evidence of war crimes.
War crimes? Our heroes commit war crimes? Start here: War criminality, in U.S. soldiers’ words. A bit of the soldier testimony from that diary:
Afghanistan:
"Anyone carrying a shovel or any sort of implement that could be used to bury an IED could be considered a target. After dark, you can shoot anyone who is outside."
Iraq:
"There were massive amounts of artillery strikes before we even invaded. We saw the results of that. Streets full of bodies – women and children – body parts, extremely indiscriminate. I’m talking about rolling through villages here, not military encampments."
". . . at one point, anyone who was described as a suspicious observer would be a legitimate target, anyone holding a cell phone, binoculars, or at one point, anyone out after curfew, and this led to an incident where Marines were firing at firefighters and cops silhouetted against a fire that our indirect fire had caused who were trying to help out the civilians that were being affected by that fire."
Below is additional testimony by three U.S. Iraq veterans, but I don’t think it’s different in Afghanistan:
Vincent Emanuele: An act that took place quite often in Iraq was that of taking pop shots at cars that drove by. Our rules of engagement stated that we should first fire warning shots into the ground in front of the car, then the engine block, and then the driver and passengers.
Most of the time, however, the shots made their way straight to those very individuals in the car.
On April 18, 2006, I had my first confirmed killed. This man was innocent. I don’t know his name. I called him “the fat man.” He was walking back to his house, and I shot him in front of his friend and his father. The first round didn’t kill him, after I had hit him up here in his neck area. And afterwards he started screaming and looked right into my eyes. So I looked at my friend, who I was on post with, and I said, “Well, I can’t let that happen.” So I took another shot and took him out. He was then carried away by the rest of his family. It took seven people to carry his body away.
There was one incident, where we got into a firefight just south of the government center about 2,000 meters. We had no idea where the fire was coming from. And the way our rules of engagement were, pinpoint where the fire is coming from and throw a rocket at it. So, at that being said, we still didn’t know where the fire was coming from, and an eighty-four-millimeter rocket was shot into a house. I do not know if there was anyone in it. We do not know if that’s where the fire was coming from. But that’s what was done.
I just want to say that I am sorry for the hate and destruction that I have inflicted on innocent people, and I’m sorry for the hate and destruction that others have inflicted on innocent people. At one point, it was OK. But reality has shown that it’s not and that this is happening and that until people hear about what is going on with this war, it will continue to happen and people will continue to die. I am sorry for the things that I did. I am no longer the monster that I once was.
Jason Hurd:
And there was one of those buildings that was sort of dilapidated; however, we knew that squatters had taken this building over, and we actually used to make jokes that this place looked like a crack house and that they were running drugs out of there. We had no evidence of that; it was just joking.One day, Iraqi police got into an exchange of gunfire with some unknown individuals around that building. Some of the stray rounds came across the Tigris River and hit the shield of one of our Hummers. The gunner atop that Hummer decided to open fire with his fifty-caliber machinegun into that building. He expended about a case and a half of ammunition. And I’m no weapons expert—I’m a medic—but I talked to some of my colleagues just the other night, and to put this into perspective for you all, each case of fifty-cal ammunition holds about 150 rounds. A case and a half is well over 200 rounds. Over 200 rounds of fifty-caliber ammunition could take out just about every single person in this room. We fired indiscriminately and unnecessarily at this building. We never got a body count, we never got a casualty count afterwards. Another unit came through and swept up that mess.
Ladies and gentleman, things like that happen every day in Iraq. We react out of fear, fear for our lives, and we cause complete and utter destruction.
Individuals from my unit indiscriminately and unnecessarily opened fire on innocent civilians as they’re driving down the road on their own streets. My unit—individuals from my platoon would fire into the grills of these cars and then come back in the evenings after missions were done and brag about it. They would say, “Hey, did you guys see that car I shot at? It spewed radiator fluid all over the ground. Wasn’t that cool?” I remember thinking back on that and how appalled I was that we were bragging about these things, that we were laughing, but that’s what you do in a combat zone.
P.S. — From "War Crimes Committed by the United States in Iraq and Mechanisms for Accountability"
"[T]he choices made at more senior levels than the ranks of individual soldiers have created the context in which regular abuses of civilians in occupied Iraq are occurring. It is argued that: the failure to adequately rebuild the civilian and social infrastructure; the failure to provide civilians with appropriate security; and the choices of weapons and tactics often used in military operations all constitute war crimes. Regardless of the rationale for invading and occupying Iraq, the U.S. and British governments, their commanders and all their soldiers in the field are accountable for these grave breaches."
"One reason for the huge numbers of civilian casualties under the U.S. occupation is that U.S. soldiers have often behaved as if they have been told to shoot anything that moves. As noted in the Christian Science Monitor: “The rules of engagement instruct U.S. soldiers to bring withering force to bear on positions they’re attacked from, even when an insurgent ducks into a private house for cover” (22). However, many NGOs have attested that private homes and persons who are clearly civilians are attacked without any possible excuse that a particular attack was directed at insurgents."
"Each citizen of the United States is challenged to be willing to recognize first that fellow citizens in the executive branch of the Federal government and in the military have repeatedly violated international law in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The next step is to open our minds to not only the possibility but the absolute necessity to hold our fellow citizens to account. As noted above, we have a law to do so—the War Crimes Act."



21 Comments







Wow
My Lai type stuff.
Entirely predictable (because of stress, fear, anger, frustration — the stuff of not being able to distinguish non-foe from foe).
To blame: the chain of command, all the way up to the top.
Note it’s a story from Tuesday, November 17, but you and me are finding out about it today by chance. I only found this disappeared news because I was googling ‘war crimes’, ‘soldiers’, ‘Iraq’, and so on. So, anyway, obviously the mainstream press has decided not to cover this. Even though, according to inside sources, the frustration about getting war crimes prosecuted appears to have been Hasan’s major conscious motive.
What a joke.
War crimes trials based on statements that might have been made during psychiatric therapy sessions.
So, macman, let’s say you are a US military psychiatrist and you hear these sorts of stories from your patients. What do you do? Would you ignore it as your comments above suggest? If that’s the case I hold you in no higher regard than the war-criminals themselves.
In my opinion Hasan did the right thing by reporting them to his superiors and requesting they be tried for war-crimes. Obviously going on a murderous rampage after getting his request denied is just plain crazy – nothing can justify that and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But so should all the other war-criminals. Starting with the guys quoted in the article. How are they walking around as free men after admitting these atrocities?
Why would my comments suggest that I favor ignoring the stories?
What I am suggesting is that anybody saying that you start trials for war crimes based on some fucked-up psychiatrist repeating stories that he’s heard in Fort Hood, during therapy sessions, concerning events in Iraq or Afghanistan must be joking.
Convening a court on this basis is an absurdity.
Perhaps looking into the possibility of opening an investigation if anything that was reported was substantial and likely to be verifiable, but otherwise…
So what are you supposed to do with first-hand eye-witness testimony to war crimes?
I hope that you aren’t suggesting that Hasan had any first-hand testimony.
I don’t think that what he had was anything other than things told him in confidence and that may not even be first-hand, but for sure wasn’t testimony.
I understand that you want something, but you just can’t get it from this.
How can you expect to find, in your mind, some justification for Hasan’s charges without knowing what he heard or what he might reasonably thought that it meant, what he reported, or how the report was handled?
Why do you ‘hope’ I’m not suggesting Hasan had first-hand testimony? Would that be beyond the pale for you, crossing some visible only to macaquerman line?
Why would you imagine he wouldn’t have first-hand testimony from PTSD victims back from a brutally out-of-control colonial war where standard operating procedure is to shoot to kill anyone who makes you feel ‘uncomfortable’? Read the testimony I’ve provided above and in other recent diaries. I bet fucked up shit, i.e., war criminality, was at least a third of what he heard. There’s a helluva lot of it going on, and part of his job was to get PTSD sufferers to open up to him about what was bothering them.
This diary has nothing to do with justification, ferchrissake, it has to do with reporting the truth. Hasan ‘went nuts’ as far as we can tell because of people doing nothing about war crimes, not because he was a frustrated religous extremist. That’s the truth as far as we know it but it is being disappeared, and instead the standard mainstream ‘truth’ is a religious hate promoting lie.
So what are you saying then, exactly? What’s your main argumentative point on this thread? Should we dismiss all discussion of the ABC report fairleft brough to our attention? Should we keep blindly following the logic of muslim=terrorist? No mention of anything that doesn’t support the official story of Hasan being a ‘self-radicalized islamic jihadist’ with links to other extremists? Would that be better?
Google Nidal Hasan and “war crimes” and tell me how many MSM outlets appear on the first page of results. Shouldn’t an investigation look at all possible motives? I’m not saying (nor is fairleft or anyone else on this thread) that Hasan motive WASN’T terrorism – that is certainly a real possibility. So far though, the theory of Hasan being distraught over the failure to prosecute soldiers for war-crimes makes the most sense to me. It is sickening knowing that people like Jon Michael Turner are living their comfortable lives here. Admitted murderers in our communities. And my reaction is based only on what I’ve read about these people. Imagine, for a minute, having to counsel them….to be in the same room with them and hear them recount the horrible details of their crimes. Jon Michael Turner killed a man in front of that man’s family. In Iraq, he’d have been sentenced to death. In the US, he’s living in Burlington VT…a free man. I can see how listening to this sort of thing day after day can make someone go crazy, especially when these war criminals aren’t prosecuted but instead sent overseas for another tour of duty.
There’s a good discussion of the military psychiatrist confidentiality (there isn’t any) issue at http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/11/23/161642/57. And, besides, it’s possible there is a human rights law obligation to report war crimes that supercedes the obligation to protect patient privacy.
One of the other comments there got me thinking how important it is to counter, with reality, the mainstream media’s obsession with finding a ‘crazy Muslim’ religious motivation for Hasan’s acts. Despite the disappearing of this story in the mainstream press, that makes it all the more urgent that the public know Hasan’s actual motivation for his crime, at the very least to counter that hysteria. Sounds like instead Hasan was a crazed anti-war-crimes killer.
“The United States is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Geneva Conventions. Both treaties expressly require the United States to either extradite or initiate prosecution of persons who are reasonably accused – this is a legal obligation. The U.S. Torture Statute that Congress passed to fulfill our obligations under the CAT outlaws torture committed outside the United States. The U.S. War Crimes Act punishes torture as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. In 2006, the Supreme Court affirmed in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that all prisoners in U.S. custody are protected by the Geneva Conventions. ”
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2/1116587887?page=NewsArticle&id=5397&news_iv_ctrl=1281
Why do you think that you have any idea of Hasan’s motivation? Wouldn’t it be better not to counter imputations of his motivation that you find baseless with your own baseless ideas?
Where’s the reality in that?
I think the evidence is fairly strong, but I’m of course not saying I know what his motivation was. Below is the complete ABC report, from November 16. When determining ‘true’ motive and/or ‘what the trigger was’, it’s important to look at timing. The immediate timing points to Hasan’s frustration with non-prosecution of war crimes. It’s amazing how much we hear about the frustrated angry Muslim and how we don’t hear at all (in the mainstream press) about the frustrated anti-war-crimes guy, but that was a major reason I wrote this diary. Would it hurt America to hear references to its soldiers’ war crimes? Apparently that’s how the mainstream press feels.
Hasan was a terrorist.
Sez who? You another person thinks that they fer-sure know what Hasan was thinking?
Perhaps I misinterpreted your comments at #4 and 5. Let me ask you again – you’re the military psychiatrist and you hear a patient recounting events that are clearly war-crimes. What do you do? Do you do what Hassan did and report the patients to your superiors? Or do you ignore it and look the other way?
Nobody is suggesting, at least not that I’ve seen in the comments here, that they know for sure why Hassan did what he did. All I see here is an alternate theory to what is circulating in the MSM – that it must have been an act of terrorism. I feel very uncomfortable with how quickly the MSM and we as a nation, by default, have accepted terrorism as his motive. I think this rush to judgement is indicative of the prejudice that every Muslim in this country has likely felt since Sep 11 2001.
Why is it considered so outrageous to posit alternative motives in this case?
Fairleft – thank you for this article.
bob, I don’t know what Hasan heard or what his obligations were, but I’ve not said or suggested that he be ignored.
What I’ve tried to convey is that taking Hasan’s allegations as reason to start a war crimes trial is akin to going from A to Z.
There’s a whole lot of things that come in between.
It’s sort of another great leap and is at least as outrageous as saying that his actions were planned acts in furtherance of terrorism.
“What I’ve tried to convey is that taking Hasan’s allegations as reason to start a war crimes trial is akin to going from A to Z.”
OK, that makes sense. I agree 100%. There is a big difference between reporting the information to a superior and convening war-crimes trials. I don’t think I suggested that should happen in my comments either. Obviously there would be steps along the way – say an investigation of sorts to determine if Hassan’s allegations are valid. From what I’ve read, that never happened.
My main point was that Hassan did the right thing by reporting the allegations to his superiors. I can also see how a person in a fragile emotional state might react erratically when he feels that admitted war-criminals (as far as he’s concerned they admitted it to him) aren’t even interviewed by their superiors, let alone tried for the alleged crimes. What he *should* have done at that point is become a whistleblower, but sadly he seems to have turned in a much darker direction.
I’m still very curious as to how soldiers like Jon Michael Turner and others have not been charged with war-crimes. How is it possible that he admits killing an innocent man and is walking around free?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/17/winter_soldier_us_vets_active_duty
“JON MICHAEL TURNER: Good afternoon. My name is Jon Michael Turner. I currently reside in Burlington, Vermont. I served with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines as an automatic machine gunner. There’s a term, “Once a Marine, always a Marine.” But there’s also the term, “Eat the apple, F the corps, I don’t work for you no more.””
Shouldn’t he be residing in a jail cell instead of Burlington, VT?
Sorry – First part of my response was to macman.