US Soldiers Shoot Dead Three Iraqi Police

Middle East News

US soldiers mistakenly shoot dead three Iraqi police (Extra)

Apr 16, 2007, 10:27 GMT

Baghdad - US soldiers conducting a raid against suspected insurgents in western Iraq on Monday mistakenly shot dead three Iraqi police officers and wounded a fourth, officials said.

US-led coalition forces in Baghdad in a statement said the troops had come under fire from two buildings while conducting the raid and had taken 'appropriate measures for self-defence.'

Seven suspected terrorists were arrested during the raid in another building, the statement added.

Iraqi police forces had not informed the coalition forces prior to the raid that police officers were in the area, located north-east of Ramadi.

Military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver expressed his condolences to the families of the dead officers.

© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Two US Soldiers in Iraq Likely Killed by 'Friendly Fire'

EXCLUSIVE: Soldier In New Friendly Fire Case Did Not Get Full Training

By Greg Mitchell

Published: April 04, 2007 6:20 PM ET updated 9:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON Two soldiers killed in Iraq in February may have died as a result of friendly fire, Army officials said Wednesday, not from enemy fire, as the press reported.

The military suspected friendly fire later in February but did not inform the dead soldiers' families of these new doubts.

One of the soldiers died just hours after arriving in Iraq -- and was one of those troops rushed to the country in the "surge" who did not receive full training.

The Army said it is investigating the deaths of Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, 18, of Glendive, Mont., and Spc. Alan E. McPeek, 20, of Tucson, Ariz., who were killed in Ramadi, in western Iraq on Feb. 2. The families of the soldiers at first were told they were killed by enemy fire.

According to Col. Daniel Baggio, unit commanders in Iraq did not initially suspect they were killed by U.S. forces, but an investigation by the unit found they may have been.

A supplemental report filed Feb. 28 suggested that the initial report might be wrong and an investigation was under way. It took another month before the families of the two soldiers were told, on March 31, that friendly fire was suspected.

On February 9, the Savannah (Ga.) Morning News reported: "At least 143 soldiers joined Fort Stewart's 1st Brigade too late to participate in a final combat exercise before their units deployed to Iraq. Last week, one of those soldiers - Pvt. Matthew T. Zeimer, 18 - was the first from the brigade to be killed when he was hit by enemy fire in Ramadi, the stronghold of Iraq's Sunni insurgency.

"Zeimer arrived at Fort Stewart on Dec. 18 after basic training and deployed to Iraq just a few weeks later. He missed the brigade's intensive four-week mission rehearsal in October when more than 1,300 trainers and Iraqi role-players came to the post as part of the most realistic training program the Army offers for Iraq operations.

"The fact some of the brigade's 4,000 soldiers missed that training raises questions about how well the Army is preparing troops for war in the face of accelerated and repeat deployments."

Two days before that, the same newspaper reported that "some Iraq veterans in the 1st Brigade have expressed concerns about their younger counterparts missing the mission rehearsal. 'The training was good but some guys came in after that. They're basically going straight from basic training into Iraq,' said Staff Sgt. Jason Massey last month, before saying goodbye to his family for a third combat tour."

At a late-February press briefing, White House spokesman Tony Snow was asked about reports that two Army brigades were being sent to Iraq without any desert training. His reply was widely quoted at the time: "Well, but, they can get desert training elsewhere, like in Iraq."

The official Defense Department site that announces fatalities tonight carries the original report on the pair's death along with today's update. The initial report read: "They died Feb. 2 in Ramadi, Iraq, of injuries sustained when they came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire." The update: "On April 4, 2007 the Army announced an ongoing unit-level investigation into the circumstances of the soldiers' deaths and that friendly fire is suspected."

An article for the San Francisco Chronicle on March 25 observed that McPeek died "when an insurgent's shell killed him on the last day of his 14-month deployment." It said he was killed "the day before he was due to finally leave for home," and on its Web site it posted a haunting photo he had taken of himself just before he died.

That article explored a high school in Tucson, Ariz. attended by at least five dead troops in Iraq -- including McPeek. That puts the school at the top of this grim list. McPeek had enlisted at age 17: "He was pissed about 9/11," his father explained. "He said he wanted to make a difference. There was no talking Alan out of it."

A March 17 article in the Navy Times described the fatal incident this way:

"McPeek had been finishing his last mission when the building he and other troops were using as an outpost came under attack. When the shooting started, McPeek and one of the new soldiers — Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, 18, of Glendive, Mont. — took up positions behind a 3-foot wall on the roof. Other soldiers later told how they could hear McPeek calmly instruct the younger GI to stay low and return fire.

"Then, an explosive slammed into the wall, killing both of them."

An Associated Press report includes the following.
*

"What this suggests is there was the confusion that you frequently find on the battlefield," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce. "As soon as there is information that contradicts the initial report about the circumstances of a soldier's death, we notify the family about that suspicion."

The Army came under heavy criticism over its handling of Tillman's death. Though dozens of soldiers knew quickly that he had been killed by his fellow troops, the Army said initially that he was killed by enemy gunfire when he led his team to help another group of ambushed soldiers. It was five weeks before his family was told the truth, a delay the Army has blamed on procedural mistakes.

Army officials are reviewing whether any action should be taken against the officers who provided misleading information as the military investigated Tillman's killing.

As a result of those problems, the Army instituted a number of changes in its notification process and ordered that unit commanders now must investigate every hostile death, in part to ensure that families receive accurate information about how their loved one died.

---

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor

Bush Was Warned Tillman Likely Killed By Friendly Fire, Still Claiming He Died In Ambush

AP: Gen. tried to warn Bush on Tillman

By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press WriterFri Mar 30, 7:30 PM ET

Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth — that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades.

The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.

In a memo sent to a four-star general a week after Tillman's April 22, 2004, death, then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire. McChrystal made it clear his warning should be conveyed to the president.

"I felt that it was essential that you received this information as soon as we detected it in order to preclude any unknowing statements by our country's leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Cpl. Tillman's death become public," McChrystal wrote on April 29, 2004, to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command.

White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier said Friday that a review of records turned up no indication that the president had received McChrystal's warning. Bush made no reference to the way Tillman died in a speech delivered two days after the memo was written. But Rethmeier emphasized that the president often pays tribute to fallen soldiers without mentioning the exact circumstances of their deaths.

The family was not told until May 29, 2004, what really happened. In the intervening weeks, the military continued to say Tillman died under enemy fire, and even awarded him the Silver Star, which is given for heroic battlefield action.

The Tillman family has charged that the military and the Bush administration deliberately deceived his relatives and the nation to avoid turning public opinion against the war.

Tillman's mother, Mary, had no immediate comment Friday on the newly disclosed memo.

The memo was provided to the AP by a government official who requested anonymity because the document was not released as part of the Pentagon's official report into the way the Army brass withheld the truth. McChrystal was the highest-ranking officer accused of wrongdoing in the report, issued earlier this week.

In the memo, McChrystal expressed concern that Bush and acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee might give speeches in which they misstated the facts about Tillman's death.

A former spokesman for Abizaid did not immediately return phone and e-mail messages.

As for Brownlee, he told investigators he did not recall learning Tillman was killed by his fellow Rangers until several weeks after the fact. He did not discuss the matter with the White House, he told investigators.

A spokesman for McChrystal said he had no comment.

McChrystal was, and still is, commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, head of "black ops" forces. He has since been promoted to lieutenant general. Abizaid was in charge of American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.

In his memo, McChrystal said he had heard Bush and Brownlee "might include comments about Cpl. Tillman's heroism and his approved Silver Star medal in speeches currently being prepared, not knowing the specifics surrounding his death."

McChrystal said he expected an investigation under way "will find that it is highly possible Cpl. Tillman was killed by friendly fire."

At the same time, McChrystal said: "The potential that he might have been killed by friendly fire in no way detracts from his witnessed heroism or the recommended personal decoration for valor in the face of the enemy."

On Monday, the Pentagon released the findings of an investigation into the circumstances of Tillman's death, and into whether the military covered them up.

The investigators recommended that nine Army officers, including McChrystal, be held accountable for errors in reporting the friendly fire death to their superiors and to Tillman's family. McChrystal was found "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" contained in papers recommending Tillman get the Silver Star.

Some of the officers involved said they wanted to wait until the investigations were complete before informing the Tillman family.

The latest document obtained by the AP suggests that officials at least as high as Abizaid knew the truth weeks before the family.

Tillman was killed after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Rangers in a convoy trailing Tillman's group had just emerged from a canyon where they had been fired upon. They saw Tillman and mistaken fired on him.

The White House has been careful not to wade into the circumstances of Tillman's death. The day after Tillman died, a spokesman said Tillman "was an inspiration on and off the football field," but made no reference to the specifics of the episode.

In a speech given two days after McChrystal's memo, Bush made no mention of how Tillman died.

"The loss of Army Cpl. Pat Tillman last week in Afghanistan brought home the sorrow that comes with every loss, and reminds us of the character of the men and women who serve on our behalf," Bush said at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Captain America calls it friendly fire. We call it murder

Jasper Gerard
Sunday February 4, 2007
The Observer

You can see where America is coming from: having killed so many in Iraq - some innocent, some not - is it worth making a fuss about one more? The one more is Lance Corporal Matty Hull of Windsor. He died four years ago in a so-called 'blue on blue' killing, which has usurped that other laughably hollow euphemism: 'friendly fire'. A pair of circling American A-10 tankbuster planes opened fire on the Household Cavalry troop in 2003 and Hull died of multiple injuries in his blazing Scimitar armoured truck. So far, so Iraq.

---

---

But now it emerges there is a cockpit recording of the incident which America refuses to allow our - visibly furious - coroner to play in court. This despite the tape's crucial importance, as it is said to contain 'incriminating' information, including the line: 'Someone's going to jail for this.'

Susan, Hull's widow, is rather keen to hear it. Alas, our Ministry of Defence is complicit in a cover-up. Not merely because it will not let the Oxfordshire coroner flick the 'play' switch until America gives permission, but because, scandalously, for four years it has denied 'categorically' that any such recording exists, knowing this to be a lie. The MoD claims to be 'in discussions' with America, but that promises quite a phone bill. How many years can one conversation take?

Hitherto, Des Browne, bumbling Defence Secretary, has escaped parliamentary gunfire because even Mrs Browne would struggle to put a face to him. But if he can't ensure this tape is admissible when the inquest reconvenes later this month, shouldn't he be fired in a manner most unfriendly?

And what of America? It claims the right to try foreign nationals in foreign countries for 'crimes' defined by American law. It requires Britain to extradite suspects while failing to ratify a treaty that would let us try Americans, such as those who kill our citizens. So often, British ministers plead with this administration to show some slight consideration that would make our support for the Iraq war easier, but usually they are rebuffed.

And so, while George and Tony smile on deck suggesting a chipper Anglo-American relationship, below, the good ship Atlantic slowly sinks. Not only are their policies in Iraq diverging - Britain pulling out, America pushing in - but British hearts are hardening.

Proof came last week when William Hague called on Britain to be less slavish. Hague! If the American ambassador gives a damn about British domestic opinion, he must have choked on his pretzel.

Hague was the arch-Atlanticist who urged war in Iraq - not, primarily, because he gave much of a hoot about Iraq - but because he believed the world tends to be safer when Britain acts in consort with America.

The sadness is that with a Democrat Congress and - we hope - a less ideological President, American activism and interventionism could become a more consensual force for good in the world once again. But that might be too late for Britain. It certainly is for Lance Corporal Hull.

Review Finds Army Destroyed Key Evidence In Friendly-Fire Case

Review Finds Army Mishandled Friendly-Fire Case
Internal Report Cites Problems Including the 'Inadvertent' Destruction of Key Evidence

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 3, 2006; A17

Army officials destroyed critical evidence that could have determined who shot and killed Pfc. Jesse R. Buryj at an Iraq checkpoint in May 2004, one of several problems with the friendly-fire inquiry that may permanently shroud Buryj's death in mystery, according to an Army inspector general's review.

The lengthy inquiry found that criminal investigators destroyed bullet fragments, agents failed to collect ballistic evidence from weapons at the checkpoint, medical personnel made incorrect notations on Buryj's records and military officials knew his death was a friendly-fire case months before they officially notified his family.

As a result, Buryj's family buried him believing he was killed when his vehicle was rammed by a dump truck. They did not learn that he was shot by friendly forces until nine months after his death, and a lack of physical evidence means it is nearly impossible to know what happened that night.

Buryj's death -- which came just days after the high-profile friendly-fire killing of former football player Pat Tillman in Afghanistan -- also exposed a rift between U.S. and Polish forces. A group of Polish allied troops was also manning the checkpoint, and U.S. officials sought to blame them for the soldier's death.

The inspector general found no specific effort to cover up the incident. The review shows, however, that initial investigators believed there was a need for international sensitivity. One unnamed investigator told the inspector general that there was a sense that U.S. investigators could not "say anything bad about the Poles," even though they were convinced Polish shots killed Buryj (pronounced BOO-dee). Investigators ultimately ruled that the Poles probably fired the fatal shot.

Peggy Buryj of Canton, Ohio, has long believed that details of her son's death were obscured or delayed to protect members of his unit or Polish troops in 2004, an election year during which President Bush often praised Poland's contribution to the fight against terrorism. Buryj said she is still furious about the way the Army has handled her son's case, and she feels it has now slammed the door.

"They said that anything that could go wrong did go wrong, that it was a series of unfortunate mistakes," she said after an Army briefing. "They apologized, and I think they were sincere in their apology. But the whole thing just shows incompetence, from the notification to the very end."

Jesse Buryj, 21, of Canton was killed on May 5, 2004, when an Iraqi dump truck sped through a coalition military checkpoint in Karbala and ultimately crashed into his vehicle, sending him tumbling to the ground. Soldiers initially believed that the fall injured Buryj, but he actually took fire from either the U.S. troops around him or the Polish troops nearby. A bullet pierced his back and caused massive internal injuries.

Later, when Buryj's family learned that a gunshot killed him, they believed it was hostile fire, though the people found in the dump truck were not carrying weapons.

The 47-page report, presented to Buryj's family by the Army's inspector general, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Green, found that criminal investigators failed to conduct ballistic tests on four U.S. weapons fired that night and did not collect Polish weapons for testing.

Because the case was incorrectly labeled a hostile death, criminal investigators inadvertently destroyed the only evidence that could be used to identify a weapon -- a 5.56mm bullet fragment -- in the fall of 2005. At that time, criminal investigators destroyed evidence in a number of hostile-death cases in which evidence could not be matched to individual weapons, and Buryj's case was mistakenly among them, the report said.

"Before September 2005, CID kept the bullet extracted from PFC Buryj as evidence," the report said, referring to the Criminal Investigations Division. "Had the four U.S. weapons been tested, this might have eliminated doubts over whether U.S. weapons fired the fatal round."

The report also exposed a casualty reporting system marred by gaps and inconsistencies. The Buryj case, along with others, prompted major changes in the way the Army notifies families of war casualties. Those new policies were put into effect in April, three months after Buryj's story was reported publicly and after the secretary of the Army asked for a review.

Col. Patrick Gawkins, director of the Army Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Operation Center, said mistakes in the case "prevented a more timely, accurate notification" of the family. He noted that the complexity of the situation added to the confusion and that a vast majority of cases are reported correctly.

"Providing accurate casualty circumstances when you are attempting to rapidly notify a family of a loss is an extremely challenging task," Gawkins said. "We have continued to improve all aspects of casualty support because this is precisely what we owe our fallen soldiers and our families. We have definitely analyzed the Buryj case and other publicized cases to identify problems and fix the system."

Typically, casualty officials in the United States track such deaths via medical records, investigative reports and official notifications from the field. Though Army officials claimed to have notified the family about the nature of Buryj's death not long after it occurred, there are no records of such a conversation, according to the report. Incorrect medical records led to incorrect entries in Buryj's casualty report, which in turn led to incorrect information getting to the family.

"The casualty reporting in the PFC Buryj case was often inaccurate and untimely," leading to errors and delays, according to the inspector general's report.

One of the delays that particularly bothers Peggy Buryj concerns the final investigative report, which places responsibility on the Polish troops. It was completed by Multi-National Corps-Iraq on Sept. 6, 2004, 124 days after the incident. It was then forwarded to the U.S. Central Command weeks before the U.S. elections but stayed there until Feb. 18, 2005 -- a total of 165 additional days.

Polish officials have repeatedly disputed the U.S. findings, saying their troops were not responsible for Buryj's death. The inspector general found that U.S. criminal investigative agents were aware of the international sensitivities and the fact that the loose military coalition was losing members at the time.

Peggy Buryj said she is resigned to the idea that she may never know what happened to her son.

"I feel like I gave them my son and they've done nothing but dishonor him," she said.