A BRITISH soldier beats Iraqi civilian to death

[december]

Soldier hit screaming Iraqis to create 'choir of pain', court martial is told

http://www.brandonblog.homestead.com/files/blogca00129.photo02.jpg

A BRITISH soldier accused of beating an Iraqi civilian to death enjoyed hearing detainees call out in pain while they were kicked and punched, a court martial heard yesterday.

Witnesses said Corporal Donald Payne, 35, enjoyed conducting what he called "the choir".

On Tuesday, Payne became the first British serviceman to admit a war crime, that of treating Iraqi prisoners inhumanely. But he denies two further charges, manslaughter and perverting the course of justice.

Formerly of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment (QLR), which is now the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, Payne is alleged to have killed 26-year-old hotel worker Baha Musa following a prolonged spree of abuse.

"Cpl Payne lies at the centre of this case," Julian Bevan, QC, told the court, describing how Payne's prisoners were beaten to order, and for show, until they screamed in pain.

"Cpl Payne plainly enjoyed conducting what he called 'the choir'... systematically assaulting each of the Iraqi civilian detainees in turn ... causing each one to shriek or groan, their noises constituting the music."

The court heard he and the other guards made no effort to conceal what he was doing.

The "total openness" of the abuse suggested Payne "did what he liked with impunity, with no fear of repercussion", claimed Mr Bevan.

Mr Bevan told the court martial, at Bulford Camp, on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire: "One could be forgiven for believing it was just accepted practice."

The court heard how Mr Musa came in for particularly severe treatment for repeatedly removing his handcuffs in what Payne believed was a bid to escape from the building where the detainees, suspected insurgents, were being held.

It was after one of these apparent attempts that Mr Musa died as a result of Payne's efforts to re-cuff him, Mr Bevan said.

"Cpl Payne suddenly grabbed Mr Musa's head and banged it against the wall about three times," Mr Bevan told the hearing's seven-man panel.

But Mr Musa continued to struggle and Payne kicked him twice in the ribs, the court was told. Describing Mr Musa's dying moments, Mr Bevan said: "Following the kick in the ribs, Pte Cooper [another soldier helping to restrain Mr Musa], with the help of Cpl Payne, managed to cuff Mr Musa.

"Once he had been handcuffed, they sat him up against a wall and released him from their grip. Mr Musa slumped and immediately it was apparent he was in a serious condition. He had stopped breathing."

Mr Musa suffocated when he was forced to the floor with his arms behind his back as the soldiers tried to cuff him, the prosecution alleges. Just after the death, the trial heard, Payne told the soldiers: "If anything comes of this, just say he banged his own head against the wall."

The court also heard how he had singled out another man called Kifah Taha Mutairi, whom he dubbed "grandad" as he was the oldest of the prisoners.

The prosecutor told the court of an account given by a visiting senior aircraftsman, Scott Hughes. He said he saw Payne repeatedly kicking "grandad" and at one point trying to gouge his eyes out with his fingers, all because he apparently could not do what Payne wanted him to do, the court heard. He also saw Payne deliver karate chops on his neck and when he started sobbing, Payne told him to "sit the f*** up", Mr Bevan told the court.

Payne is one of seven soldiers being tried at Bulford Camp. He is one of three accused of a war crime, a legal first in Britain.

Payne's six co-defendants all plead not guilty to the charges.

Lance Corporal Wayne Crowcroft, 22, of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, denies a charge of inhumane treatment, as does Private Darren Fallon, 23, of the same regiment.

Sergeant Kelvin Stacey, 29, of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, is accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm with an alternative count of common assault. Major Michael Peebles, 35, and Warrant Officer Mark Davies, 37, both of the Intelligence Corps, each face a charge of negligently performing a duty. Colonel Jorge Mendonca MBE, 42, former commander of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, is accused of negligently performing a duty.

The case was adjourned until today.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1395012006


http://images.scotsman.com/2004/01/22/2201blackb.jpg

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/images/0507-03.jpg

BASRA ON THE BRINK OF EXPLODING
Iraqi residents throw stones at Iraqi and British soldiers near the British helicopter crash site in Basra, 550 Km (341miles) south of Baghdad, May 6, 2006.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0507-04.htm

[peachped]

Al Qadea won't be pleased to hear about this! :rolleyes:

[lemonique]

Psychopath!! plain and simple. They join the Army to indulge. There's no cure they are born that way. They are right throughout society..especially at 'The Top'. They have no empathy at all....another's pain doesn't register with them.
Keep your eyes skinned for them......

Lemonique

[cruise4]

Wonder if the tune was any good:D

[december]

Wonder if the tune was any good:D

Are you a Satanist?

[cruise4]

Well soon it may depend on who asks me!

[december]

Well soon it may depend on who asks me!

Why don't you just answer a question?...
I think you have a Satanic sense of humor.

Wonder if the tune was any good:D

[cruise4]

Well if you are serious... No of course I'm not. Its all ego babble.
Yes but it was funny though:D Cracked me up!

[december]

Yes but it was funny though:D Cracked me up!

Are you British?...

[anoninnyc]

Al Qadea won't be pleased to hear about this! :rolleyes:

wrong. al qaeda will be very pleased. they are strengthened by any wickedness the brits or americans perpetrate in iraq (or anywhere else really). iraq was not a hotbed of al qaeda activity before the usa invaded iraq and ousted saddam. don't be fooled. bush and the bin ladins are buddies. they are both illuminati nwo satanic scumbags.

[peachped]

That's why I put a roll eyes smiley on.

[anoninnyc]

sorry. missed that. so sickened over all of this stuff in the middle east right now. and i think they will go into iran next and that would be ww3

[cruise4]

Hi December... Yes British... English.

[peachped]

sorry. missed that. so sickened over all of this stuff in the middle east right now. and i think they will go into iran next and that would be ww3

So am I. This story is just another extention of the Abu Graib stuff to whip up plenty of hatred.:mad:

[december]

The Holocaust of 8 Million Iraqis Must Stop!

It is somewhat ironic that on the same day that Mr. Michael E. O’Hanlon and Mr. Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institute extol the progress of President Bush’s ‘surge’ in Iraq, (New York Times, July 30) the Associated Press reported the following: “About 8 million Iraqis -- nearly a third of the population -- need immediate emergency aid because of the humanitarian crisis caused by the war.”

It is not easy to conceptualize the number 8,000,000. One way to look at it is to consider that that is the approximate population of New York City. One can imagine the horror that would be felt if the entire population of the United States’ largest city were in desperate need of water, sanitation, food and shelter. Does one feel that same sense of horror for the Iraqi people? Perhaps that dismay should be intensified one hundredfold because it is the United States that has caused, and continues to cause, this unspeakable suffering.

When the U.S. government basically told the people of New Orleans, following Hurricane Katrina, that they were on their own, the world shuttered in disbelief. Ignoring its own people following a natural disaster is shocking behavior for any government. In Iraq, the U.S. ignores the suffering it has intentionally caused. One-third of the population of the country is in desperate need because of the U.S. invasion; this does not even include the 2,000,000 who have fled the country since President Bush’s barbaric ‘Shock and Awe’ war began.

These realities appear to be ignored in the recent article in the New York Times by Messrs O’Hanlon and Pollack.

Among other things, they state the following: “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.” That an overwhelming force from the world’s most powerful country will eventually kill enough Iraqi people to subdue the population is hardly something to be proud of. Yet they crow about progress in ‘military terms.’

The two gentlemen report their further observations:“Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population….” One wonders what exactly that statement implies. Are the invading and occupying soldiers making the Iraqi population free from harm, an oxymoron if ever there was one, or are they ‘securing’ them in the sense of taking possession of them?

According to Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack, the U.S. military is “providing basic services -- electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation -- to the people.” How long, one wonders, will it be before those basic services are restored to the 8,000,000 Iraqis deprived of them by Mr. Bush’s war? How many will die before they ever have those needs fulfilled? How many grieving parents will bury their children because of the U.S. invasion and occupation of their nation?

Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack observed a “Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit.” In their McCainish way, do they feel that this happy circumstance portends an end to the centuries-old sectarian rivalry between these groups, a rivalry that was held in check prior to the U.S. invasion, but has been unleashed with horrific results since then?

Another interesting observation: “American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed.” In sharp contrast to this rosy assessment, an NBC news report of July 31 is interesting: “The report, written by U.S. advisers to Iraq's anti-corruption agency, analyzes corruption in 12 ministries and finds devastating and grim problems. ‘Corruption protected by senior members of the Iraqi government,’ the report said, ‘remains untouchable.’”

Not all that the writers saw was so encouraging: “we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation -- or at least accommodation -- are needed.” While U.S. soldiers die trying to achieve whatever it is they are supposed to be achieving, and making such marvelous progress in ‘military terms,’ the Iraqi parliament has left for its month-long vacation. No political solution can be achieved when the people needed to achieve it are not around.

As they close their interesting editorial, the writers ask a few pertinent questions: “How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission?” They don’t have the answer to these questions, but it appears that the United States citizens do. The answer seems to be that American troops should remain in Iraq only as long as it takes to safely evacuate them. The citizens disagree with Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack, who recommend continuation of the war at least into 2008.

The United States invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq four years ago. Since then millions of Iraqi citizens have been displaced, hundreds of thousands have been killed, the nation’s infrastructure, already badly damaged from years of sanctions and bombings, has been destroyed. The death toll for Americans is steadily climbing toward 4,000 and the number who have sustained life-altering injuries is in the tens of thousands. Hatred towards the United States has risen dramatically, and Iraq has become a major recruiting tool for the terrorists that were not there when Mr. Bush invaded. The negative consequences of that invasion and the subsequent occupation will be felt for years throughout the world.

It appears that Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack see some merit in the subjugation of Iraq as a U.S. colony. They predict the possibility within Iraq “of a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.” Subjecting a nation by force to do the will of the U.S. is not acceptable to the Iraqi people. If U.S. polls, and last November’s election, teach us anything, it is that this violent and brutal suppression is not acceptable to Americans either.

http://www.counterpunch.com/fantina08022007.html

[cruise4]

Yes, get them all out. Couldn't agree more. But don't pretend this total breakdown in Iraq isn't exactly what the NWO planned all along. From Bush's perspective everything is going swimmingly well. Couldn't be better.

[december]

Gen Dannatt: Reinforcements for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan are 'now almost non-existent'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/07/21/ntroops121d.jpg


The head of the Army has issued a dire warning that Britain has almost run out of troops to defend the country or fight abroad, a secret document obtained by the Daily Telegraph has revealed.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt has told senior commanders that reinforcements for emergencies or for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan are "now almost non-existent".

In the memorandum to fellow defence leaders, the Chief of the General Staff (CGS) confessed that "we now have almost no capability to react to the unexpected". The "undermanned" Army now has all its units committed to either training for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, on leave or on operations.

There is just one battalion of 500 troops, called the Spearhead Lead Element, available to be used in an emergency, such as a major domestic terrorist attack or a rapid deployment overseas.

Gen Dannatt's comments will come as the first serious test of Gordon Brown's policy on defence.

The new Prime Minister has already faced anger over the decision to give Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, the additional part-time role of Scottish Secretary with Tories labelling the move "an insult to our Armed Forces."

Military leaders have privately suggested that a defence review is essential to examine if more money, equipment and troops are needed.

With Britain's military reserve locker virtually empty, further pressure will mount on President George W Bush to review US troop levels in Iraq after fellow Republicans suggesting significant withdrawals.

It also comes at a time when more forces are needed to combat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the lack of reserves was "an appalling situation and damning indictment" of the way the Government handled the Services.

"They are being asked to carry out tasks for which they are neither funded or equipped for. There is an urgent need to review our strategic approach because we cannot continue over-stretching our Forces."

The document said that Britain's second back-up unit, called the Airborne Task Force formed around the Parachute Regiment, was unavailable. It was unable to fully deploy "due to shortages in manpower, equipment and stocks".

Most of the Paras' vehicles and weapons have stayed in Afghanistan with other units using them in intense battles against the Taliban.

Parachute Regiment officers are deeply concerned that with nearly all their equipment abroad they are unable to train properly for future operations.

The Paras also no longer have the ability to parachute as a 600-strong battalion because no RAF planes were available to drop then en-masse, the document said. The situation was unlikely to be resolved until late August.

With the Army significantly under-strength by 3,500 troops – many disillusioned with being constantly on dangerous operations and away from their families – it is now struggling to plug the gaps on the frontline.

"The enduring nature and scale of current operations continues to stretch people," Gen Dannatt wrote.

The Army now needed to "augment" 2,500 troops from other units onto operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring up the total force to 13,000 required. This remained "far higher than we ever assumed," the CGS said.

"When this is combined with the effects of under-manning (principally in the infantry and Royal Artillery) and the pace of training support needed to prepare units for operations, the tempo of life in the Field Army is intense."

The Army has also been forced to call up almost 1,000 Territorial Army soldiers for overseas operations. The general's concerns came after three RAF personnel were killed in a mortar or rocket attack on the main British headquarters five miles outside Basra bringing the total dead in Iraq to 162.

With the main force pulling out of Basra city to the air station in the coming months there is concern of increased attacks on the large base where some troops are forced to live in tented accommodation.

A lack of vehicles meant that "training is significantly constrained".

Gen Dannatt was also "concerned" that some equipment, particularly Scimitar light tanks that are vital to fighting in Afghanistan but are 40 years old, "may be at the edge of their sustainability".

More needed to be done on housing and pay in order to retained troops because "people are more likely to stay if we look after them properly".

The pressure on numbers was partially being alleviated by bringing in civilian firms to train soldiers and guard bases and by "adopting a pragmatic approach to risk where possible".

While the current situation was "manageable" Gen Dannatt was "very concerned about the longer term implications of the impact of this level of operations on our people, equipment and future operational capability".

It is not the first time Gen Dannatt has raised concerns on Britain's fighting ability. A few weeks into his job last year, Sir Richard said the military was "running hot" and urged for a national debate on defence.

The plain-speaking officer later suggested that the British presence in Iraq was "exacerbating the security problems" and warned that the Army would "break" if it was kept there too long.

Gen Dannatt, who said manning was "critical" in the Army, called for extra infantry units earlier this month following the devastating cuts inflicted by his predecessor Gen Sir Mike Jackson which saw four battalions axed.

"General Dannatt's appraisal means that we are unable to intervene if there is an emergency in Britain or elsewhere, that's self-evident," a senior officer said.

"But this is a direct result of the decision to go into Afghanistan on the assumption that Iraq would diminish simultaneously. We are now reaping the reward of that assumption."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/graphics/branding/tcuk_400x82_normal.gif

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=IQWPDRRKWQBKRQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2007/07/20/ntroops120.xml