Comments on: The Problem of Commenting on Civilian Casualties http://registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/ Central Asia News -- All Central Asia, All The Time Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:41:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David M http://registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/comment-page-1/#comment-380176 David M Mon, 11 May 2009 14:59:29 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/#comment-380176 The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post <a href="http://www.thunderrun.us/2009/05/from-front-05112009.html" rel="nofollow">From the Front: 05/11/2009 </a> News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front. The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 05/11/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.

]]> By: MILNEWS.ca http://registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/comment-page-1/#comment-380175 MILNEWS.ca Mon, 11 May 2009 14:45:44 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/#comment-380175 DB: I guess just because the Taliban denies using human shields, http://theunjustmedia.com/Afghanistan/Mujahideen%20operations/april09/17-04-09.htm it must automatically be true? If the Americans say it, it must automatically be false? I suppose that also means groups like the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission http://www.aihrc.org.af/English/2008_Dec/PDF_Anti_G/Eng_anti_G.pdf the United Nations http://www.un.org/children/conflict/pr/2009-01-19201.html and Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/en/node/75157/section/6 must all be wrong as well. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... DB: I guess just because the Taliban denies using human shields,
http://theunjustmedia.com/Afghanistan/Mujahideen%20operations/april09/17-04-09.htm
it must automatically be true? If the Americans say it, it must automatically be false?

I suppose that also means groups like the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission
http://www.aihrc.org.af/English/2008_Dec/PDF_Anti_G/Eng_anti_G.pdf

the United Nations
http://www.un.org/children/conflict/pr/2009-01-19201.html

and Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/75157/section/6

must all be wrong as well.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight…

]]> By: DB http://registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/comment-page-1/#comment-380169 DB Sun, 10 May 2009 13:18:46 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/#comment-380169 Broadcast it all you like, Josh, but the US army finding themselves excuses for their massacres (i.e. the good-old "human shields" line) isn't going to convince anyone. Do you honestly think that US military investigators have any credibility when they come up with such tired alibis after a crime like this? Why should we even take their figures on Taliban deaths seriously? If you want to get into apologetics for war-crimes, I suggest you come up with something a little more persuasive. Broadcast it all you like, Josh, but the US army finding themselves excuses for their massacres (i.e. the good-old “human shields” line) isn’t going to convince anyone. Do you honestly think that US military investigators have any credibility when they come up with such tired alibis after a crime like this? Why should we even take their figures on Taliban deaths seriously? If you want to get into apologetics for war-crimes, I suggest you come up with something a little more persuasive.

]]> By: MILNEWS.ca http://registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/comment-page-1/#comment-380166 MILNEWS.ca Sat, 09 May 2009 21:12:05 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/#comment-380166 Agreed on the use of airstrikes being within the rules of the game. On the original communcations ideas, how's this for another element of the equation: what do you do if the military does everything right comms-wise, but the critical information doesn't end up in the story? I'm reluctant to use the terms "bias" or "prejudice", but the act of journalism is to take a lot of stuff and put it into a smaller space in a form that's easier to understand. In this process, not all information makes it in. I leave it for others to speculate why decisions are made re: what information does and doesn't make it in. I think there's a case to be made that government-supplied information doesn't always make it in as prominently or as frequently as information by those considered, rightly or wrongly, the underdog. Note, for example, the coverage CNN gave to an incident some blamed on the Canadians: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/afghanistan.rockets/index.html?eref=rss_latest (Here's what CNN was too busy to mention: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2882) versus their (what seems to me) pretty unquestioning coverage of a Taliban spokesperson: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/05/afghan.taliban.transcript/index.html#cnnSTCText An interesting experiment for anyone with internet access: check out the transcript of an interview or news conference with, say, a US military official (they're available online pretty quickly after the talking's done), then compare it to the stories that come out of said exchanges. Agreed on the use of airstrikes being within the rules of the game.

On the original communcations ideas, how’s this for another element of the equation: what do you do if the military does everything right comms-wise, but the critical information doesn’t end up in the story?

I’m reluctant to use the terms “bias” or “prejudice”, but the act of journalism is to take a lot of stuff and put it into a smaller space in a form that’s easier to understand. In this process, not all information makes it in. I leave it for others to speculate why decisions are made re: what information does and doesn’t make it in.

I think there’s a case to be made that government-supplied information doesn’t always make it in as prominently or as frequently as information by those considered, rightly or wrongly, the underdog. Note, for example, the coverage CNN gave to an incident some blamed on the Canadians:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/23/afghanistan.rockets/index.html?eref=rss_latest
(Here’s what CNN was too busy to mention:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2882)
versus their (what seems to me) pretty unquestioning coverage of a Taliban spokesperson:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/05/afghan.taliban.transcript/index.html#cnnSTCText

An interesting experiment for anyone with internet access: check out the transcript of an interview or news conference with, say, a US military official (they’re available online pretty quickly after the talking’s done), then compare it to the stories that come out of said exchanges.

]]> By: Joshua Foust http://registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/comment-page-1/#comment-380164 Joshua Foust Sat, 09 May 2009 03:20:14 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/#comment-380164 I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. These air strikes don't really violate the Geneva Conventions, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. If the Taliban did indeed try to prevent innocent civilians from fleeing the bombs—that is, if they were using innocent people as human shields, then technically the moral, legal, and ethical burden is on THEM, since doing THAT is what violates the Conventions. SE Asia in the 1960s and 70s is not an appropriate analogy in that regard, since the U.S. never intentionally seeks to kill civilians. The problem is that we don't mean to, but do so anyway. That tells me that we need to try something different, not that we're war criminals. Unless someone can produce some sort of evidence proving intent—like imposing collective punishment on an entire community for the actions of a few individuals within that community—then the U.S. is most certainly not committing war crimes. It's just not fighting the war effectively. I’m afraid I have to disagree with you. These air strikes don’t really violate the Geneva Conventions, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. If the Taliban did indeed try to prevent innocent civilians from fleeing the bombs—that is, if they were using innocent people as human shields, then technically the moral, legal, and ethical burden is on THEM, since doing THAT is what violates the Conventions. SE Asia in the 1960s and 70s is not an appropriate analogy in that regard, since the U.S. never intentionally seeks to kill civilians.

The problem is that we don’t mean to, but do so anyway. That tells me that we need to try something different, not that we’re war criminals. Unless someone can produce some sort of evidence proving intent—like imposing collective punishment on an entire community for the actions of a few individuals within that community—then the U.S. is most certainly not committing war crimes. It’s just not fighting the war effectively.

]]> By: BD http://registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/comment-page-1/#comment-380163 BD Sat, 09 May 2009 03:11:56 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/05/08/the-problem-of-commenting-on-civilian-casualties/#comment-380163 Spot on observation! We are making the same mistakes, and breaking the same Geneva Conventions, here as we did in South East Asia 40 years ago. If we are to make headway we have to raise the priority of protecting civilians significantly. Spot on observation! We are making the same mistakes, and breaking the same Geneva Conventions, here as we did in South East Asia 40 years ago. If we are to make headway we have to raise the priority of protecting civilians significantly.

]]>