WHAT WAS OPERATION IRON TRIANGLE?

.  . . this is an intricate story of conspiracy, cover-up and intrigue — on the part of the government, not the soldiers. . . The open secret, the contradiction staring everyone in the face. . . is that a crime becomes a “war crime” when it involves the government, which is to say, when a crime is the result of unlawful social policies and plans. A soldier killing a prisoner or a fellow soldier for personal reasons would be committing a “garden variety” crime. A soldier who kills while following a lawful rule of engagement ROE is merely doing his or her job in war. . . such killings are called casualties of war and are considered justified. But a soldier who kills while following an unlawful ROE becomes involved in a war crime. Traditionally, responsibility for war crimes is attributed to governments and commanders. The founding father of sociology, Emile Durkheim, wrote: “The immorality of war depends entirely on the leaders who willed it . . . Society has applied this tradtiional rule from Nuremberg and the Yamashita to the war crimes in Bosnia . . .But in the current war on terror, the open secret is that responsibility for war crimes is attributed to low ranking soldiers. How can this be? How has the US government managed to overturn traditional understandings of war crimes and command responsibility? Why have Americans accepted the government’s position that leaders who set into motion unlawful policies that led to torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere are exempt from accountability?

Dr. Stjepan Mestrovic , The "Good Soldier on Trial" A Sociological Study of Misconduct by the US Military as It Pertains to Operation Iron Triangle.

If the case of Operation Iron Triangle had gone to trial in January 2007, there is a very real possibility that the incident in which US soldiers killed 11 unarmed Iraqi men in Baghdad might not have ever happened and Bradley Manning might not be in prison.   But as it stands today, Manning is facing 22 years in prison for courageously blowing the whistle on what was going on in Iraq, while the soldiers involved in the Operation Iron Triangle case have been sentenced to 18 years for following orders.

On May 9, 2006, the US military, under the leadership of Colonel Michael Steele, conducted a raid on an island near Thar Thar in Tikrit, Iraq. The soldiers were told that the island was a training camp for Al Qaeda and that on a prior mission special US forces had  had come under heavy attack and suffered casualties. Under the Rules of Engagement, the soldiers were given the order to shoot every military aged male on sight.

Initially the US military tauted Operation Iron Triangle as a success. But within a month of the raid, three soldiers, Corey Clagett, William Hunsacker and Raymond L. Girouard were being charged with the murder of four unarmed Iraqi detainees, including a 70 year old man. All soldiers maintained that they were following the Rules of Engagement. It has even been reported by the soldiers that when they radioed into command that they had three detainees, the response was "why aren't these terrorists dead yet?"

Paul Bergrin, who represented Corey Clagett, was described in the book, "Rules of Engagement, Anatomy of a War Crime"  as having a reputation for being the most aggressive attorney in the Abu Ghraib case and that he was perceived by prosecutors in this case as being a serious threat.   Bergrin maintained that the soldiers were following the rules of engagement and that the orders came from the higher ups in the chain of command. He was the only attorney to succeed in getting Colonel Michael Steel to testify.   However, right before the case was to go to trial, Bergrin was arrested for charges pertaining to running a prostitution ring (In January of 2005, he filed articles of incorporation on behalf of one of his clients who operated NY Confidential, and listed himself as one of the officers. In March of 2005 he dissolved the corporation. Later, the owner was accused of running a prostitution ring.) Paul subsequently had all of the main charges dropped and plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge).

As most of the soldiers accused, including Corey Clagett, were facing life sentences without the possibility of parole and were being threatened with  the death penalty, after Paul's arrest came a trifecta of plea bargains.  Thus, the case of the Iron Triangle never went to trial, and all of its secrets and illegal military orders were never made public.

Although the military acknowledged in 2007 that the soldiers were given an improper order that lead to the death of the civilians, incredibly the soldiers were still prosecuted, while Colonel Michael Steele merely received a formal reprimand. Both Clagett and Hunsacker were given 18 years a piece, while Girouard received 10.   

TREATMENT OF MILITARY SOLDIERS IN PRISON IS WORSE THAN ANIMALS

We  rightfully become enraged about the horrible treatment of military detainees at Guantamo, Abu Ghraib and other military detention centers.  We take up the concerns of the wrongful treatment and civil rights abuses of civilian inmates and political prisoners, as we rightfully should.   And we rail against the unjust treatment of animals locked in cages.   And if the truth is to be told, there is not enough being done on behalf of these issues.   However, there is one group of prisoners that never command any of our attention -- and that is American soldiers that are imprisoned by the US military.   This silent group is never mentioned in the news media, and civil rights organizations do not take up their cause.  Perhaps it is because it is hard to not transfer the feelings of anger about a illegal and immoral American wars to the ones wearing the uniforms of US military.   But as the US n

Clagett was put into solitary confinement for nearly 4 years, and during his pretrial confinement he was often abused, as food and drink were withheld from him.   He was also made to sleep in a fetal position while in chains with bright lights on for 24 hours a day.