U.S. denies misconduct in friendly fire deaths |

U.S. denies misconduct in friendly fire deaths

The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — The U.S. military said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, responding to a question Thursday about the Sept. 12 friendly fire deaths of eight Iraqi policemen and a Jordanian guard in Fallujah, gave a response about an earlier killing of two Iraqi policemen by American forces in the same city.

Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said the military investigation showed no misconduct in the incident.

“The initial findings are that the soldiers acted within the construct of the military’s rules of engagement,” he told reporters.

The Associated Press reported that Sanchez was talking about a Sept. 12 shooting involving the 82nd Airborne Division.

Col. Bill Darley, a spokesman with the coalition joint task force, telephoned AP later yesterday to say that Sanchez thought he was responding to a question about a shooting Aug. 9 in Fallujah.

In that shooting, Darley said, two Iraqi policemen were killed by soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry, part of the 1st Armored Division’s 3rd Brigade. He said Army records showed the investigation of the Aug. 9 shooting was complete and that soldiers were found to have acted in accordance with the rules of engagement.

Darley did not give further details.

There was no known previous report of U.S. troops killing Iraqi policemen on Aug. 9.

The audio tape of the exchange with Sanchez shows the following:

Question: “General, can you give us an update on the investigation into the killing of Iraqi policemen in Fallujah?”

Answer: “Yes, I can. That investigation is complete at this point. It’s undergoing final review within my headquarters, with release of that report to follow immediately after the final review. The initial preliminary findings are that the soldiers acted within the construct of the rules of engagement.”

Question: “General, you refer to the initial preliminary findings into the Fallujah investigation. Does that investigation acknowledge that the police were shot by U.S. soldiers, and is there an explanation of why the shooting began?”

Answer: “The Fallujah incident• Yeah, the initial reports were very clear, that there was some initial fire that took place, as that truck of policemen turned around and came back towards the patrol. And once that engagement started, it didn’t end, it was about a 30-second engagement that occurred. It ended with that truck full of Iraqis having been engaged, and those policemen killed. It was about a 30-second engagement that took place.”

Aside from the mention of a 30-second engagement, the general’s response matches what is known about the Sept. 12 incident, down to the reference to a pickup truck and it having turned around.

Sanchez also said the unit acted within military rules when it called in a helicopter airstrike on a farm north of Fallujah on Tuesday, killing three men and wounding three other people, including two boys. He added that he would not order an investigation.

In the Sept. 12 shooting, surviving policemen said the incident began as Iraqi police vehicles approached a U.S. checkpoint near the Jordanian military hospital on the outskirts of Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad. The police were chasing a car known to have been involved in highway banditry.

The policemen said they begged the American soldiers to stop shooting, screaming in Arabic and English that they were police. The Americans kept firing for 30 minutes, the policemen said.

Fallujah is in the heart of the dangerous “Sunni Triangle,” the region north and west of Baghdad where support for Saddam Hussein runs deep and attacks on U.S. forces happen daily.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.