New reports suggest that better efforts by American troops could have avioded the horrors of the attack on the United Nations:

Iraq's Governing Council received warning of truck bombing a week ago



Since the US Army is responsible for security why didn't they increase security around the UN headquarters?



Well, the job of the intelligence officiers is to warn the UN of this. If they failed, than they have blood on their hands.

Was America criminally negligent on the UN attack?

No.

Probably not. We hardly have any of the specific details yet and there are other explanations for what happened.

If U.S. Intelligence had a credible source that indicated an imminent attack against the UN Building that was bombed, they would have acted and security at the site would have been dramatically increased. They have every reason to want to avert such a disaster.

But what Chalabi's group knew was that a "large-scale act would take place... against a soft target, such as Iraqi political parties or other parties including the UN." That is awfully vague when we're talking about a chaotic environment with many different political factions, groups, and organizations. The US Army does not have extensive reserves of security forces to dedicate to the many targets, locations, and facilities that could fall in that range.

I would tend to agree with Azure. US forces in Iraq may be spread too thin, but I think "criminally negligent" is a bit strong.

Of course, the fact that US forces should not be in Iraq at all - and that our presence there continues to be criminal of itself - any negligence could perhaps be seen as an extension of our criminal aggression. In most US states, if someone dies during the commission of a felony, it is de facto considered murder, even if the death was accidental. Similarly, perhaps, if there are casualties as a result of an illegal occupation...

I say NO because we are too busy with finding the remnants of Saddam's regime, preventing sabatoge, re-building the army and police force, and getting basic services back on line to be responsible for UN property

In New York City, is the NYPD responsible for the UN building's outside security? No. Not unless it is asked for. The UN has their own guards. The same goes with their building in Iraq. The UN knew that they were at risk because of the insurgents so they should be responsible for the security at their building while we worry about our bases in Iraq.

This goes for the Jordanian Embassy or any embassy anywhere

As has been noted, the UN chose to keep a low profile in their security measures so as to present a more 'welcoming' aura for the Iraqis. While noble in intent it has proven to be quite naive. Very similar to other naive approaches taken by the UN I might add.

This being the case, we were surely not 'criminally negligent', but then you already knew that.

And Wertz, your post is quite a bit off-topic. But then you already knew that!

Yep, it was the UN that was extremely naive and negligent here. When is the UN going to recognize reality? They welcomed that bomber with open arms.

My posting was not off-topic in the least, P51. Without the illegal - and criminal - presence of the US in Iraq in the first place, this attack would never have happened. The bombing of the Canal Hotel is a direct consequence of the US invasion (itself a war crime). Any casualties resulting from a criminal act could themselves be construed as criminal. You may disagree with the international laws to which we, as a nation, subscribe - but that does not mean they don't exist. Aggression is a war crime and our invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked, unwarranted act of aggression. The blood of everyone who died in the Canal Hotel is on our hands as much as it is on those of the perpetrator.

Heh. Before we even consider whether a nation is "criminally negligent", don't we first have to decide the issue of jurisdiction? Under whose laws could the US be found criminally negligent?

The federal government can't be held "criminally negligent" under US law for any of their actions. The only remedy in any case against the US government is purely civil.

So, considering under our current law there is no way to hold the US government criminally negligent, my answer to the debate question would be a definitive no.

It may be suggested that the US government could be found criminally negligent under some sort of international law, but I would of course ask for a reference in the constitution that seceded jurisdiction to a foreign entity.

Oh, and here's an under-reported AP story claiming the UN refused extra security because they "did not want a large American presence outside" as U.N. spokesman Salim Lone put it.

http://www.adn.com/24hour/iraq/story/97499...p-6834512c.html (link from Anchorage Daily News)

Mike

Our mere presence in Iraq cannot be used to legitimately argue the subject of this debate. If that were the case then we could argue that Saddam should be held criminally liable because he had WMDs. Or that his mother should be because she bore him. On and on and on. You yourself jumped on GA for bringing Clinton into another debate because he was part of the current question.

This particular issue is quite specific. Were we negligent for not providing more security to the temp UN offices? Answer, no. Why? Because the UN itself didn't want it.

Well that was over the top. The UN secretary general didn't seem to think that the security problem was at the feet of the UN.

The United States was not criminally negligent, but we got ourselves and the international aid community in an ugly situation because of shortage of available troops and a lack of accurate post-war planning.

The Secretary General stated that they did not think the lack of security was a great risk. I know I can be accused of Monday morning quarterbacking but that seems like poor reasoning. I stand by my earlier statement. I would not say the UN was criminally negligent, what court would try the UN? They were definitely negligent though. The attacks on oil pipelines and water supplies definitely showed the terrorists were attempting to slow down the relief brought to the Iraqi people. The UN was actively working to relieve the Iraqi people from their current conditions. It is totally irrational not to have recognized they were subject to attack.

Hmmm two interesting contradictions in just the last 24 hours by that stellar body, the UN:

From Mike's link in the Anchorage Daily News"


And just now at BBC.com:

The left hand doesn't not know what the right is doing.

At this point in the unending cycle of blame and counter blame my feelings are that it should be equally divided between America and the UN.
Neither should be there anyway.

However..........If you ask me if America was criminally negligent on the Iraq invasion?
But thats for another place and time

Regards.........Alan

Shouldn't have been allowed to turn it down? Imagine the stink that would've been made had we insisted on extra security measures, and set them up against the UN's wishes.

I was watching Cnn last night and thewy showed Kofi saying the United States is to blame for not giving the building security. That was AFTER we offered it before the bombing. Powell is gonna have to talk to Kofi about his attitude later today

The US is responsible for keeping the peace and providing security for the UN IMO, since we are the occupying force and are the ones leading this mess.

The US Army did have a platoon (approx.30-40 guys) stationed in the area of the front door to the building. Unfortunately the truck bomb exploded on the street side.
How many soldiers of the 145,000 in the entire country would the UN (in hindsight) have requested for their safety?

We have devices that can be placed around the perimeters of buildings quickly and fairly cheaply to provide protection and prevent\stop\immobilize trucks from reaching their targets. They're these metal barrier type things, very effective. Why didn't they have these in place?

The UN was in the process of putting up a twelve foot wall around the building.

Security WAS offered to the UN, it was refused. I can't see how the US can be held responsible here, at all.
EDIT: to add

And Kofi Annan's sniping of the UN was just out of line. The guy obviously did not know what the real security situation was in Bagdad, since one of the local guys stated earlier that day that the UN had decided against a military presence outside the building.

I didn't know that. Please provide a link. Why would the UN refuse?

The UN felt that the presence of US troops would make them a target.

They were naive in thinking that just because they were involved in humanitarian work that they would NOT be a target.
U.S. Officials: U.N. Refused Iraq Offer