Claims Filed Under the Foreign Claims Act by Civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq

Documents received from the Department of the Army in response to ACLU Freedom of Information Act Request

Army 15-6 Documents
(Released on October 31, 2007 | Learn More: The Human Cost of War - Civilian Casualties in Iraq & Afghanistan)

Document	Agency	Incident Date	Specific Location	Description
Army 11761-11781	Army	25-Feb-05	Kalsu, Iraq	An Army patrol (or convoy) of two Bradleys was making its way back to a base in Kalsu, Iraq, when an Iraqi man in a blue 4-door Chevy Caprice Classic approached the patrol, getting right behind one of the Bradleys, and then in-between the Bradleys. In a sworn witness statement, a U.S. Army Officer wrote that he fired on the Iraqi because “we have been in Iraq for over a month and I have never seen a vehicle try to run pass [sic] a Bradley.” First the officer fired at the trunk, then the grill and then at the Iraqi man. The Iraqi man's vehicle steered off the road. By the time Army personnel arrived approximately 60 local nationals were surrounding the car and the body was gone. Army personnel were not able to locate the body. The investigating officer determined that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE) but recommended that the Army “Continue to reinforce ROE training, convoy operations and ensure all convoys have convoy warning signs.” (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 11782-11828	Army	10/5/2005	Kalsu, Iraq	At 1:45 am an Army patrol noticed a dump truck parked on the side of a road. Previous to this evening two troops had been killed by Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED) and so new procedures had been instituted to deal with VBIEDs. One component of these procedures was an instruction that “soldiers are to error on the side of personal safety at all times, IAW the ‘right to self protection’ of the Rules of Engagement (ROE).” The Army patrol followed those new procedures. The Army patrol stayed at 200 meter distance, put a spotlight on the vehicle, an Army gunner shot out the vehicle’s tires, the gunner then fired to the left of the vehicle, then the gunner fired into the engine block. Approximately 8-10 rounds were fired. At that point the Army patrol heard screaming from the vehicle. The Army patrol found 22-year-old Ali Salem Gaber with bullet wounds in both his legs. The Army patrol attempted to render medical aid but Gaber died within minutes. A search of the vehicle conducted by the Iraqi armed forces revealed no contraband. The investigating officer determined that all Army personal had followed the Rules Of Engagement but recommended that the operating rules as to how to approach VBIEDs be altered. It was recommended that Army patrols use bullhorns to call out to civilians since shouting from 200 meters away may not be heard. It appears from a document in the file that someone filed a claim for the damage to the vehicle and was awarded 10,000 Iraqi Dinars. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 11829-11835 Army 11836-11842 Army 11843-11844 Army 11845-11846	Army	April, 2005 (precise date is whited out)	Iraq	An Army patrol conducting an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) ambush came upon three Iraqi men in a van along the side of a road carrying a black tire with something inside it along an area known to be an IED site. The Army patrol fired one shot and one of the individuals started running. The van then fled and the Army patrol fired two shots at the van. The van was located 30 minutes later and one of the three Iraqi men was found. He had been shot in the leg and was bleeding. He died from his wounds. At the scene of where the first shot was fired a tire with two artillery rounds placed in the middle was found. The investigating officer determined that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 11847-11880 Army 11881-11891 Army 11892-11894 Army 11895-11897	Army	April, 2005 (precise date is whited out)	Iraq	An Army patrol observed an Iraqi man holding something in his hand within line of sight of a Possible Improvised Explosive Device (PIED). It was near midnight and after the curfew. The Army patrol determined the Iraqi man was exhibiting hostile intent and fired 10-12 rounds composed of 6-9 rounds of bursts of bullets. No warnings – either verbal or through lights were given. The Iraqi man was killed on site. A sweep of the area revealed that it was not an IED and no weapons were found. They found another man nearby who was taken in for questioning. The investigating officer determined that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE) but recommended that the Army “Continue to reinforce ROE training” and “Order more spotlights for patrols, to allow for limited visibility warning signal.” (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 11898-11913	Army	2/18/2005	Kalsu, Iraq	In the immediate aftermath of a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) that was driven into a Shiite Mosque, Army patrols were put on alert of a possible coordinated VBIED. One Army patrol had a translator speak from a loudspeaker out of a Bradley that anyone approaching the Bradley should turn around or that they would be shot. (During this time there were a series of communications between various Army officials using pseudonyms, including “Killer,” “Thug,” “Reaper,” “Battle,” and “Dragon.”) Four cars, including one white van approached the Bradley and did not heed the warnings. A series of shots were fired at the four cars. Three cars turned around. The fourth (which was in the lead) came to a stop 15 meters in front of the Bradley. Inside Army patrol found three dead Iraqi men, and four wounded Iraqi men. All seven Iraqi men were between the ages of 25-35. The car the Iraqi men were in was searched for contraband but nothing was found. A coffin on the roof of the car was empty. The investigating officer determined that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement but recommended that the Army “Continue to reinforce ROE training, standardize TF 2/11 BCT check point operations and convoy operations” and noted that “Corrective actions for standardized Check Point signs has already been made.” (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 11914-11933	Army	3/23/2005	Kalsu, Iraq	An Army patrol that was assigned to trash burning duty had a car accelerate in speed toward the patrol. An Army official attempted to give arm signals, shot in the air, and shot into the grill of the car. The car then came to a stop. The Army patrol then went about its business without checking to see what had happened with the occupants of the car. Later another Army patrol came upon the car and found an Iraqi man with a bullet wound to the head. The Iraqi man was dead. In a typed statement the investigating officer determined that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). However, a handwritten statement on the same page states “We did not follow TTP’s or MTP’s. Proper escalation of force not used.” The investigating officer then recommended that the Army “Continue to reinforce ROE training, standardize TF 2/11 BCT combat patrols and convoy operations.” (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 11936-11937	Army	30-Jan-06	Iraq	Three members of an Army patrol were performing dismounted reconnaissance when they were fired upon by three shots followed by three bursts from an Anti-Iraqi Force (AIF) about 50 meters away. The patrol returned fire and killed the AIF, an Iraqi woman. As the patrol moved and positioned two gun trucks in support of the unit, the Army personnel came under sporadic fire from a house 250 meters away. They returned fire in an exchange which lasted a total of 10 minutes, and then attacked and cleared the house, where they located the body of the initial shooter, along with spent round casings and ejected rounds, but no weapon. The remaining individuals were questions but this questioning revealed nothing conclusive. No determinations were made by the investigating officer, aside from the recommendation that no payments were necessary. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 11938-11954 Army 11955-11965 Army 11966-11976	Army	12 Oct. 2005	Iraq	An Army patrol was providing security and diverting vehicle traffic while a barrier emplacement team worked to erect barriers near an Iraqi Polling site. At approximately 9:15 PM, a white Volkswagen Passat driven by an Iraqi man bypassed the Army checkpoint and proceeded at a steady speed toward the barrier emplacement team. The patrol attempted to stop the vehicle first by making hand motions and verbal warnings in Arabic via loudspeaker. The vehicle driver turned off his headlights and the patrol signaled him using a laser pointer, although sworn witness statements differ with regard to whether this laser was red or green. When the vehicle was approximately 40 meters away, an Army official fired a single warning shot. The driver turned on the vehicle's high-beams, and the official fired a second warning shot, followed by two shots into the engine compartment and two shots at the driver, critically injuring him. Medics attempted to administer first aid to the driver, who died of his wounds and was turned over to Iraqi police. The vehicle's passenger sustained a gunshot wound to his left arm; he was guarded by Army personnel while the driver was treated, and was then taken on foot to a nearby hospital. The investigating officer determined that that Army personnel had followed the Rules of Engagement by responding to a hostile act with an Escalation of Force, and recommended that patrol leaders consider the issue of civilian traffic when conducting barrier emplacements, particularly during non-curfew hours. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed).
Army 11977-11996 Army 11997-12008 Army 12009-12010	Army	5 Oct. 2005	Iraq	On the morning of October 5, 2005, a barrier team was emplacing barriers for Iraqi polling sites, moving from location to location and spending 10-15 minutes on each emplacement. The team blocked civilian traffic with stationary vehicles but no other obstacles. At approx. 10:00, a navy blue Peugeot driven by an Iraqi man bypassed a vehicle checkpoint by driving onto the sidewalk, passed the only available detour, and proceeded at a speed of approx. 40 mph towards the team. U.S. personnel signaled the driver first by shouting; then by signaling with hands and signs which read "Stop" in English and Arabic; then by firing warning shots into the engine block and hood of the car. They then fired between 6 and 10 rounds, hitting the driver. (One witness described this as "the 5 S's: Shout, Show, Shove, Shoot warning shot, Shoot to kill"). Iraqi police (IP) and Iraqi army (IA) personnel pulled the driver from the car and indicated that they wanted to take him to a nearby hospital; a U.S. medic disagreed, conducting a "cursory observation of the body" and determining that the driver had been killed. The investigating officer and several witnesses reported that the IA officers then became angry and aggressive, accusing the team of killing an innocent man and causing the team to leave the scene. According to some other witnesses, however, the team left the scene because it had run out of barriers, and "the situation was under control." The team did not return to photograph the site until the following day. The investigating officer determined that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 12011-12026 Army 12027-12039 Army 12040-12049 Army 12050-12061	Army	11 Oct. 2005	Iraq	While traveling in a three-vehicle convoy through an area of frequent enemy activity at approximately 7:00 PM, an Army patrol made a left turn and immediately saw friendly forces engaging a slow-moving civilian vehicle driven by an Iraqi man. Believing they recognized muzzle flashes coming from the side of the civilian vehicle, members of the Army patrol engaged it, and continued firing until the vehicle veered off the road, hitting a post, and a cease fire was ordered. At this point, members of the patrol inspected the car and found that its driver and two passengers, all unarmed, had died from gunshot wounds. The investigating officer found that the patrol had committed no wrongdoing, since "[i]t c[ould] be logically deduced that if friendly forces have engaged a suspected enemy, positive identification has been established", and that since the incident occurred at dusk, the patrol's ability to see that the individuals were unarmed was limited. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed).
Army 12062-12079 Army 12080-12098 Army 12099-12114	Army	Sep. 5, 2005	Western Baghdad, Iraq	Duplicate; see entry for Army Bates 11426-11479.
Army 12115-12128 Army 12129-12133 Army 12134-12139 Army 12140-12144 Army 12145-12159 Army 12160-12173 Army 12174-12184 Army 12185-12193 Army 12194-12197	Army	Oct. 16, 2005	Northern Baghdad, Iraq	Duplicate; see entry for Army Bates 11651-11733
Army 12198-12214 Army 12215-12221 Army 12222-12229 Army 12230-12241	Army	Oct. 13, 2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Army patrol was conducting a route clearance mission and discovered an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team was called and the patrol set up a cordon to keep civilians out of the area. An Iraqi man approached the cordon on foot from the east, and the patrol signaled to him to stop by motioning, shouting in English and Arabic, and blowing an air horn. When this had no effect, a gunner fired a warning shot, and the Iraqi man retreated. According to sworn statements, the man again approached the cordon 15 minutes later, this time from the north, walking close to the IED. Members of the patrol signaled to him with hand motions and verbal commands, followed by blasts on the air horn and a warning shot. The man acknowledged this shot by flinching, but continued towards the patrol. The gunner then confirmed, using a laser range finder, that the man was 30 meters away from the patrol vehicle, and fired several rounds, striking the man in the abdomen and disabling him. Members of the patrol then approached him, noticing that he wore a long white robe, was clean-shaven, and carried a large quantity of Iraqi currency around his waist. They reported administering first aid and transporting him to a hospital. However, some army officers produced conflicting reports in their sworn statements, recalling that the man approached the cordon with two other men, and that the two men were deterred with warning shots but that the victim continued to approach. The Investigating Officer concluded that the actions of the patrol were "commensurate with established and published brigade, battalion, and company guidelines," and further emphasized that the man demonstrated hostile intent, arguing that his "actions, eerily, resemble those of reported suicide bombers, and further support my position of hostile intent." (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 12242-12249 Army 12250-12257	Army	Mar. 23, 2006	Western Baghdad, Iraq	An Army sniper team was stationed in a building alongside a highway in an area of high Improvised Explosive Device (IED) concentration. Prior to departure from the base, the team had been briefed on Rules of Engagement (ROE). At approximately 10:00 PM - past curfew and after the moon had set, leaving the team in darkness - an Iraqi individual was seen walking along the median of the highway, and appeared to be carrying something in his hands. The Army personnel lost sight of him momentarily and then observed him crouching in the median for approx. 45 seconds, and then standing and walking away. Determining this to be appropriate Positive Identification (PID) of the individual positioning an IED, a sniper fired on him and killed him. It was later found that the individual was a boy approx. 12 or 13 years of age; no IED was found on the site, and the object the individual had carried could not be identified. The recommendations of the Investigating Officer were redacted, but a memorandum from one of his superiors concurred with his findings and asserted that, given the actions observed, "SSG [REDACTED] acted within my expectations and IAW and the ROE," and recommended that sniper platoons continue to receive briefings on the ROE. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 12258-12266 Army 12267-12276	Marines	5/12/2006	Iraq	At approximately 10:00 AM, an Army patrol was conducting a vehicle checkpoint, and had positioned two vehicles to block both eastbound and westbound traffic. Approximately one minute after these vehicles had been positioned, westbound traffic had backed up for 800 meters when a gray Audi driven by an Iraqi man bypassed the traffic jam and proceeded towards the checkpoint at approx. 60 mph. When it was approx. 300 meters away, an Army official signaled the vehicle by waving red flags and firing a pen flare. At approx. 100 meters, the official fired a tracer round in front of the vehicle, followed by three shots which punctured the passenger side wheels. When the vehicle was within 75 meters, a round was fired into the grill, followed by 14 rounds from a .50 caliber machine gun fired directly at the vehicle. The vehicle came to a stop, and personnel inspected it and found one male Iraqi killed, and one female Iraqi, age 53, unharmed. The woman stated that the victim was her husband, and that they had been returning from their son's funeral. She also stated that her husband had very poor eyesight, which might have contributed to his inability to see the flags and flares employed by the marines. A memorandum concerning the investigation's findings asserted that the soldier's actions were consistent with the Rules of Engagement (ROE) and that a condolence payment was appropriate. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 12279-12305 Army 12306-12333 Army 12334-12358 Army 12359-12371	Army	1-Jan-06	Rahem Awa, Kirkuk, Iraq	An Army patrol arrives at the scene of an "agitated" demonstration of Iraqis protesting a rupture of a local sewage line that was flooding neighborhood homes. The investigation finds that the demonstrators, who had been further "agitated" by warning shots fired into the air by Iraqi police, were throwing rocks, injuring members of Coalition Forces, and burning tires and throwing aerosol cans into the fires. Thirty minutes after the arrival of coalition forces, a white sedan entered the area and ignored "orders" to stop, shouted in Arabic, Kurdish, and English, as well as hand signals. The investigating officer finds that the soldiers shot the driver, wounding him ten to fifteen times, after he had passed the "gun line," fearing a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED). The driver was killed, as was an Iraqi bystander. Another Iraqi bystander was wounded. The investigating officer finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) were followed and that because of a tense atmosphere in Kirkuk, a recent string of Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks, and the driver's behavior, there was reason to suspect a threat. Recommends additional EOF and ROE training, additional collateral damage training, the development of classes on "rounds impact" to prevent the further wounding and killing of bystanders, and condolence payments to the two bystanders, one killed, one injured. (No Iraqi witness statements taken.)
Army 12372-12382 Army 12383-12397 Army 12398-12410 Army 12411-12422	Army	3/8/2006	FOB Loyalty, Iraq	A local national vehicle and an Army Bradley collide as the Bradley was on its way from the UN compound to Forward Operating Base Loyalty. The driver of the Bradley "believed the oncoming vehicle was going to stop" and continued driving towards it, running it over. First aid given but the driver of the car died within thirty minutes. The investigation at once claims that the driver of the Bradley signaled to the Iraqi driver and that "it is physically impossible for the driver to have seen the vehicle in question." Driver of Bradley to be issued "letter of concern," condolence payment and regrets offered to deceased's next of kin. This entrance to FOB Loyalty no longer allowed for use by coalition vehicles. An Iraqi Police investigative report is included, with a statement from the deceased's father, but not from the passenger in the car.
Army 12423-12447 Army 12448-12470	Army	12/11/2005	"Uday's Farm," Iraq	A vehicle approaches an Army checkpoint at an "unusually high rate of speed." The soldiers at the checkpoint fire warning shots and signal to the vehicle with a spotlight. As the vehicle approaches, a total of twenty rounds are fired into the vehicle, stopping it 94 meters from the edge of the checkpoint. One female Iraqi passenger suffered a gunshot wound to the hand and a child, approximately three years old, was killed. (No Iraqi witness statements.)
Army 12471-12500 Army 12501-12518 Army 12519-12526 Army 12527-12542 Army 12543-12592	Army	1/15/2006	FOB Rustamiyah, Baghdad, Iraq	Investigation finds that Army and Navy personnel shot and killed two Iraqis in self defense. The investigation finds that while the soldiers were conducting reconnaissance on a residence, they were threatened by an Iraqi man with an AK-47, who then opened fire. The soldiers returned fire, killing the man and a female occupant who was aiding him. Iraqi testimony, as reported by the investigating officer, does not conclude that the weapon was pointed at the soldiers or fired by the occupants. Iraqi testimony, as reported by the investigating officer, does find that there was an AK-47 in the home. One son of the victims says that his mother was shouting "thieves, thieves" and the investigating officer concludes that the couple believed they were being robbed. According to the investigation, the couple had been advised that the individuals outside their residence were American forces, but may not have heard that warning because they were already screaming. The investigation notes that while the witnesses claim that they shot a man with a gun, the woman died of direct gunshot wounds and the man died of injuries from bullet fragments. The investigation concludes the witnesses reported inaccurately because of poor lighting. A ten year old child in the home also suffered a "minor flesh wound" to his arm, and a 4 month old child died due to "exposure" the morning of the incident. The investigation notes this death as "not directly related to the incident and not independently verified." Investigating officer recommends condolence payments, as well as a clarification of "the use of civilian structures for military purposes." Large sections of the recommendations are redacted without citing an exemption. Names of victims (Yassin Muhamad Nafawa and Najat Hamed Nafawa) are not redacted.
Army 12593-12642	Army	2/27/2006	Iraq	Army soldiers, taking fire from a distance, identify a van as either a "firing platform" or cover for their attackers. The soldiers then fire on the van. They kill one adult and two children. No weapons were found in the van. A rocket propelled grenade round was found near "the same location of the van when the patrol began taking fire." The investigation finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) were followed, and notes that 5 days prior, this patrol had undergone an "updated ROE class." Condolence payments are recommended. The investigative officer recommends that this incident be used as a model for the importance of ROE and the "willingness of insurgents to use civilians to their advantage." No Iraqi witness statements were taken, though the investigation report notes that a crowd had formed around the van.
Army 12643-12669 Army 12670-12697	Army	4/22/2006	FOB Striker, Iraq	An Army patrol shot and killed an Iraqi driver after he "failed to comply with warnings not to approach." The investigation finds the Escalation of Force (EOF) was appropriate and that Rules of Engagement (ROE) were followed, although asks why a smoke grenade was fired. Among the recommendations, the investigating officer suggests that the shooter "be commended for his excellent marksmanship." Though the report notes that the soldiers spoke to the passenger of the car, who was the victim's uncle, they did not include any Iraqi witness statements.
Army 12698-12734	Army	10/31/2005	Kirkuk, Iraq	Army soldiers had been warned to look for a dark Opel that would be carrying a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED). Seeing a vehicle matching that description approaching them, that did not slow down despite a soldier signaling and shouting at the vehicle, one soldier opened fire and shot the driver, who died of the gunshot wound. His wife and children were also in the car but evidently unharmed. Investigation finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) were followed, that condolence payments should be issued, and that ROE should be reviewed. (No Iraqi witness statements were taken.)
Army 12735-12744 Army 12745-12755 Army 12756-12765 Army 12766-12776 Army 12776-12792 Army 12793-12805	Army	2/5/2006	Baghdad, Iraq	An Iraqi driver does not respond to hand signals and shouts to stop from an Army patrol. When the vehicle reached a distance of 120 meters from the "security perimeter," soldiers pointed their weapons at the vehicle and the vehicle kept approaching slowly. The driver did not respond to a warning shot fired from a distance of approximately 70 meters. Each soldier fired on the vehicle with the intent of disabling it, according to the report, when it was 40 meters away from them. One of these gunshots killed the driver. According to the report, Iraqi police agree the vehicle showed no signs of intending to slow down, and they too suspected a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED). All soldiers involved recieved Rules of Engagement (ROE) training two weeks prior. The investigation finds that ROE were followed. Investigating officer recommends condolence payment, the acquisition of green laser pointers for signaling to oncoming vehicles, the repair of a light pole damaged by the victim's car, and training on the "proper selection of an aiming point for a warning shot." Redactions from Arabic and English sources sometimes inconsistent. No Iraqi witness report taken. Strangely, another investigation report follows this one. More strangely, the investigating officer writes that on March 4, 2006, he or she was directed to investigate an incident that occurred after he or she was assigned to it, on April 3, 2006. In this incident, a vehicle approaching coalition forces ignored flashing lights and green lasers meant to signal a stop. The driver also ignored a warning shot fired from 50 meters. At 25 meters, the soldiers opened fire, killing one and wounding another. The report notes these two were "2nd BN ESU members from Tikrit." The investigation found that normal EOF procedures were "exceeded" and recommends continuing with EOF training, and reminding "local sheiks" of the need to obey soldiers' signals. (No Iraqi witness statements taken.)
Army 12806-12827 Army 12828-12848	Army	7/10/2006	Iraq	Army soldiers shot an Iraqi male after the Iraqi male attempted to "forcibly take" a weapon from one soldier. The gunshots were intended to be nonlethal according to the report, but the victim bled to death. Escalation of Force (EOF) refresher training and condolence payments recommended. (No Iraqi witness statements taken.)
Army 12849-12866 Army 12867-12881 Army 12882-12895 Army 12896-12901	Army	1/25/2006	Iraq	Army soldiers investigating a "suspicious compound" that resembles a militia or military facility ask to be let in, identifying themselves as American soldiers. The Iraqi man who responded pointed an AK 47 at them within one minute of their request. One soldier opened fire on the Iraqi man, who later died of wounds to the chest and head. Iraqi police take up the investigation, and no follow up on the victim's intentions or motivations is included with this report. The investigating officer does not recommend condolence payments, but is overruled by the memorandum conditionally approving his or her recommendations. (No Iraqi witness statements taken.)
Army 12902-12922	Army	3/20/2006	Mosul, Iraq	Army soldiers in an "engineering convoy" try to signal to an oncoming Iraqi vehicle to stop, with "honking horn, flashing lights, and hand and arm signals." A warning shot was fired and then a "disabling shot," both of which failed to deter the vehicle. The soldiers fired into the windshield, killing a four year old boy. The soldiers in the convoy could not turn around right away "due to size of equipment." The soldiers eventually turned around and arrived on the scene after the boy had been taken to the hospital. Investigative Report recommends reviewing Rules of Engagement (ROE) regularly, using air horns to alert oncoming traffic, and the education of Iraqis by local government on what to do when approaching a military vehicle. (No Iraqi statements were taken.)
Army 12923-12943	Army	1/22/2006	Iraq	Army soldiers had just finished a mission searching for a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) when they saw a vehicle coming towards them on a potential collision course. One soldier suggests to another that he should "honk his air horn." The report does not indicate whether the horn was sounded, but does note that the driver made eye contact with the soldiers but did not change course or speed. The same result followed when one soldier pointed his weapon at the car. The soldier then fired a "warning shot" causing the car to slow and swerve. The report indicates a 12 year old boy was wounded, in the arm and stomach, but does not note any deaths. The report does not indicate at what distance Escalation of Force (EOF) was initiated. Investigating Officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations include regular ROE review, notifying soldiers of the effects of ricochet bullers, and the continued use of air horns as warnings. Although the report notes that a crowd had gathered around the scene, no Iraqi witness statements were taken.
Army 12944-12978	Army	3/23/2006	Samarra, Iraq	A "security element" of Army soldiers was attempting to stop oncoming vehicles by setting up a hasty checkpoint to allow its own safe passage. Three vehicles had been stopped. A fourth vehicle does not stop after hand signals and shouting. Warning shots produced the same result, and disabling rounds were fired. Three Iraqis (two adults and one child) were injured in the incident. The investigating officer finds that Escalation of Force (EOF) and Rules of Engagement (ROE) were properly followed, and that this incident be used as a "Rules of Engagement vignette" for "lessons learned."
Army 12979-13003	Army	4/2/2006	Mosul, Iraq	According to the investigation report, a local vehicle approaches an Army vehicle, and the soldiers attempted verbal and hand signals to prevent the local vehicle from ramming them. According to the report, there was no time for a warning shot, and the local vehicle crashed into the U.S. vehicle after the soldiers had shot at the local vehicle from a distance of 15 meters. The driver was shot in the neck, the chest, and the arm, but the soldiers don't "know if [the driver] is still alive" or if condolence payments were made. Investigation report recommends "an aggressive public service campaign" to alert locals of the importance of staying away from military vehicles, as well as the contact and payment of the injured or possibly dead Iraqi. Investigating Officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE).
Army 13004-13024	Army	7/5/2006	Bayji, Iraq	An Army patrol assisting Iraqi Bayji police in establishing a perimeter around a detonated Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) is approached by a local truck. The truck does not respond to "hand and arm signals." Interestingly, a "local national vendor" was used to assist in stopping the vehicle. The truck does not respond to "disabling shots" fired from a distance of 50 meters. At 25 meters, soldiers fire with the intent to "eliminate the threat," killing the driver. Recommendations include the reinforcement of the use of "traffic cones and wire" in blocking roads, the increased use of radios by patrol, and to "enforce the Iraqi Police (IP) cordon to include all side roads." Also, a large stamp with the words "Task Force Band of Brothers" and "The Rendezvous Continues…Destiny Awaits" obscures much of the first two pages, and exemptions aren't listed. Investigating Officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE).
Army 13025-13034 Army 13035-13037 Army 13038-13043 Army 13044-13048 Army 13049-13075 Army 13076-13102 Army 13103-13126	Army	5/30/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Army soldiers fire disabling shots at an approaching Iraqi vehicle. The vehicle does not respond, and further rounds are fired to "stop the car from approaching." The shots kill two Iraqi women, one of whom was pregnant. The conduct is found to be within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations include checking to make sure signs indicate when a road is for "coalition only," the use of a number of methods to inform Samarra residents of off limits areas, the use of "serpentine barriers," and continued ROE training. Again, a large stamp with the words "Task Force Band of Brothers" and "The Rendezvous Continues…Destiny Awaits" obscures much of the first two pages, and exemptions aren't listed for that obscured material. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 13127-13140	Army	4/26/2006	Near Samarra, Iraq	Two Iraqis, both "extremely intoxicated," drove towards a U.S. Army checkpoint disregarding warnings to stop. At 10 meters, soldiers fired shots to disable the vehicle, wounding one Iraqi, who later died of his wounds. The second Iraqi ran towards Samarra, was captured and taken to "Patrol Base Razor ECP." The Iraqis were carrying loaded AK-47s in the car. Investigating Officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations include reviewing proper Escalation of Force (EOF) procedures, no condolence payments.
Army 13141-13170	Army	5/25/2006	Iraq	A civilian cargo truck approaches a "mounted observation point," a checkpoint. An Army soldier uses sirens, lights, hand and arm signals to try to stop the truck, and does not respond to warning shots. Soldiers then fire at the truck's engine block. The soldier then fires through the windshield, killing the driver, who the investigating officer believes was intoxicated due to two empty gin bottles found in the truck. Investigation finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Escalation of Force (EOF) were properly employed. One witness report claims that though the inside of the vehicle smelled of alcohol, the driver himself did not.
Army 13171-13200 Army 13201-13231	Army	4/17/2006	Mahmudiyah, Iraq	An Iraqi van stopped at a "security halt" begins moving after an Army soldier shines a light "to keep the van halted." The soldier then waved his light, then fired a warning shot at a distance of 75 meters. At 50 meters, an order was given to fire disabling shots. Approximately 40 were fired, and the vehicle turned before stopping 25 meters from the soldiers. One Iraqi man was killed, one Iraqi woman and one Iraqi man were wounded. The wounded woman was given a "claims card" in order to obtain compensation for harm. Recommendations include the firing of a weapon with a "louder report" when possible, and "more easily recognizable" signals like flashing red lights. Investigating Officer doesn't mention whether conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE).
Army 13231-13250 Army 13251-13269	Army	20-Mar-05	Al Abarra province, Iraq	An army patrol was making its way to respond to a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device attack that occurred on one of the Iraqi Army headquarters in the Diyala region of Iraq. Several military vehicles were instructed to establish a checkpoint on the road leading up to the headquarters. Thirty minutes after establishing the checkpoint, a four door Hyundai approached the checkpoint. At 200 meter distance, the vehicle was signaled with two spotlights. Within 100 meters, the soldiers started shouting “Stop” in English and Arabic, also using hand signals to motion the vehicle to slowdown, stop and turn around. The vehicle then pulled over to the left side of the road; however it continued to proceed very slowly. A Non Commissioned Officer authorized his scout to fire, and three rounds were fired into the engine compartment of the car, and then an additional round into the windshield at the man who was driving. The vehicle then came to an immediate stop, and army personnel approached the vehicle. They checked that the driver did not have a pulse and that he had been shot through the left eye. The victim was then removed and placed into a body bag. A search of the vehicle by American forces revealed no contraband. The victim had $45,800 Dinars, one picture ID and another card in his front breast pocket. The damaged vehicle was towed to the Iraqi Police station. The body was put in an Iraqi ambulance, and the victim’s possessions were given to the ambulance driver. The investigating officer determined that the soldiers responded with graduated force in accordance with the Rules of Engagement and used deadly force as a last resort in self defense. No recommendations were made. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13270-13289 Army 13290-13302	Army	6/27/2005	Taji, Iraq	While investigating a Potential Improvised Explosive Device explosion in Taji, Iraq, a second Improvised Explosive Device detonated near one of the army patrol’s dismounts and injured a soldier. Army patrol then noticed a Blue Bongo truck fleeing from the scene. Believing that the truck was operated by those who had triggered the explosion, the soldiers targeted the vehicle, and the on scene commander attempted to minimized collateral damage. The left tire of the suspect’s vehicle was shot out. One passenger was shot and killed while running away from the vehicle. Life-saving measures were employed by a medic on the victim, to no avail. All the passengers (including the driver) were X sprayed (a test to determine whether the person had contact with explosive residue), and nothing significant was found on either the persons or vehicle. Soldiers investigated a nearby canal and ditch to the best of their ability, but due to the thickness of the brush and depth of the canal, they found no evidence that may have been used as a triggering device. The investigating officer determined that the soldiers used proper escalation of force and acted within the Rules of Engagement, and did not violate Law of War. It was recommended that Coalition Forces must continue to inform Iraqis that fleeing the site of a significant act would put them at risk and make them look suspect. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13303-13346 Army 13347-13387	Army	5/4/2005	Al Muthanna, Iraq	Army Snipers (from HHT/1/11/ACR Platoon) witnessed two cars stop for three minutes in the vicinity of a known place where Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) had previously been placed. Ten minutes later one of the cars returned. The Snipers called a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) team that was in the area at approximately 10:30pm on May 4, 2005. The QRF witnessed the two men – likely Iraqi – take a tire and place it against a rock. The QRF blocked the car and instructed the occupants of the car to exit the car and come toward the QRF. The driver opened his door and stood outside the car behind the car door and said something to the passenger. The driver then reentered the vehicle and while most of the next part of what happened is redacted it appears that the QRF team then shot at the car repeatedly (according to the investigating officer 134 rounds were fired), whereupon the car was on fire. The driver survived the shooting and QRF tried to pull him from the flames but was not successful. He burned to death. By the time the car burst into flames the passenger was no longer moving. The investigating officer found that one contributing factor that if changed could have altered the outcome was that if the platoon had fired 50 rounds instead of the 134 it did fire enough bullets would been have fired to disable the vehicle but not kill the occupants. The investigating officer noted that the “platoon could have possibly disabled the vehicle without killing the occupants with prior rehearsed firing handover lines.” The investigating officer then determined that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement and that no further action be taken against the individuals involved in the incident. The investigating officer then recommended that the platoon get training on “fire control measures in both unit level SOP and rehearsals.” The investigating officer then noted that he believed that the civilians killed demonstrated hostile intent and that no restitution (likely in the form of a condolence/solatia payment) be granted any family members in the future. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13388-13440	Army	11/25/2005	Saba Al Boor, Iraq	A four HUMVEE Army patrol was en route to an undesignated location in Iraq at approximately 3pm on November 25, 2005, when an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) exploded as the fourth vehicle passed by it. The HUMVEE was on fire and so the occupants exited the vehicle. The Army forces then began to shoot at areas where a triggerman may be and to look for any evidence of further hostile activity. One soldier alone expended 250 rounds. In the vicinity there was also a crane and behind the crane there was a blue civilian van. Apparently the van had moved off the road to let the Army patrol pass. The crane operator suffered shrapnel wounds from the IED and took himself to the hospital. The civilian in the van, a 51-year-old Iraqi male national named Saadon Daham Abd (of the Al Alwani Tribe), died from bullet wounds from the Army firing after the IED. The soldiers claimed they never saw the blue van. The investigating officer found that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement. While the recommendation does not appear in the file it appears that the officer likely recommended that no further action be taken. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13441-13466	Army	10/16/2005	Taji, Iraq	An Army patrol composed of approximately 3 Bradleys was traveling to an undisclosed location in Iraq to replace a Bradley there in anticipation of protecting polling stations. Along the way at approximately 4am on October 16, 2005, the last Bradley in the convoy – through thermal scanning – noticed a heat source that was crouched in the countryside. Because there had previously been Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks on that route, the Army officials were concerned and they sought to search for clues as to the person’s identity by looking around for sheep, or a home or other things in the near vicinity that would explain why the person was out there. The Bradley then moved toward the individual. According to Army officials when the individual heard the sound of the Bradley coming toward him he picked something small up off the floor (which the Army officials thought was likely a trigger for an IED) and began to run. The Army officials lost sight of him for 10-15 seconds but then picked up his location again and engaged with several bursts (each burst is composed of 3-7 rounds). Army officials then went to search the area. Army officials found the Iraqi man dead. They found no IED trigger devices or other such contraband. They found a shovel underneath the Iraqi male. They tested the Iraqi male for weapon making residue and he tested positive. Army officials then noticed a small home about 500 meters away and interviewed the occupant of the home who informed that the decedent was Abbas Shihada Shihatha an Iraqi male national, that the decedent was a farmer who go to the fields and use his shovel to open the irrigation system, that he would usually go at midnight and that he would usually be accompanied by his son. That night he had gone past his regular time and was not with his son. While the file does not have the investigating officer’s determination that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement this conclusion can be gleaned from the fact that the investigating officer recommends that no action be taken against the Army officials involved. The investigating officer found no contributing factors, which if changed, would have altered the outcome of the incident. The findings and recommendations of the investigating officer were then approved.
Army 13467-13483	Army	11/25/2005	Iraq	On the morning of November 22, 2005, Army officials (1st Platoon, 2nd Squad, Camp Tiji) and Iraqi Army Forces (IAF), conducted a joint ambush operation wherein Army officials gave IAF lead on the operation. The operation involved 30 IAF officials, 18 Army officials, an informant, and an interpreter. In several places in the file Army officials stated that they repeatedly warned IAF officials not to harm any detainees. An informant had told the officials that occupants of a maroon Opel were coordinating payments for the Abu Abdullah Insurgent Cell. At approximately 8:15am IAF officials in civilian clothing and a civilian vehicle approached the maroon Opel, and pretended to be the contact point. When the occupants of the maroon Opel gave the password, IAF sought to detainee the occupants – two Iraqi male nationals. The driver (identified as Malik Mahummud Nalif) was apprehended and the passenger (identified as Mula Khader) jumped into the driver’ seat and tried to drive off. At that point an IAF officer shot Khader twice in the leg. Army officials moved in to treat Khader. Khader was coherent and had lost only a small amount of blood. IAF officials then began firing their weapons in the air. That is when they noticed a BMW that was turning away from the scene. There was a concern that the BMW may be setting off the maroon Opel (which at that point the officials thought may have been set up as a Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device). The BMW was stopped and its two occupants taken in for questioning. Khader and Nalif were taken to the Army base by IAF. The occupants of the BMW were taken to the Army base by the Army. When they arrived at the base Khader’s condition had worsened markedly and he died of a heart attack. There is a note in the file that there was no proof of harm by the IAF and there is no explanation for why Khader’s condition worsened so quickly and in the manner in which it worsened. The investigating officer’s determination is not included in the file. The investigating officer refers the reader to an attached memorandum which reinforces the facts as supplied by the Army officials but contains no actual conclusion.
Army 13484-13527	Army	11/12/2005	Iraq	On November 12, 2005, An Army patrol, along with an Estonian platoon were traveling back to an Army base when an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) went off. No troops were hurt and there was only cosmetic damage to a HUMVEE in the patrol. Army and Estonian officials then sought to cordon the area and seek out triggermen. During this process shooting occurred. An Army official in an Estonian vehicle stood up and looked over to the field area and noticed that several Iraqi men and a group of Iraqi women (no more than ten women) were making their way toward something in the field. The Army official saw one of the men pick up what looked like a body and carry it back to their home. The Army official heard yelling and what sounded like crying coming from the field. Fifteen minutes later the Army official noticed a pick-up truck leave the home. (Statements submitted by other Army officials gave substantially similar recounts). The Army official asked whether he should investigate and due to miscommunication with someone who appears to have been an Estonian gunner – likely based on language – the Army official was told not to. (It appears the Estonian gunner thought the Army official simply wanted to dismount.) Soon thereafter the Estonian troops advised that they had gotten word of a death and Army officials went to search the home but at that point no body was found. No death was reported in the Significant Act Database (SIGACT) notification of the IED incident. A week later on November 19, 2005, one member of the patrol returned to the home and with the help of an interpreter was told by the family (the family also presented a death certificate) that troops in clearing the IED site had shot and killed their 13-year-old daughter, Ibtihad Talib Yaseen. The investigating officer noted that there was a “critical communication breakdown due to the existing language barrier between U.S. and Estonian forces” which resulted in the death not being noted when it should have been. The investigating officer also noted that the Estonian troops may not have noticed the body at all because the Estonian troops ride low in trucks to decrease their chance of being hurt in IED attacks. However, this low-riding results in them not being able to see further out. The investigating officer wrote that there is no reason to believe that the killing was intentional and that it is “probable that while suppressing the area, someone aimed at the brem or into the trees and unknowingly penetrated them, thereby killing the unseen girl who was hiding on the other side.” One recommendation of the investigating officer is redacted. Two recommendations that do appear are as follows: better communication between the U.S. and Estonian forces, and that the family be paid a condolence payment.
Army 13528-13551	Army	11/2/2005	Taji, Iraq	On November 2, 2005, in a marketplace in Taji, Iraq, an Army patrol (elements of 1/320 FA) composed of four HUMVEES and 19 soldiers was en route to relieve a platoon of other troops who had been on a 48 hour mission. (Note: parts of this file are heavily redacted.) An Iraqi male national in a black sedan approached the patrol going approximately 40-50 miles per hour. Two months prior Taji Market had been the site of a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) and so the Army officials were concerned by the Iraqi male national’s behavior. An Army gunner waived stop signs at the vehicle, which did not result in the speed of the car decreasing. When the vehicle came within 50 meters of the convoy escalation of force was used and an Army official shot three feet in front of the black sedan. The driver swerved to the right and slowed to 5-10 miles an hour. After this the driver then got back on the road and began to reaccelerate his speed. It was not clear to the Army officials if he still served as a threat and he was engaged and killed. The 3/1 AD Commander directed that a condolence payment be made to the family. The investigating officer noted that it was important for Army officials to be aware not only of escalation of force procedures but also of de-escalation of force procedures. The investigating officer noted that because the driver’s conduct did not “CLEARLY” remove the existence of hostile intent that the Army officials did not err in shooting the Iraqi male national. The investigating officer concluded that “there is no fault or violations on the part of the soldiers involved in this incident” and that “[t]his unit and all units need to ensure that all leaders and soldiers understand how to escalate force and what factors to take into consideration for de-escalating force.” (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13552-13599	Army	10/7/2005	Farah Shia, Iraq	At approximately 10am on October 7, 2005, in the Iraqi town of Farah Shia, an Army Sniper team witnessed local nationals setting up an illegal check point. (The checkpoint was illegal because it was set up by civilians.) (Large parts of this file are redacted.) The local nationals appeared to be directing traffic to a mosque which was approximately 200 meters to the west of the checkpoint. At around noon of the same day a black KIA sedan ran through the checkpoint. One of the local nationals running the checkpoint approached the KIA in a white truck. The local Iraqi male national exited the white truck and approached the KIA with an AK-47. The occupants of the KIA had now dismounted too and one of the occupants also had an AK-47. The Army Sniper team had been instructed to gather local intelligence and “engage and destroy insurgents that threaten the sniper team or [local nationals] of Fara Shia.” One Army sniper who believed that either his unit or local nationals were in danger shot the Iraqi male from the white truck and then shot the Iraqi male from the black KIA. Then a third vehicle, a white sedan sought to evacuate the Iraqi male from the white truck. Army officials instructed these local nationals to stop. When the local nationals did not stop they were engaged with 5 rounds of fire and then stopped. At that point a Quick Response Team composed of an Estonian platoon was called to the area and cordoned off the scene. Two Iraqi males, one from the town (the man in the white truck) and one who could not be identified (the man in the black KIA) were dead. The village elder on the scene took possession of the bodies. Also six local nationals who were detained were also released to the village elder. The investigating officer determined that the Army Sniper team’s actions were within the Rules of Engagement. The investigating officer noted that civilian checkpoints are dangerous and can easily lead to incidents like these and that such civilian checkpoints once identified should be immediately shut down. The investigating officer noted that if the Army Sniper team had disbanded the illegal checkpoint when the Army Sniper team became aware of it when it was set up at 10am the incident would not have occurred. The investigating officer recommended no disciplinary action and stated that the shooter had “acted fully within the Rules of Engagement in order to stop Iraqi on Iraqi violence.” The investigating officer then recommended that Commanders should discourage local leaders from setting up illegal civilian checkpoints and that they should disrupt such illegal checkpoints as soon as soldiers observe and report them.
Army 13600-13634	Army	1/10/2006	Iraq	At 1:45am on January 10, 2006, an Army patrol composed of 3 military vehicles, noticed a vehicle out past curfew in Iraq. They stopped the vehicle and while conducting a search of the vehicle another two vehicles approached the hasty checkpoint. These two vehicles were also stopped to be searched. While the first of these two new vehicles were being searched the second car sought to get around the first. An Army official sought to tell the person to stop and when the person did not it appears (much of this part is redacted) that the Army official shot the local male Iraqi national. The Army officials sought to render aid but the Iraqi man died. The 15-6 investigation occurred later that day from 3pm to 7pm. However, no findings or recommendations of the investigating officer appear in the file. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13635-13654	Army	9/18/2005	Iraq	On September 18, 2005, a tank that was part of a 3 military vehicle Army patrol suffered a mechanical failure, crashed through a guardrail and fell off the ramp and onto its side some 15 feet below. The other two vehicles in the convoy sought to control the situation by checking on the tank and assuring they were not attacked. (All three troops who were in the tank are listed as in stable condition.) About 150 meters east of the crash site a group of Iraqi local nationals started gathering. What happens next is redacted in the file but it appears that Army officials had to fire a number of warning shots toward the local nationals to get them to disperse. Ninety minutes later an Iraqi man approached the Army convoy and informed that his 14-year-old son had been shot and killed. The child had already been removed to the Khadimya Hospital. He was dead from a bullet wound to the chest. The investigating officer determined that because the child would have been standing “300-350 meters away from the closest security and in a direction that would be virtually impossible for a ricochet and hit him” and because they could not determine the type of weapon that caused the fatal shot to the child, that the child was not killed by a bullet from any of the warning shots. The investigating officer found that the Army officials utilized proper Escalation of Force “procedures and fired their shots in a direction and location that was appropriate to let the crowd know their intentions[.]” The findings section is completely redacted and the investigating officer then recommends no further action. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13655-13685	Army	9/30/2005	Iraq	At approximately 7pm on September 30, 2005, an Army patrol (Co. 1-41 INF TF2-70) encountered a “suspicious” vehicle and sought to search the vehicle. Much of this file is redacted but it appears that Army officials engaged the vehicle in an escalation of force wherein one male Iraqi local national was killed and another was taken as a detainee. As to the death of the Iraqi man the investigating officer determined that the actions taken by the local nationals resulted in the shooting and that there was nothing that the Army officials could have done differently to avoid the situation. The investigating officer recommended that no action be taken against the Army officials. The file also contains a series of witness statements regarding allegations of abuse against the Iraqi man who was detained in the incident on October 2, 2005. Apparently the detainee was being transported on that date and at one point fell out of a Bradley. All of the Army officials stated that the detainee fell on his butt and none of the troops could explain why the detainee had blood on his face. There are no determinations or recommendations from the investigating officer as to these allegations of abuse. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13686-13690	Army	5/25/2005	Al Abarra Nahiya, Iraq	On May 25, 2005, an Army unit went on a raid to kill or capture members of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) cell operating in the Al Abarra Nahiya area in Iraq. During the raid, a 10-year-old Iraqi boy was killed, and a detainee (Luai Hagani) had his arm injured. One of the troops was concerned that he may have shot the 10-year-old boy. An investigation determined that while there is a possibility that the troop may have killed the boy it is more likely that the Anti-Iraqi Forces shot and killed the boy. The boy was standing 3 feet from the U.S. soldier when the soldier fired several rounds and the wounds on the boy were not consistent with rapid fire shots from that close a range. Also from that close a range if the boy had been shot by the U.S. soldier the boy would have spun and would have fallen backwards toward the soldier. Instead the boy fell face forward toward the soldier. The investigating officer then recommended refresher reflexive firing training for the entire platoon. The investigating officer also noted that he advised the soldier that he was likely not responsible for the boy’s death but noted that the chain of command will monitor the solider for increased signs of stress. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13691-13715 Army 13716-13724	Army	4/22/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	At approximately 2pm on April 22, 2005, two Army patrols began a joint patrol to “facilitate a right/left-seat ride inside of Gazaliyha.” At around 3:30pm two Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) were launched at the patrol. No troops or property was injured. The troops returned fire in the direction of the RPGs. Several bullets ricocheted and struck a 12-year-old Iraqi girl washing dishes in a nearby home. She was struck in the right arm, right leg and abdomen. The troops rendered aid and the girl was then taken to the hospital by her family. The investigating officer determined that the shooting was accidental and that the troops acted within the Rules of Engagement. The investigating officer noted that he did “not believe that the unit in question arbitrarily or capriciously fired without just cause and that both units acted to support each other.” (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13725-13754 Army 13755-13764	Army	4/20/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	At approximately 12:30am on April 20, 2005, an Army patrol composed of one tank and two Bradleys sought to set up a blocking position and checkpoint on an overpass. After arriving they turned on their lights and approximately 20-30 local national vehicles avoided the overpass by taking the service road. However, after about a minute or two and before they could set up their various warning materials that a series of stopped vehicles were coming up a local national vehicle slammed into the tank at a speed of 60 miles per hour. No troops were harmed. The driver, an Iraqi man, was killed. The vehicle was also occupied by the driver’s wife, three small children and another adult aged woman. These Iraqi nationals were treated and then taken to the hospital. The investigating officer determined that the troops were not at fault and that the incident was primarily the fault of the Iraqi man who died. The investigating officer then recommended that for future purposes the Standard Operating Procedures for blocking positions be reviewed and that some sort of system (other than simply having the lights of the vehicles on) be created where drivers are given immediate knowledge of the existence of the stopped vehicle/s. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13765-13777 Army 13778-13804	Army	4/2/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	While investigating an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) site and securing an area of cordon, an Army vehicle took fire from a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) who fired from the east. Two Anti Iraqi Forces (AIFs) fired. Iraqi nationals were in the line of fire aimed at AIF, and three were shot. One was taken to a hospital by other civilians. It was recommended that the unit pay condolence/solatia payments to the family members of the injured individuals, and that the unit conduct consequence management follow-up in the neighborhood. The Investigating Officer doesn't mention whether the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE), but recommends no punitive action. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13805-13816 Army 13817-13823	Army	6/27/2005	Gaziliya, Iraq	Navy Seals were in a house in order to destroy Anti Iraqi Forces (AIF) emplacing Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). While completing their mission, the owner of the house came back and immediately left before apprehended by the SEALS. The owner then returned with an Iraqi policeman, but after translation between the two parties, the two parties left. The SEALS requested that extraction because they felt that their mission had been compromised, but before this was accomplished several local nationals armed with AK-47s and began to fire on the SEALS. The SEALS then engaged in deadly force, having perceived a threat. Four of the nationals were then killed during the engagement, and two were wounded. Later it was found that one of the casualties was Iraqi Police (IP) LT and others were his relatives. The investigating officer determined that the use of deadly force was within the Rules of Engagement. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken).
Army 13824-13867	Army	5/13/2005	Yusifiyah, Iraq	Army patrol was en route when the first vehicle was attacked by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The second vehicle moved to assess damage to the vehicle and human injuries. Once it was determined that there was no damage, the operators of the vehicles decided to look for possible triggermen. One possible suspect was noticed as it was past curfew hours. The suspect began to run away with a shovel in hand. The cause of or details surrounded the death of the suspect have been redacted. Army patrol confirmed that he had no detonation devices on him or in the surrounding area. Recommendations were made, including but not limited to informing the local population about curfew hours, identifying and teaching basic Arabic command phases to soldiers, and enforcing Rules of Engagement. Investigating Officer finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) were followed. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13868-13894	Army	5/6/2005	Iraq	The Macedonian Ranger Platoon was conducting overwatch security on a known rocket/mortar point, when it was noted that an Iraqi national, Alwan Schab, was approaching their positions from about seventy-five meters north. Most details surrounding Schab’s cause of death were redacted, except that he may have been warned verbally and warning shots were fired. Schab’s body collapsed in the field, and was treated by the Macedonian medic. Schab was irate during treatment, and spat blood at the medic and interpreter. His behavior indicates that he may have been on drugs or mentally challenged. Schab died from complications from the bullet wounds in his arms and abdomen. Conduct found to be within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). There was no disciplinary action taken, however it was recommended that ROE and Laws of War (LOW) refreshment briefing be conducted before each mission. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13895-13939	Army	8/11/2005	Iraq	An Army patrol convoy passed by a local national near an intersection. Then an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) explosion occurs on the third vehicle of the convoy. The platoon retreats and tries to find the local national that was seen earlier. They also stop two vehicles with six individuals and X-Spray (a test to determine whether the person had contact with explosive residue) them. The individuals are later released. Concurrently, other Army soldiers begin to inspect a concrete factory and believe that it serves as a site for where the exploded IED was made. They call for backup, and notice a black sedan coming towards the compound from the north. Upon approaching the vehicle, two passengers leave and are apprehended, and the driver is dead, his chest cavity having been pierced by a bullet. Details surrounding the cause of death have been redacted. The investigating officer noted that after having considered all the evidence, it was questionable whether the vehicle engaged, or the people therein were legitimate military targets. The investigating officer also noted that the event occurred before attending refresher training in Rules of Engagement, and that proper techniques needed to be taught concerning the disabling of a vehicle while minimizing collateral damage. The investigating officer asked all witnesses to make a statement about the character of the soldier who shot and killed the victim. The investigating officer found that no Law of War violations occurred. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13940-13941	Army	4/1/2005	N/A	No information available, only details about the Investigating Officer's report.
Army 13942-13986 Army 13987-13993	Army	3/15/2005	Yusifiyah, Iraq	A green vehicle was moving towards a Forward Operating Base in Iraq, passing warning signs in Arabic and English that deadly force was authorized. Army Soldiers noted the vehicle approaching, and that it did not slow down its speed. Having already passed the warning triggers line, two warning shots were fired. As it passed the disabling fires line, two disabling shots were fired into the hood of the car. The vehicle continued towards the entry point. Once the vehicle passed the lethal fires control line, killing bursts were fired into the driver’s side of the vehicle started, and the vehicle came to a stop fifty meters past this line. Cease fire was then initiated. After visual and initial assessment, it was determined that the vehicle was a possible Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED). Soldiers then noticed that children were inside the vehicle. The area was secured, and first aid was administered to the wounded. It was found that 9 Iraqis were in the car, including five children (one of whom was killed). The Investigating Officer determined that all personnel involved acted in accordance with the Rules of Engagement. It was recommended that Jersey barriers and a blocking vehicle be employed as physical obstructions. (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 13994-14001 Army 14002-14009	Army	3/28/2005	Jafr As Sukr bridge, Iraq	Army patrol came across an Iraqi male national traveling by foot on Jafr As Sukr bridge, carrying a satchel. He had already made his way past checkpoint obstacles. Soldiers yelled and then made hand signs at the individual to change his direction. At this point, the individual paused and did change his direction, but continued coming towards the soldiers. As he entered the “Warning Shot Zone”, one round was fired at the bridge at the front of the individual, whereupon the individual paused and faced the direction of the soldiers. They continued their shouts and gestures, but the individual continued west. When he crossed the “Killing Shot Line”, the order was given to shoot to kill. He fell, and responder care was attempted. The individual died, and his brother claimed the body. The brother of the individual confirmed that the individual understood the bridge was closed to all traffic. It was recommended that the Tactical Phyops Team remind the local population that it was forbidden to cross the bridge and deadly force could be used against violators, as well as reinforce signs and blocking equipment. The Investigating officer found that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). (No statements from Iraqi witnesses were taken.)
Army 14010-14038	Army	5/7/2005	Yusifiyah, Iraq	Two Army Bradley vehicles were traveling south on Mulla Fayyad highway in Iraq after having completed a mission, when the soldiers noticed a person suspiciously crouching in vegetation. Because the area was heavily targeted by Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), the person was perceived to be a triggerman. Orders were given to engage with the suspected triggerman, and later the individual was found dead with a shovel nearby. The Infantry Squad was unable to find triggers, but thought it due to the vegetation of the area. The Squad attempted to identify family of the victim, but was unable to. The body was then taken to the Iraqi Army. It was found that the Squad acted within the proper Rules of Engagement, and the Investigating Officer recommended that the Squad conduct a thorough search for the IED trigger device.
Army 14039-14064	Army	8/21/2005	Saba Al Boor, Iraq	On August 21st 2005, an Iraqi male national entered the Saba Al Boor police station and reported that a U.S. Motorized Combat Patrol had shot at his vehicle (a blue mini van) while he was driving, and as a result, a male passenger had died. A second Iraqi male national who had been fishing with his son, corroborated the story as a witness. After the shots were fired, the driver and all other passengers fled from the vehicle. Once the driver and witness had come to the police station, the Warrior element was notified, and they acknowledged firing a shot during that time onto a blue mini van because it had not pulled over or yielded to the coalition combat patrol. No warning shots were ever fired. The shot was fired at the grill of the moving blue mini van from a moving patrol vehicle. It was recommended that coaching and training be provided on how to shoot and aim better on moving platforms. The Investigating Officer determined that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement and that there were no Law of War violations. Statements from the Iraqi driver and witness were taken.
Army 14065-14070	Army	11/20/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	This is not an investigation, rather a Duty Officer's Log at Forward Operating Base Gabe over the course of one day. Entries include logs about Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and Possible Improvised Explosive Devices (PIEDs), and explosions and reactions to them. One entry talks about a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) detonation. Pseudonyms include “Bulldog” and “Trailblazer”.
Army 14071-14072	Army	11/20-21/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	This is not an investigation, rather a Duty Officer's Log at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Gabe over the course of one day. Entries include one partially redacted log at 6:33am involving 3KIA and 1 WIA. A fire truck is requested as a result of the incident, and arrives with the Iraqi Police (IP). An ambulance follows.
Army 14074-14085 Army 14086-14096	Army	Jan. 16, 2006	Hurriya neighborhood, Baghdad, Iraq	An Army patrol was conducting mounted checks in the Hurriya neighborhood of Baghdad, Iraq, when the first vehicle in the convoy saw two Iraqis dressed in civilian clothing, each pointing loaded AK-47s at them. Believing the Iraqis posed an immediate threat, the U.S. personnel chose not to fire any warning shots, and instead engaged the closest Iraqi, who was approx. 20 feet away, killing him with two gunshots to the chest. The personnel then shot and killed the second Iraqi as he ran from the patrol with his gun pointed towards them. It was later determined that the Iraqis had been providing security for a funeral. The investigating officer found that the soldiers acted within the Rules of Engagement (ROE), and recommended that no action be taken and that the matter be closed. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed in the investigation.)
Army 14097-14123 Army 14124-14149	Marines	Mar. 16, 2006	Abu Ghraib vicinity, Baghdad, Iraq	A Marine patrol was deployed to recover a truck which had become stuck in the mud. Previously, this patrol had encountered 4 Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) over the course of the past several days. As the patrol approached the truck, they saw a Kia van driven by an Iraqi civilian traveling towards them at 60-70 mph. Witnesses were unable to see how many passengers in the vehicle. When the van was 300m away, a marine waved a red flag to signal to the van to stop, which had no effect. Although Escalation of Force (EOF) procedure dictates that the Marine should have then fired a pop-up flare, the Marine believed he did not have time to do so, and instead fired one warning shot into the ground with his machine gun (EOF procedure dictates that a warning shot must be fired with a M-16A4 rifle, but the Marine, believing he did not have time to prepare his rifle, used his machine gun instead). The vehicle continued towards the patrol, and the gunner fired two rounds into the grill of the van followed by two six-round bursts into the windshield. The vehicle swerved and drove down an embankment while the Marines continued to fire. As members of the patrol approached the vehicle, they saw muzzle flashes and heard gunfire approx. 700m west of their position. It was not established who had fired the shots. The Marines then found that three Iraqi men had been killed in the van, and nine Iraqi civilians had been injured, including a nine-year-old boy and a fifteen-month-old girl. Interviews with the injured Iraqis revealed that these civilians had hired the van as a taxi, and that they had begged the driver to stop upon hearing the initial gunfire. The investigating officer and his commanding officers determined that, while the gunner had not strictly adhered to the EOF procedures, his actions were "appropriate under the circumstances," and thus within the Rules of Engagement. The investigating officer also recommended that, in the future, the patrol should be "prepared to fully employ the full range of EOF measures" and noted that "one marine cannot be solely responsible for employing each of the measures." It was also noted that the situation was being used to train Marines in the proper EOF procedure. Two Iraqi witnesses were interviewed, although their statements were not included in the 15-6.
Army 14150-14167	Army	Mar. 23, 2006	Western Baghdad, Iraq	On the night of March 23, 2006, an Army patrol was conducting sniper operations alongside a highway which was the frequent site of Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks. Immediately before the mission, members of the patrol had been briefed on the Rules of Engagement (ROE). At 10:00 PM, after the moon had set below the horizon, members of the patrol saw an Iraqi individual walking along the highway median carrying something in his hands. The individual crouched in the median for approx. 45 seconds; although he was crouching behind the guard rail, it appeared to the snipers that he was burying something in the median. He then stood, no longer holding the object in his hands; one of the snipers, believing the Iraqi had been emplacing an IED, shot and killed him. Upon examination of the location, no IED was found. The Investigating Officer concluded that the sniper had acted within the ROE, and recommended that no action be taken against him. The appointing authority concluded that all snipers in the brigade should be retrained and that the sniper and spotter should be decertified. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 14168-14206	Army	Mar. 24, 2006	Shula, Iraq	An Army patrol was conducting a planned raid on a house with the objective of capturing or killing an Iraqi target who had been identified by two sources as a member of an EFP cell. Members of the patrol (excluding interpreters and the sources who had identified the target) entered the house and shouted for the individuals on the first floor to "get down" (in English). Four members of the patrol, led by a SPC Westlake, then proceeded up the stairs where they encountered an Iraqi man standing on the landing above them. As the Iraqi man began to raise his hand, in which he was holding a pistol, SPC Westlake shouted "stop" in English and in Arabic and then fired three shots at the man, striking him in the head with the third. Members of the patrol then called for a medic, but the Iraqi man, Hydar Karnooth Mankhi, died at the scene from his wounds. Upon interviewing other individuals, the patrol learned that they had misidentified the house, and that their target lived across the street. The Investigating Officer concluded that the personnel involved had acted consistently with the Rules of Engagement, and recommended that no action be taken against SPC Westlake. The appointing authority concurred, and indicated that he would "look into refresher Arabic language training", as all of the personnel interviewed reported that they had received no language training since their deployment.
Army 14207-14235 Army 14236-14271	Army	5/4/2006	North of Baghdad, Iraq	An Army Patrol which had recently transferred from the Rustimiyah area, South of Baghdad, to the Taji Forward Operating Base (FOB), North of Baghdad, was involved in three Escalation of Force (EOF) incidents on May 4, 2006. Upon arrival at Taji, members of the patrol were given no orientation or instruction regarding the conditions they would encounter in the area and how these conditions differed from those in Rustimiyah. In the first EOF incident, Army personnel conducting a traffic checkpoint fired warning shots at an approaching vehicle driven by an Iraqi which had disobeyed their hand signals; they later found that cooperating Iraqi Army (IA) forces, standing just out of sight of the U.S. personnel, had given the driver contradictory hand signals which may have led him to believe he should drive past the U.S. personnel. In the second EOF incident, a crowd of 40 or 50 Iraqis, including a man carrying a bucket and acting suspiciously, gathered around an Army official disabling an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). Army personnel fired warning shots towards the crowd, using non-lethal bullets. In the third incident, the patrol was conducting a checkpoint and used escalated force against a vehicle which was approaching them. A gunner fired warning shots directed at the vehicle, aiming his warning shots onto the pavement rather than into the dirt alongside the road. Moments later, a Mercedes-Benz rolled to a stop nearby; patrol members found that the driver had died from a bullet would to the head, most likely the result of the warning bullets ricocheting off the pavement. The investigating officer found that members of the patrol had not been sufficiently oriented to their new surroundings, and that the soldiers acted appropriately within EOF guidelines, although it would have been "more appropriate" for the soldier in the third incident to fire his warning shots into the dirt rather than the pavement. The investigating officer recommended stronger training for incoming personnel, including "right seat rides" to familiarize them with new areas. In response to a claim filed by the victim's sister, commanding officers recommended that condolence payments be paid to the victim's family. No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed, although documents prepared by the victim's sister were included.
Army 14272-14288 Army 14289-14299	Army	Apr. 17, 2006	Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, Iraq	While conducting a vehicle checkpoint at approx. 9:15 PM, an Army patrol was approached by a white van driven by an Iraqi male national. Members of the patrol shined a white light at the van to direct it to halt, but it continued driving towards the checkpoint. Members of the patrol waved their spotlights at the van and shouted "stop" (it was not specified whether they shouted in English, Arabic, or both). This had no effect, so when the van was approx. 75m away, a gunner fired a warning tracer round above the van. The van continued, so the gunner and two dismounted soldiers fired disabling shots at the van, which was now 50m away. The driver of the van, an Iraqi man, was killed by the shots, while his passenger, an Iraqi woman, was wounded. The patrol issued the woman a claims card for possible compensation, and Iraqi Army (IA) personnel called an ambulance. The Investigating Officer (IO) determined that the U.S. personnel's conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE), given the speed at which the van was approaching, and pointed out that all members of the patrol had been briefed on proper Escalation of Force (EOF) prior to embarking on the mission. The IO recommended that no action be taken against the patrol, but suggested that warning shots should be fired with a louder weapon and that more easily recognizable traffic signals should be employed at night. A commanding officer concurred, noting that "waving of a light at night could be misconstrued to mean 'come on around.'" No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.
Army 14300-14326	Army	May. 17, 2006	Iraq	At approximately 7:30 pm, an Army patrol was manning a mounted observation point when they obvserved a cargo truck driven by an Iraqi man approaching their position at a moderate to high rate of speed. Members of the patrol signaled to the vehicle to stop using sirens, lights, and hand signals. The vehicle continued towards them, passing through the traffic cones set up 100m from the patrol. A gunner fired two warning shots into the median and, when this had no effect, two rounds into the truck's engine block. The truck came to a halt and the Iraqi man stumbled out, attempted to stand, and then collapsed. Members of the patrol attempted to administer first aid but the man died of bullet wounds to the chest. Upon searching the cab of his vehicle, U.S. personnel found empty gin bottles around the driver's seat. No alcohol fumes were detected on the man's body. The investigating officer (IO) concluded that the Iraqi man's failure to heed the traffic warnings had resulted from his intoxication, and recommended that no action be taken against the U.S. personnel and that they continue to study and follow the Rules of Engagement (ROE). The IO's commanders concurred. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 14327-14338 Army 14339-14343 Army 14344-14381	Army	Jan. 20, 2006	Lutifiyah, Iraq	While searching vehicles at an established fixed security checkpoint, at approx. 1:05 PM an Army patrol was approached by a white four-door sedan driven by an Iraqi man at approx. 30 mph. Members of the patrol motioned for the vehicle to stop (it was not specified how this was done, and only one witness even mentioned motioning to the vehicle); when this had no effect, four warning shots were fired, followed by disabling shots to the windsheild. The driver was struck and killed; his passenger, a 10-year-old Iraqi boy, was unhurt, and was placed in the custody of his uncle. The investigating officer determined that the shooters had acted appropriately and used the minimum necessary amount of force; he further noted that because the checkpoint was visible and had been established for months, the driver "had to have known" about it. It was recommended that patrols running checkpoints should clearly indicate the checkpoint line and spike strips should be set up to stop vehicles from bypassing the line. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 14382-14406 Army 14407-14431	Army	Apr. 25, 2006	Iraq	An Army patrol was conducting surveillance in an area which was considered to be off-limits to Iraqi civilians. An initial Escalation of Force (EOF) incident occurred when members of the patrol saw an Iraqi man run from an abandoned building 300m away to a maroon car and drive quickly towards them. They attempted to stop the vehicle with hand signals, followed by warning shots; the vehicle retreated, and U.S. personnel pursued it to a house where they found that the Iraqi driver had sustained a superficial bullet wound to the leg as a result of the warning shots. He was given a claims card for compensation. Approximately one hour later, U.S. personnel observed four vehicles, with Iraqi individuals standing up in the truck beds, approaching their location at a high rate of speed. Concerned that the vehicles were attempting retaliation for the earlier incident, members of the patrol immediately fired warning shots towards the first vehicle, shooting three warning shots followed by three rounds before the vehicles came to an abrupt halt. It was not indicated that any EOF measures were used prior to the warning shots, nor were the soldiers ever instructed to engage the vehicles. When they approached the first vehicle, U.S. personnel found that an Iraqi woman standing in the truck bed, Safa Nawar Mohammed, had been struck in the head by a bullet. No first aid was administered because of the severity of the wounds, and Ms. Mohammed died at the scene of the incident. The Investigating Officer found that EOF procedures had been used correctly, but observed that the shooting had occured because soldiers did not lead the first vehicle enough with their shots. (One soldier led by only 10 feet, even though the vehicle was traveling 60 mph.) The officer recommended that no action be taken against the soldiers, although he suggested reviewing proper firing techniques, and recommended the use of tracer rounds as warning shots, to indicate deadly force. (No Iraqi witness statements.)
Army 14432-14455 Army 14456-14483	Army	Apr. 22, 2006	Yusufiyah area (southwest of Baghdad), Iraq	On the morning of April 22, an Army patrol called Strike Iron Claw was briefed on the Rules of Engagement (ROE) and on the Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) threat in their area, and then set out traveling in a convoy along "Route Fatboy" in Iraq. At approx. 9:30, a white sedan driven by an Iraqi man approached the patrol. When the vehicle was within 120m of the patrol, U.S. personnel waved a stop sign paddle and honked the horns of their trucks. The white vehicle continued towards them, and when it was 100m away, members of the patrol launched a red smoke grenade, which caused the vehicle to stop briefly and then continue towards them. At this point, a gunner fired a shot into the tire of the vehicle, followed by one shot into the engine block and, when this had no effect, one disabling shot at the driver (A medic later recalled, however, that "[h]e had recieved [sic] 3 warning shots, the third one went through the windshield and hit him", suggesting that there was no pause between the two warning shots and the shot which hit the driver.) The vehicle came to a stop and two passengers, one Iraqi man and one young Iraqi boy, exited; the driver was found to be critically injured. He was transported by medivac to Forward Operating Base Yusufiyah, but died on the helipad. U.S. personnel later returned to photograph the scene, but found that the passenger, an uncle of the driver, had moved the car. Personnel learned that the car was at the driver's home, and because of the "dubious layout" of the road leading to the home, family members were asked to roll the car back to the scene so it could be photographed. The Investigating Officer found that the members of Strike Iron Claw had acted appropriately, and that their conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE), recommending that no action be taken against members of the patrol and that the gunner be commended for his "excellent marksmanship and perseverance". It was also recommended that the scenario be used for ROE training in the future. No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.
Army 14484-14518 Army 14519-14543	Army	Feb. 27, 2006	Iraq	An Army patrol was conducting route security in an area of high Anti-Iraq Force (AIF) activity (a shiekh opposed to U.S. presence was believed to operate in the area, and propaganda had recently been found there which detailed the use of civilians as cover for AIF activity). The patrol began receiving Rocket-Propelled Grenade (RPG) and Small Arms Fire (SAF) fire from approximately 200m southwest of their location. The shooter could not be identified, but the patrol engaged the enemy fire almost immediately. At this point, a gunner noticed a van parked near the location where the enemy fire was believed to originate from. U.S. personnel fired on the van with the intention of killing the enemy; the van then began moving, and personnel fired on it for approximately 2-10 seconds. The vehicle stopped for a few moments but then began to move again at a high rate of speed. The gunners fired again and disabled the van, which came to a stop across a canal from the patrol. U.S. personnel were unable to cross the canal and could not fully see the van because tall reeds obstructed their view. When they did reach the vehicle, they found that a crowd of Iraqis had surrounded it and that three Iraqi civilians, a man and two children, had been killed by the gunshots. The Investigating Officer determined that the gunners were not at fault, and that their conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE), having identified the van as an enemy combatant vehicle to the best of their ability; however, the officer recommended condolence payments, and noted that this situation should be used to train personnel on "the willingness of insurgents to use civilians to their advantage." (No Iraqi witness statements were taken.)
Army 14544-14563 Army 14564-14571	Army	Feb. 8, 2006	Iraq	An Army patrol was traveling in a convoy when one of its humvees was hit by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). Because the vehicle sustained no damage, the convoy pushed through the kill zone, stopping approximately 300m from the blast site, and began to survey the area for possible triggermen. Spotting two Iraqi individuals 1500m away from the road who were running from the convoy, a sergeant requested permission from his superior to fire on them using a 25mm. This permission was granted, and the sergeant ordered a Private First Class (PFC) to engage them. 1-10 rounds were fired and the individuals disappeared from sight. They re-appeared 30 seconds later, and the PFC engaged them after again obtaining permission. U.S. personnel moved to the site at which they had initially observed the two individuals, and found an Iraqi woman with a bullet wound to her leg. It was unclear whether this woman had been one of the runners. U.S. personnel attempted to administer first aid, but the woman died on the scene from her wound. The patrol later discovered a house approx. 1km away which they believed was affiliated with the IED. The Investigating Officer concluded that the officers involved had taken "every action necessary" and that the victim had simply been "in the wrong place at the wrong time." Thus, the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement. Condolence payments were also recommended. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 14572-14591 Army 14592-14594 Army 14595-14598 Army 14599-14626	Army	Mar. 11, 2006	Jurf as Sakhr, Iraq	An Army patrol was conducting an operation (codenamed "Operation Lumberjack Swagger") which involved surveilling and raiding several houses in which insurgents were believed to be housed. Members of the patrol, including a team of four snipers, spent March 10th, 2006 evaluating and conducting rehearsals in the area. At dawn on March 11th, 2006, U.S. personnel forcibly entered the first house, surprising the inhabitants and removing three men and several women and children. As the personnel moved on to the second house, the sniper team spotted two individuals moving along a nearby canal away from the raided house. They fired warning shots, aiming approximately two feet in front of the individuals, in an attempt to stop them; the individuals crouched and began crawling back towards the house. At this point, one of the snipers recalled, "I placed my cross hairs in front of the lead male and pulled the trigger, to hear a click and realize that there was no round in the chamber. I quickly cycled the bolt and re-drawed the cross hairs...I went to place the cross hairs in front of the target not knowing for sure if the cross hair was on the target or in front at the moment of fire." This sniper claimed that he saw the target stand and walk back towards the houses. Shortly thereafter, U.S. personnel found a dead Iraqi male with a bullet wound to the head at the location where the fleeing individuals had initially been spotted. The positioning of the wound, coupled with a fresh mark on a nearby rock, suggested to the personnel that the Iraqi man had been killed by a warning shot which had ricocheted off of the rock. In his/her findings, the Investigating officer discussed the identification of the two fleeing Iraqis as targets, noting that "[i]t is possible that the individual fleeing was AIF [Anti-Iraqi Force] and therefore, that he would conduct further hostile acts in the future, which implies hostile intent"; however, the officer recommended developing a more "definitive explanation of hostile intent." In addition, the officer determined that the sniper's rush to load and shoot his gun, and his inability to report precision, was "unacceptable," and recommended counseling for the sniper. He also noted that warning shots fired two feet in front of targets were too close. Condolence payments were also recommended. Investigating Officer finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) were properly followed. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 14627-14651 Army 14652-14685 Army 14686-14693	Army	Feb. 5, 2006	Baladiat neighborhood, Baghdad, Iraq	While patrolling a Baghdad neighborhood, an Army patrol stopped to talk to a guard about area security, setting up a checkpoint cordon with traffic cones. 10-15 cars approached the area, but all responded to hand signals by turning around or pulling off the road. At approx. 11:45, a blue Volkswagen Passat driven by an Iraqi man approached the cordon at 15-20 miles per hour. When the vehicle was approx. 200m away, members of the patrol signaled the driver to stop using verbal commands and hand signals (it was not specified whether the commands were in English or Arabic, or what type of hand signals were used). When the vehicle was approx. 50m away, a gunner fired a warning shot above the car; a moment later, two gunners each fired warning shots, one of which hit the engine block and the other of which apparently ricocheted off the dashboard, hitting the driver, Khader Abdu Mary, in the head and killing him. The vehicle then swerved into a light pole. The Investigating Officer concluded that the actions of the gunners were appropriate and consistent with the Rules of Engagement (ROE) and that no action should be taken against them; however, he identified the primary shortcomings as the gunners' failure to fire warning shots in front of the vehicle (as outlined in the ROE) and their failure to erect physical barriers. It was recommended that personnel be re-trained on warning shots; that the lack of physical barriers be addressed; that condolence payments be payed to the victim's family; that the city be reimbursed for the light pole; and that patrols obtain non-lethal warning equipment, to include lasers. The Appointing Authority approved these recommendations with the exception of those concerning new physical barriers; new laser pointers; condolence payments; and repair of the light pole. Investigating Officer finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) were properly followed. No civilian Iraqi civilians were interviewed, although Iraqi Police officials gave written statements.
Army 14694-14725 Army 14726-14745	Army	Mar. 8, 2006	Baghdad, Iraq	On the morning of March 8, 2006, a group of Army vehicles left the U.N. compound and proceeded towards Forward Operating Base "Loyalty" to pick up food. To reach the base, the vehicles had to cross a highway median and an intersection. Personnel in a Bradley Tank allowed several civilian vehicles to pass, and then proceeded to cross the intersection, first signaling an oncoming vehicle, a gold Hyundai, with a high-power light in order to get the driver of the Hyundai to stop. The Hyundai slowed down and a Private in the Bradley told the driver that it was safe to cross the intersection. However, the Hyundai had not stopped, and the Bradley crushed it, injuring the driver, Jassim Enad Rshak, and trapping him inside his car. A medic attempted to administer first aid, but Rshak died of internal bleeding while still trapped in the his car. His son filed a complaint requesting compensation under the Foreign Claims Act. The Investigating Officer determined that the incident "was not due to gross negligence or malicious intent," but that "[m]ultiple events could have possibly prevented or at least limited the scope of the damage/injury." It was recommended that the vehicle commander be issued a letter of concern highlighting "the importance and responsibility" of his role, that coalition traffic no longer be allowed to cross the median, and that condolence payments be made to Rshak's next of kin. A commanding officer approved these recommendations. No Iraqi witness statements appear to have been taken, although several pages of untranslated, handwritten Arabic were included in the report.
Army 14746-14765	Army	Apr. 4, 2006	Iraq	An Army tank was attempting to cross a road on the evening of April 4, 2006, and slowed down but did not stop as it approached the intersection. Members of the tank crew noticed a dump truck, driven by an Iraqi man, traveling along the road (perpendicular to the tank's route) at approximately 50 mph, and attempted to stop the truck by using hand signals. One member of the tank crew also attempted to fire a warning shot, but was unsuccessful because no bullets were chambered in his weapon. At this point, the gun on the front of the tank was already sticking out across the intersection, and as sworn statements from members of the tank crew indicated, stopping or reversing the tank would have been impossible to do in such a short period of time. However, in his sworn statement the driver indicated that he had not known about the approaching truck until it hit the gun on the front of the tank, jerking the driver around in the turret. The truck flipped over in the median and the driver exited; his passenger, another Iraqi male, had been critically injured in the collision, and died minutes later. The Investigating Officer (IO) found that the soldiers' actions were appropriate, and within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). recommended that, when exiting bases, personnel should keep their weapons in "red" status ("magazine inserted, round chambered, weapon on SAFE") to facilitate quick warning shots. In addition, it was recommended that intersections outside bases should be marked to alert civilian traffic of potential oncoming tanks; that leaders should address soldiers' understanding of Iraqi vehicle safety standards; and that no action be taken against the soldiers involved in the incident. The Appointing Authority disagreed, asserting that "we will not use weapons as bull horns or any other type of attention getter" and arguing that military vehicles "must look first and cross second...[w]e may have right of way, but we must proceed with caution while entering any degree of traffic." (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 14766-14822	Army	15-May-06	Dora Market area, Baghdad, Iraq	An army patrol was traveling through a Baghdad neighborhood during curfew hours when they noticed a white van driven by an Iraqi man traveling with its lights off. Since the van fit the description of a vehicle which had been observed emplacing Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in the area less than two weeks prior, the patrol pursued the van and then cornered it using two Army vehicles. Members of the patrol signaled to the driver of the van with lights and a green laser pointer in an attempt to get him to exit the van; in addition, they instructed him to exit the van in English and in Arabic, and showed him their weapons. At this point, the driver of the van turned his vehicle's lights on and attempted to back out of the area; gunners from the patrol fired warning shots, and the van began to move back and forth in a rapid manner. The gunners then fired disabling shots into the van's tires as it drove away, followed by several rounds of additional disabling shots. The van came to a stop and the patrol found that the driver had been killed by the gunshots. The van was searched and no weapons were found; in addition, the patrol attempted to have the van tested with X-spray (a bomb detection kit), but accidentally tested the wrong vehicle. The investigating officer determined that the actions taken by the soldiers were justified, and within the Rules of Engagement (ROE), given that their concern that the driver of the van posed a threat. It was recommended that every patrol be accompanied by an interpreter and that soldiers should not dismount from their vehicles in Escalation of Force (EOF) incidents until the individuals perceived to pose a threat have exited their vehicles. The appointing authority concurred, adding that patrols should check suspected insurgent vehicles with X-spray and obtain identification from the driver to determine whether he is a suspected insurgent. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 14823-14839	Army	Jun. 21, 2006	Iraq	An Army patrol was traveling in a convoy when an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) exploded between two of the convoy's vehicles, damaging both of them. Members of the patrol exited their vehicles and set up a cordon around the area of the accident using traffic cones. A white vehicle driven by an Iraqi man approached the cordon and failed to stop when members of the patrol shouted "stop" in English and Arabic, and used hand and arm signals. Members of the patrol then fired warning shots with a pistol and an M4, followed by disabling shots into the engine block. This had no effect, and when the vehicle was 75m away the gunners used deadly force, killing the driver, and then immediately moved their tank to avoid a collision. The Iraqi vehicle rolled through an intersection and collided with a stationary bus. After confirming that the driver was dead, the patrol left the scene to seek help from the Iraqi Police, bringing all of the patrol's members because of recent kidnappings in the area. When they returned to the site of the accident, they found that they victim's body had been removed, and were therefore unable to identify the victim and to issue condolence payments to his family. The Investigating Officer recommended that no action be taken against the soldiers involved in the incident, and that their conduct had been consistent wit the Rules of Engagement (ROE). He noted that the patrol's loudspeaker and radio had been broken during the incident, limiting the soldiers' ability to communicate with each other and with the Iraqi victim. The Investigating Officer noted that the patrol leader had admitted to not checking the radio and loudspeaker. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 14840-14899	Army	Jan. 11, 2006	Iraq	At approximately 9:40 PM on January 11, 2006, an Army patrol sweeping an area for Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) came across a suspicious white bag alongside the road and blocked oncoming traffic with cones and wire so that the bag could be investigated. After they had determined that the bag did not pose a threat, the patrol began to remove the cones and wire from the area. As they did so, a vehicle attempted to approach the patrol but was diverted. A second vehicle then approached and was diverted using flashlights. As it pulled over alongside the road, a third vehicle, a yellow or white van driven by an Iraqi man, pulled around it and proceeded towards the patrol at approximately 25 mph. U.S. personnel shouted to the van to stop; however, they did not have a loudspeaker, their interpreter was positioned at another intersection, and the van was still 200 meters away. Personnel then fired warning shots at the van, followed by roughly 30 disabling rounds into the vehicle's grill and tires. When this had no effect, lethal shots were fired into the windshield of the van. The van halted and the patrol found that its driver and passenger, Diah al Din Abdula Alitif and Abdul al Kareem Sharki Jathoun, had been killed. The investigating officer concluded that the soldiers involved in the incident had acted appropriately; however, it was recommended that patrols carry additional road flares to clarify the location of cordons after dark, that each soldier carry a red flashlight for use in directing traffic after dark, and that each vehicle be equipped with a loudspeaker, since the distance between the patrol and the van when verbal commands were issued made it impossible for the Iraqi driver to hear the commands. The appointing authority concurred. (No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.)
Army 14900-14915 Army 14916-14935 Army 14936-14958 Army 14959-14960 Army 14961-14962	Army	Mar. 12, 2006	Iraq	Three Army vehicles were conducting a patrol after dark when they were called to investigate a suspicious mound of dirt in an area of high AIF (Anti-Iraqi Force) concentration. As the patrol traveled towards the location, they began to receive small arms fire and observed three individuals running away from the area. Immediately after the small arms fire ceased, the patrol observed an Iraqi individual running through an area which was full of trash and hiding behind a concrete wall approximately 100m away. The individual was carrying a long, light-colored tube in his hand, which U.S. personnel suspected was a mortar round. Statements differed on whether the individual threw the object at the patrol or dropped it on the ground. Personnel began shouting to the individual to "Stop or we'll shoot" several times in Arabic and English, but the individual continued running. Demonstration warning shots were fired twice at the concrete wall, and a spotlight was kept on the individual. When he failed to stop, the patrol shot directly at him, hitting him in the back of the head and killing him. Soldiers then approached the body and were unable to find any weapons near it, although the area was full of trash, suggesting that the individual could have thrown away the object he was carrying. The soldiers interviewed several Iraqis from the nearby houses, who reported that the individual, named Silah (last name unknown), was mentally handicapped and was "always acting suspicious and out after curfew." They were then able to contact the victim's uncle, who had been nearby and recalled hearing the soldiers shout "stop or we will shoot" in Arabic. The investigating officer concluded that, because of recent AIF activity in the area, the soldiers were justified in their belief that the individual posed a threat, and had used proper Escalation of Forece (EOF). It was recommended that patrols continue to review EOF procedure on a regular basis, and that they keep in contact with the victim's uncle to monitor the status of condolence payments. The appointing authority concurred with these findings and recommendations. No statements were taken from Iraqi witnesses, although several soldiers recounted conversations with Iraqi witnesses in their own written statements.
Army 14963-14999 Army 15000-15029	Army	Feb. 12, 2006	Iraq	An Army patrol encountered a group of vehicles traveling after curfew and pulled over one of them, a white sedan driven by an Iraqi man, by blocking it in with two Army vehicles. As they attempted to block the sedan, it accelerated in an attempt to move away from the patrol. U.S. personnel then dismounted from their vehicles and approached the sedan, using hand signals and kicking the driver's door in an attempt to get the driver to exit the sedan. The vehicle jerked forward, in what personnel perceived as an attempt to run several soldiers over, and a warning shot was fired at the sedan, which jerked backwards. U.S. personnel responded with a second shot fired into the sedan's tire. At this point, the sedan struck one of the Army vehicles, injuring two U.S. personnel in the process; as this took place, a gunner shot and killed the driver of the sedan. U.S. personnel rushed to provide first aid to the injured soldiers; noticing movement in the sedan, they then shot the passenger, another Iraqi man. (Of note: witness statements describing the period during which the sedan hit the vehicle are sufficiently inconsistent as to suggest significant confusion on the part of the soldiers as the incident took place). The third and fourth passengers in the sedan, two Iraqi women, were taken to a nearby hospital. The Investigating Officer concluded that proper Escalation of Force (EOF) had been used and that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE) but noted that, had members of the patrol remained in their vehicles, they might have avoided the rapid chain of events that led to the killing of the Iraqis. In addition, the Officer found that the patrol had not been sufficiently briefed on the threat of Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) in the area. It was recommended that the patrol review EOF procedures and upgrade the vehicles' traffic stop equipment to include lights, spike strips, speakers, and sirens. It was also recommended that condolences be "offered" to the families of the victims. No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.
Army 15030-15064 Army 15065-15097	Army	Feb. 27, 2006	Baghdad area, Iraq	At approx. 5:30 AM, on February 27, 2006, an Army patrol was traveling with the intent of investigating an attack on a mosque when they encountered a civilian vehicle stopped near some barriers which had been erected to prevent civilian traffic along the road. The driver, an Iraqi man, had exited his vehicle and was attempting to move one of the barriers. Because curfew was still in effect, and because that time of night was considered a time of particularly high risk for Improvised Explosive Device (IED) emplacement, the patrol approached the car to question the Iraqis inside. As they did so, the driver got back into his vehicle, and his passenger exited and fled, disappearing into either a dark alley or a grove of trees. The driver attempted to make a three-point turn, while members of the patrol shouted at him to exit the vehicle (it was not clear whether or not they shouted in Arabic). They also fired non-lethal warning shots at the vehicle. The Investigating Officer reported that, at this point, the driver "committed hostile acts" by attempting to run over the squad leader and his interpreter. Lethal rounds were then fired, and the driver was struck and killed; the car rolled into a wall and burst into flames, either from the impact or as a result of a bullet hitting the gas tank. As the vehicle burned, the U.S. personnel heard a number of pops and explosions coming from the car. When they searched it, however, they found no evidence of weapons. The investigating officer concluded that the patrol members had correctly followed the Rules of Engagement (ROE), that the driver of the vehicle had exhibited hostile intent sufficient to warrant the action taken against him, and that no action should be taken against the soldiers.
Army 15098-15121	Army	Jan. 29, 2006	Iraq	An Army patrol was investigating a possible Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and had set up a cordon around the area which consisted of traffic cones arranged approx. 40m from the patrol vehicles. At approximately 6:00 PM a civilian vehicle driven by an Iraqi man approached the cordon at a high rate of speed. Members of the patrol attempted to signal to the vehicle using verbal commands (in English and Arabic) via loudspeaker, hand signals, and flashing lights. When these measures had no effect, the soldiers fired warning shot at the tires and hood of the vehicle. The Investigating Officer reported that, as these warning shots were fired, the car accelerated, which caused the warning shots to accidentally travel up the hood and through the windshield; the 4ID Serious Incident Report indicates that the soldiers "fired killing shots at the occupants." The driver was slightly wounded and his passenger, another Iraqi man, was killed. The Investigating Officer found that the soldiers involved had acted appropriately and within the Rules of Engagement (ROE), and that no punitive action should be taken; the patrol was criticized, however, for failing to set up spike strips or concertina wire along the cordon, which could have prevented the incident. It was also recommended that warning tools be increased, that the patrol experiment with additional non-lethal measures, and that instruction in escalation of force procedures be continued. No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.
Army 15122-15131	Army	Jun. 21, 2006	Iraq	Duplicate of Army 15-6 14823-14839
Army 15132-15152	Army	May. 22, 2006	Iraq	On the morning of May 22, 2006, an Army patrol was traveling along an access road when one of the vehicles struck an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The vehicle sustained no damage, and members of the patrol established a cordon around the area of the IED, using traffic cones but not signs, spike strips, or concertina wire. Roughly two hours after the IED explosion, a Passat taxi driven by an Iraqi man was observed traveling towards the cordon at approximately 25-30 mph, passing other vehicles which were stopped along the access road. When the taxi was slightly under 100m from the cordon, a member of the patrol began shouting in Arabic for the vehicle to stop, and raised his weapon. He then fired a warning shot and the taxi slowed but continued toward the cordon. At this point, two soldiers fired disabling shots into the tires of the taxi while continuing to yell. The taxi made a left turn away from the cordon and then, as the soldiers fired into the doors, completed its turn and began to drive away from the cordon. The soldiers fired into the rear window of the taxi as it retreated, and the taxi stopped. The driver and his passenger, an Iraqi woman, exited the taxi, and the soldiers observed that the woman had sustained gunshot wounds to her upper and lower back. She was conscious and able to speak, but went into shock and died on the way to the hospital. The Investigating Officer determined that the shooters had clearly violated the Rules of Engagement (ROE) and that the patrol had made "tactical misjudgment" by cordoning off the access road and by using a minimal number of traffic cones while failing to use signs, spike strips, and concertina wire. However, the officer recommended that no Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) punishment be used against the shooters because, although they had violated the ROE, the Escalation of Force (EOF) procedures in place at the time "confuse[d] soldiers and place[d] soldiers in positions such as this" by leading soldiers to believe that when in doubt, they could engage perceived threats. He therefore recommended the potential elimination of EOF procedures. The Officer also recommended that the soldiers involved be directly involved in facilitating claims payments to the victim's family. The Investigating Officer's superiors strongly disagreed with these recommendations, however. They agreed that the ROE had been violated, and directed that one of the shooters be suspended from off-base duties; in addition, this individual was to be issued a memorandum of reprimand. However, these superiors recommended implementation of UCMJ punishment, and strongly disagreed with the recommendation to eliminate EOF procedures; one wrote that, since many of the soldiers were only 19 or 20 years old, "we cannot expect them to internalize the ROE as if they had studied it for years." This official also strongly disagreed with the idea of directly involving the shooters in the implementation of claims payments, writing that this would place them at risk of retribution and noting that "in this culture, leaders resolve issues between groups." No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.
Army 15153-15172 Army 15173-15194 Army 15195-15227	Army	Jun. 1, 2006	Iskandariyah, Iraq	A team of Army soldiers and snipers which was assembled with the objective of capturing and detaining a suspected Improvised Explosive Device (IED) maker had rehearsed its raid on a house numerous times before it attempted the actual raid in the early morning hours of June 1, 2006. After cordoning the area around the house, the team began to observe an undetermined number of Iraqis running away from the house and fired on a number of them, resulting in four engagements and two Iraqi deaths. One sniper, observing an Iraqi male attempting to scale a fence, shot and killed him; an Iraqi woman was also killed when a sniper saw her lift something onto her shoulder and, assuming she was preparing to shoot, fired at her and killed her. Snipers also fired on, but missed, a fleeing Iraqi man, and wounded another fleeing individual. The Investigating Officer found that all the soldiers involved had a consistent understanding of the Rules of Engagement (ROE) with the exception of one soldier who believed he should first shoot to kill. The Officer recommended that the shooters be "exonerated of any suspicion" regarding the impropriety of their actions, that the ROE be clarified with regard to fleeing suspects during raids, and that the detail and depth of planning exhibited by the team be sustained in future operations. No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.
Army 15228-15252 Army 15253-15270	Army	Mar. 8, 2006	Northern Obeidi region, Iraq	An Army patrol was operating a vehicle checkpoint while their commanding officer met with a local Sheikh. At approximately 9:30 AM a blue Daewoo vehicle approached the checkpoint and began to drive back and forth at a high rate of speed. Because they had observed similar behavior by vehicles when conducting earlier checkpoints in that area, the U.S. personnel concluded that the Iraqis in the Daewoo were exhibiting hostile intent, and used hand signals to stop it. The vehicle attempted to flee the checkpoint, and the soldiers used Escalation of Force (EOF) (not specified which steps were taken) which led to warning shots being fired at the grill of the vehicle. The four Iraqi men in the car returned fire on the patrol and then fled, triggering an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) as they ran away. The four men separated into two pairs, and members of the patrol pursued both pairs. The soldiers lost visual contact with one of the pairs of Iraqis, and had to ask locals if they had seen them; once visual contact was re-established, a soldier fired 15 rounds at one of the men. During the engagement, the Iraqis did not return fire. A group of local civilians waved down the patrol and reported that an Iraqi man was dead in a nearby field; they also reported that they were his family members, but also expressed strong gratitude towards the soldiers for "keeping the area safe." The soldiers were unable to determine whether the dead Iraqi man, Ali Hussein Anaad, was one of those they had been pursuing, although an X-Spray test revealed that there was no explosive residue on his body. The Investigating Officer concluded that the Rules of Engagement (ROE) had been followed adequately, although he expressed concern that the soldiers had temporarily lost visual contact with their targets. The Officer recommended that no further action be taken. His appointing officers concurred with these findings and recommendations.
Army 15271-15283 Army 15284-15298 Army 15299-15312 Army 15313-15318 Army 15319-15325 Army 15326-15328 Army 15329-15332 Army 15333-15348	Army/Navy	Jan. 15, 2006	Southern Baghdad, Iraq	In the early morning hours of January 15, 2006, a group of Army and Navy personnel were attempting to surround and cordon a house as part of a joint operation which had been planned for some time. As they set up security, they heard a woman begin screaming in Arabic from inside the house; they attempted to breach the doors and enter, shouting that they were coalition forces and intended no harm. They then heard the woman should "get the AK" in Arabic; moments later, a sniper outside the house reported he saw the man inside lift an AK-47 and point it at him through the window. The sniper shouted "AK" and fired on the man; soldiers attempting to enter the house reported hearing gunfire and seeing a muzzle flash from inside. The time that elapsed between the woman's screaming and the gunshots was less than 30 seconds. The personnel exited the area and later discovered that the woman in the house had died from direct bullet wounds, and the man had died from shrapnel. A 10-year-old child was also struck by a bullet but survived; a 4-month-old baby inside the house died of exposure later that morning. The Investigating Officer found that the soldiers involved had complied with the Rules of Engagement (ROE), although he noted several inconsistencies between autopsy reports, soldiers' statements, and Iraqi witness statements, including the fact that soldiers reported shooting the man with the AK-47, although the autopsy indicated that he had not been hit directly, as well as the fact that Iraqi witnesses stated that no AK-47 was fired from inside the house, although they confirmed that the family did own an AK-47. The Investigating Officer concluded that, because of the low light (the house had no electricity) and the fast pace of the events, it was understandable that there might be discrepancies in these reports. The officer recommended clarifying the ROE and clarifying the use of buildings for military purposes. Several Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.
Army 15349-15366 Army 15367-15385 Army 15386-15402	Army	Jan. 26, 2006	Iraq	An Army patrol was deployed on a "cordon and knock" mission in an attempt to investigate a suspicious compound which was guarded and obscured from view. When they approached the compound, the patrol observed an Iraqi man in a guard shack looking straight at them and blocking their path to a locked gate which led into the compound. The soldiers said "Hello, we are Americans, open the door" in English and Arabic; the Iraqi man turned around, retrieved an AK-47 from the floor, and pointed it at them. Perceiving hostile intent, the U.S. soldiers responded by shooting the Iraqi man; they then forced open the gate and entered the guard shack, finding that the man was dead. The Investigating Officer concluded that, given the man's apparent hostile intent, the soldiers' actions were justified and within the Rules of Engagement (ROE); he recommended that no further action be taken, and that no condolence payments be issued to the victim's family. No Iraqi witnesses were interviewed.
Army 15418-15422	Army	24-Feb-05	Outside Baghdad, Iraq	An Army convoy is being followed closely by an "approaching vehicle," and a soldier in the convoy yelled at the vehicle to stop, and motioned to it to stop. Feeling "imminently threatened" by the vehicle as it continued to drive driectly towards the convoy, a soldier fired twice, hitting the driver both times, and the car crashed into the convoy. The passenger who emerged said the brakes weren't working on the car. The driver - an Iraqi man - was dead. The passenger was taken to the hospital, and Iraqi police arrived to conduct an investigation. The investigating officer asserts that this was "the correct manner of escalating force" although no warning or disabling shots were fired. The conduct was found to be within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Investigating officer recommends that "chain of command determine the need or requirement for combat stress counseling for the soldier who killed the driver, recommends condolence payment to the wounded Iraqi and the victim's family. No documents from the Iraqi investigation included. (No Iraqi witness statements.)
Army 15423-15439	Army	2/23/2005	Iraq	Two Army soldiers staking out a site of Improvised Explosive Device (IED) activity witness an Iraqi man carrying a bag, and eventually three companions, examining "known IED sites." When one man began digging a hole, a soldier shot and killed him, causing the three others to flee, one in a truck who left with the bag, and two by foot. No recommendations offered. The investigating officer says that "the Rules of Engagement were followed." (No Iraqi witness statements.)
Army 15440-15460 Army 15461-15487 Army 15488-15516 Army 15517-15554 Army 15555-15598 Army 15599-15612 Army 15613-15616 Army 15617-15620 Army 15621-15624 Army 15625-15628 Army 15629-15632 Army 15633-15636 Army 15637-15641 Army 15642-15646 Army 15647-15654	Army	3/1/2005	Likely Baghdad, Iraq	Army soldiers on a "routine patrol" engage a group of insurgents that had ambushed Iraqi police. The report notes that "4 local nationals (suspected insurgents) were killed in action." Later, the report notes that while clearing a house that Iraqi police had been taking fire from, one Iraqi male was killed and an Iraqi female injured. In a verbal statement, a U.S. Sergeant made allegations of manslaughter connected to this incident. Omitted in the summary of the report is the fact that warning and disabling shots had been fired at an Iraqi police vehicle by mistake. The investigating officer assesses the civilian casualties and claims that 5 Iraqis were killed, and that none of them had any weapons. The investigating officer also probes some "reporting discrepancies" in the sworn witness statements. Four of the civilian deaths, the report finds, are attributable to "combat action." Another, and the wounding of a civilian, were the result of "disproportionate force." Report finds that 2LT did not follow Rules of Engagement (ROE). Neither did the SSG, who "demonstrated culpable negligence in failing to ensuring (sic) that incidental injury to civilians and collateral damage to civilian objects was minimized." Report also notes that "SSG [redacted] shot an unarmed man in the back...did not see a weapon...contradict[ed] himself in his two statements." CPT consciously used the "most collateral damage causing weapon system in a dense urban neighborhood." The recommendations for the CPT are: "General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for Failure to Obey Order or Regulation Relief for Cause from command position." For 2LT they are: "General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for Failure to Obey Order or Regulation Relief for Cause from Platoon Leader position." For SSG they are: "General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for Failure to Obey Order or Regulation Relief for Cause and Involuntary Manslaughter," "Relief for cause from Squad Leader position," and "Bar to Reenlistment." For the company, retraining on ROE and use of force, as well as retraining on reporting procedures recommended. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 15655-15674 Army 15674-15682	Army	3/4/2005	Eastern Baghdad, Iraq	An Army soldier "securing an intersection" at a checkpoint signals to an Iraqi vehicle from approximately 75-100 meters away. The vehicle continues to approach, and the soldier fires warning shots. Another soldier also fires warning shots, from 70 meters away. The soldiers then fired "disabling shots" which wounded and eventually killed the driver. Two passengers were injured and one passenger was unharmed. Report finds that the soldiers acted within Rules of Engagement (ROE), and recommends the immediate purchase of "any and all additional equipment that could assist in alerting noncombatants to the presence of US forces" for units conducting patrols. Report offers the opinion that further modifications of ROE are of "diminishing value." No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 15683-15722 Army 15723-15749	Army	3/5/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Army patrol is assigned the task of blocking traffic to "support the movement of a dignitary." An approaching vehicle was unresponsive to "non-lethal measures employed by the unit," including flashing lights and warning shots. Disabling shots were then fired, but they entered the vehicle instead. The shots killed an one Italian secret service agent and wounded another, also wounding the Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena. The agents were transporting Sgrena to the Baghdad airport after freeing her from kidnappers. The investigation report finds that the soldiers "acted appropriately," and within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations include improving the "coordination of movement of friendly forces." No statements taken from the victims. This incident was well publicized due to the high profile of the victims, and was covered by the NY Times. That story is here.
Army 15750-15784 Army 15784-15811	Army	3/15/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	Army soldiers establishing a checkpoint were "engaged with a 30 round burst of small arms fire," coming from 300 meters away, and one soldier suffered three gunshot wounds. The soldiers and their attackers exchange fire. Other units come to assist the soldiers, and they moved to clear the building that the gunfire had come from. During this time, one soldier fired warning shots at a nearby moving vehicle, which did not respond. The soldier then fired on the car, killing a female passenger. No "contraband" was found while searching the vehicle, and the report indicates that soldiers planned to offer the victim's family compensation. The conduct was found to be within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Report finds that her death was "a tragic accident due in part to the confusion of the situation and the fog of war," and recommends compensation (condolence), as well as the emphasis of the importance of ROE and Escalation of Force (EOF) criteria. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 15812-15831 Army 15832-15844	Army	3/26/2005	Redacted, likely near Baghdad, Iraq	Army soldiers in a patrol fired on an Iraqi vehicle that did not comply with their warnings to stop. Driver was wounded and treated by a U.S. medic. The report mentions that there was an "alleged second injured civilian (possible DOA)" and that "no followup taken to confirm/deny [redacted] was taken to hospital." No recommendations offered in the report, but the investigating officer finds that the soldiers acted in accordance with Rules of Engagement (ROE)/Escalation of Force (EOF) procedures. Sworn witness statements of the soldiers involved mention statements made to them by Iraqi witnesses, but no Iraqi witness statements are included with this report.
Army 15845-15865 Army 15866-15870 Army 15871-15876 Army 15877-15881 Army 15882-15888	Army	4/7/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers conducting traffic checkpoint are attacked by "Anti Iraqi Forces (AIF)…with two Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) and small arms fire," and "Department of Defense (DoD) convoys and unknown military PSD return fire." The firefight continues intermittently for approximately seven minutes. A child is wounded in the firefight, and dies of his wounds. It is unclear to the investigating officer who fired the bullet that killed the child. Recommendations include condolence payments, that all soldiers present at the shooting undergo retraining on Rules of Engagement (ROE), and that any PSD or DoD personnel who fire at Iraqis be required to report their shootings to a military authority. Statement taken from the victim's father. Report does not indicate whether conduct was within ROE.
Army 15889-15901	Army	4/10/2005	Karradah Peninsula, Baghdad, Iraq	2 Army gun trucks nearly collide with an Iraqi vehicle. The soldiers pull over and attempt to "conduct a search" of the vehicle "due to the car's erratic behavior and the car's unwillingness to stop." The car still attempted to pull away, as one soldier was banging on, and eventually broke, both passenger windows. Soldiers from the second vehicle believed the car, as it drove around the 2LT, had run over the 2LT, and opened fire, first with a warning shot, then with 6 shots at the car itself, which came to a stop. One of the bullets ricocheted and struck a second car. The driver of the first car died at the hospital of his wounds, the driver of the second car suffered lacerations on his face and was taken to the hospital. The report finds that soldiers acted in accordance with Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Escalation of Force (EOF), no further recommendations, including for compensation of the victims. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 15902-15956	Army	3/15/2005	Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle approaches an "entry control point," ignoring English and Arabic road signs to stop that are posted before the checkpoint. Warning shots are fired and ignored. Disabling shots are fired and ignored. The vehicle was stopped by "lethal" shots, stopping 50 meters from the soldiers' position. They determine the vehicle is a possible Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED). When they saw children in the vehicle, they begin to administer first aid. Three Iraqis were killed (one child), 5 wounded (two children), one uninjured. Investigating officer recommends the use of blocking vehicles, "Jersey barriers," and additional signs. Report finds soldiers acted in accordance with Escalation of Force (EOF) protocols. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 15957-15969 Army 15970-15975 Army 15976-15982 Army 15983-15993 Army 15994-16017 Army 16018-16031	Army	4/17/2005	Iraq	An Army convoy is alarmed when an Iraqi vehicle moved between U.S. vehicles rather than ceding the right of way. The U.S. vehicles box the Iraqi vehicle in, stop, and begin to search the vehicle as they half traffic behind them. An Iraqi vehicle passes the makeshift checkpoint, and doesn't respond to a warning shot. They shoot the driver, who dies of his wounds after being handed over to Iraqi police. Report finds that the soldiers were properly using Escalation of Force (EOF) and that their conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Report claims passengers in the car acknowledged awareness of the warning signals. Recommendations include using headlights and practicing "snap TCP" procedures, but in general are minimal-"I don't believe there are any other significant operational lessons" to take from the incident. No Iraqi witness statements included.
Army 16032-16045	Army	3/29/2005	Yusefiya, Iraq	Repeat of Army 15-6 57, Bates Number 13994-14009
Army 16046-16059 Army 16060-16067	Army	4/19/2005	Iraq	During an Army "combat movement," an Iraqi man moves directly into the road in front of an approaching Army tank. The tank backed up, and yelled at the man to get out of their way. He continued to approach, and ignored a warning shot. Believing he looked positioned to throw something at them, the U.S. soldiers opened fire and killed the man. Investigating officer finds that the soldiers complied with Rules of Engagement (ROE), and recommends only that leaders "continue to play an active role" in ROE training. No mention is made of whether any weapon was found on the victim's person. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 16068-16082 Army 16083-16096	Army	5/8/2005	Iraq	An Iraqi minivan passes Army checkpoint warning signs, including driving over a line of rocks, and ignored warning shots. Soldiers open fire, the minivan drives through concertina wire, and careens off the road. The driver is killed. Investigating officer finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) was properly employed, and recommends that Military Police continue to make sure ROE is understood, and to continue documenting such incidents. Sworn statements indicate no explosives or other ammunition found in the vehicle. No Iraqi witness statements included.
Army 16097-16111 Army 16112-16128 Army 16129-16137	Army	5/13/2005	Yusefiyah, Iraq	An Army Bradley vehicle is hit by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), suffering no injuries, deaths, or damage. Fifteen minutes later, the soldiers see an Iraqi man standing 250 meters away, and suspect him of being the "triggerman." He had a shovel, was out past curfew, and was "observing" the military vehicles. When he rose and began to run away, warning shots were fired, and he did not respond. Soldiers then shot and killed the man. The Iraqi man did not have any detonation devices or other weapons on his person. The report does not mention whether a detonation device was found in the area at all. Investigating Officer finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) were properly followed. Recommendations include teaching soldiers key Arabic commands, continue to train soldiers on Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Escalation of Force (EOF), and informing the local population about the consequences of "being out during curfew hours." (No Iraqi witness statements.)
Army 16138-16158 Army 16159-16185	Army	5/18/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers conducting a "route clearance" encounter an Iraqi man they all believe is holding a hand grenade. He is unresponsive to commands and signals, and later warning shots, intended to have him lie on the ground. The soldiers shoot, according to the report, aiming for his leg. He is shot through the neck and dies. The suspected grenade is actually "a potato with a metallic screw bottle cap wedged into the top." Body turned over to Iraqi police. Investigating officer determines that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE); and recommends that squad leaders continue to emphasize the importance of ROE, and that one of the soldiers be commended. The appointing authority "non-concurs" and suggests "non lethal" weapons like tasers for such incidents.
Army 16186-16199	Army	5/29/2004	Baghdad, Iraq	A mounted Army patrol is questioning curfew violators, when one of the Iraqis they are questioning fires a gun in the air, then takes aim at the soldiers, and fires twice. The soldiers and the Iraqi exchange fire, and the Iraqi's brother runs inside his house. Soldiers also fire at a rooftop they believe is firing at them. As the still armed Iraqi tries to run toward his house, he is shot and killed by a U.S. soldier. A 10 year old boy comes out of the house and fires a pistol into the ground before the soldiers. The soldiers enter the house, conduct a search, and question the family. The victim's brother says they were chasing thieves from their property when they emerged with the gun. The investigation report notes that there were discrepancies in the witness statements, and that "the overwhelming firepower that was employed was done so without positive target identification, which is not the acceptable norm." Investigating Officer does not mention whether Rules of Engagement (ROE) were properly followed. Recommendations include consideration of compensation (condolence) for the victim's family, and an increased public education campaign warning Iraqis about the dangers of "brandishing" weapons in the presence of U.S. forces. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 16200-16231 Army 16232-16264	Army	5/26/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Army convoy is providing security for war contractors, including one Kellog, Brown, and Root truck and eight Gulf Coast Catering trucks. A group of Iraqis get into a truck and "speed off" when they see the U.S. military vehicles, and the US soldiers suspect they were emplacing an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). One soldier reported to the rest of them that he saw a tire filled with debris and "what looked to be a 155 shell sticking out of it." Military vehicles following the Iraqi truck to try to signal to it to pull over, and eventually fire warning shots, which causes the truck to speed up. Disabling shots proved ineffective as well. One hundred-fifty rounds are then fired at the truck. The driver emerges waving a white cloth. Three Iraqis were killed, three wounded. Their ages "ranged from 12 years old to early 20s." The suspected IED was not an IED, just a tire with a trash bag underneath, and no weapons were found in the truck. One witness statement claims "we caught the people in the truck doing something wrong...plain and simple.," and another says "they were up to some shady shit," but there is no clear evidence of any wrongdoing. The FSB report says "the TC said he received a large amount of fire from the vehicle and they returned fire. He said they watched the truck drop a 155mm round with wires so he engaged. The patrol leader said 'I thought you said they shot at you.' The reply he got was 'oh yeah, that too.'" FSB report also says an Iraqi police officer says "he saw the truck driving in front of the convoy and then they fired on it. The truck stopped and they kept shooting it....he then dropped his weapon...he was afraid the Americans were going to shoot him." Furthermore, FSB contradicts the soldiers' sworn witness statements, claiming that "1-64 AR reports that LNs often run from IIF and POB soldiers," suggesting the behavior of the fleeing Iraqis was not suspicious or unusual. No Iraqi witness statements taken, despite FSB report's claim that "there was a large crowd of people in the vicinity." The report finds that soldiers acted in accordance with Rules of Engagement (ROE). Investigating officer suggests that no convoy team pursue a local vehicle unless they are taking fire.
Army 16265-16284 Army 16285-16310	Army	5/28/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers at a traffic checkpoint see an Iraqi vehicle going the wrong way on a highway after curfew, and they stop it with flashing lights and other signals. Three Iraqi men get out of the car, and soldiers report they seem hostile. One flees, and soldiers fire warning shots into the air. When they saw the Iraqi man had a handgun, soldiers shot and killed him. They searched the car, finding a 9mm handgun and "Mahdi militia propaganda." Investigating officer and appointing officer both seem to believe other options should have been exercised to avoid a civilian death, but recommend "no adverse action" be taken against the soldiers. No Iraqi witness statements, and no mention of what became of the other two occupants of the vehicle.
Army 16311-16325 Army 16326-16333	Army	6/7/2005	Yusufiyah, Iraq	An Army patrol is traveling on a highway when they see an Iraqi man crouching on the other side of a canal, holding a shovel and "another object," more than 150 meters away, and suspect him of placing an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) in the vicinity. The soldiers "assessed him to be an IED triggerman." Then, they fired warning shots, and he "did not exhibit any signs of willful surrender." Then, they shot and killed him. Soldiers found no evidence of an actual IED, including the triggering device they claim they saw from 150 to 200 meters away, but the report notes they were "hampered by dense vegetation and limited visibility." Recommendations include further searching for IED and its triggering device, and no punitive action. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 16334-16371 Army 16372-16398	Army	6/24/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	Army soldiers conducting "Mosque monitoring" hear a shot fired and spot an Iraqi on a rooftop. They begin to "clear" the building. At this time, an Iraqi vehicle approaches and ignores signals to stop, and a disabling shot is fired from 70 meters away, but does not deter the oncoming vehicle. At 40 meters, a soldier fires, aiming for the driver's head. The vehicle then slows down, and at a distance of 20 meters, "an IA (Iraqi Army) soldier ran out into the street and fired point blank into the vehicle," killing the driver. Nothing dangerous or suspicious was found in the car. Investigating officer finds that proper Escalation of Force (EOF) and Rules of Engagement (ROE) were followed as best as possible given the need to also protect against the threat that had been posed by the earlier gunfire. The investigating officer also chastises the soldiers for leaving the scene before local authorities arrived, and that leaving a dead body in the street "could not have had a positive impact on the local populace." Appointing authority instructs a soldier to "conduct remedial training on consequence management." Attached witness depositions reveal that the victim's father is bringing suit against American and Iraqi forces. Another claims that the driver didn't realize he was being told to stop and didn't see his approaching attacker because he was on a cell phone.
Army 16399-16407	Army	5/21/2005	Iraq	No investigative report summary attached, only sworn witness statements and diagrams. Witness statements describe an Army convoy being ambushed, one soldier taking a gunshot wound to the neck. A third witness statement clearly describes another incident, in which a group of soldiers investigating an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) open fire on an Iraqi vehicle to which they mistakenly attributed some kind of hostile intent, claiming that "clearly, it was 'the wrong place at the wrong time,'" resulting in the death of one Iraqi and two wounded Iraqis.
Army 16408-16417 Army 16418-16420 Army 16421-16428 Army 16429-16439	Army	6/27/2005	Iraq	A mounted Army patrol stops to investigate an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) when a second IED detonates. Soldiers pursue a truck fleeing from the scene, which does not respond to warning shots. The truck stops when its path is impeded by dump trucks, and three occupants emerge, one fleeing, two staying. The fleeing Iraqi was shot and killed. The U.S. soldiers did not find a detonating device or any additional evidence that these men were responsible for any IEDs. The investigating report finds that soldiers complied with Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statements included, no mention of what happened with the other two occupants of the vehicle.
Army 16440-16461 Army 16462-16464	Army	6/28/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Iraqi car driving erratically ignores warnings to stop by Army forces, and the soldiers fired warning shots which caused the car to swerve and collide with a second car. The injuries to the driver of the second car ultimately lead to his death. No autopsy is conducted of the deceased. The investigating officer claims it is difficult to judge how much of an impact the shots fired by U.S. soldiers led to the crash and subsequent fatal injuries. Victim was an Iraqi journalist. There is apparently video of the event. Recommendations are that soldiers continue to undergo Rules of Engagement (ROE) training, and that the soldiers "follow-up" with the family of the victim. Investigating officer finds conduct was in accordance with ROE. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 16465-16509 Army 16510-16521	Army	7/5/2005	Iraq	An Improvised Explosive Device (IED) with faulty wiring was found by Army soldiers, who suspected that an Iraqi would be back to fix the wiring. An Iraqi woman in the vicinity is warned multiple times to stop, and ignores those warnings as well as warning shots. She is shot and killed. Investigating officer finds it an "unfortunate event" but that it was no fault of any U.S. soldiers, and was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness reports.
Army 16522-16544 Army 16545-16578	Army	7/6/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers at a traffic checkpoint observe an Iraqi vehicle moving quickly and ignoring their "identifiers." Driver ignores shouts and warning shots, and is shot twice in the chest. He is killed. "Additional training" is recommended, as is the establishment of a procedure to dispose of civilian remains sensitively, and the obtaining of Iraqi Police reports, which are unavailable here. Investigating officer does not indicate whether Rules of Engagement were followed. No Iraqi witness statements.
Army 16579-16601 Army 16602-16607	Army	5/22/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers are stopping traffic at a checkpoint to ask local Iraqi nationals about a previous attack. A car emerges from the traffic and ignores warnings and warning shots meant to induce him to stop his car. At 50 meters, soldiers shot and killed the driver. The vehicle was not a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED), nor was there anything "remarkable" found in it. Recommendation is solely "no further action." Brief Iraqi police report, but no other Iraqi statements.
Army 16608-16643	Army	6/1/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers attempt to stop two curfew-violating Iraqi vehicles, who do not stop. Warning shots are fired several times, as well as a "red star cluster," but the cars do not respond and begin to distance themselves from the slower military vehicles pursuing them. One of them crashes, the other continues on. The soldiers focus on the crashed vehicle. The driver has a gunshot wound in his back from one of the "warning" shots, and in the crash fractured his neck. He is dead. The passenger is detained for questioning. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 16644-16648 Army 16649-16655 Army 16656-16661 Army 16662-16666 Army 16667-16671 Army 16672-16676 Army 16677-16678 Army 16679-16683 Army 16684-16698	Army	7/19/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle approaches an Army convoy stopped in traffic, soldiers shout, use hand and arm signals, and point their weapons in an effort to get the Iraqi vehicle to stop. The vehicle does not respond, and does not respond to subsequent warning shots. The next round of shots strike the driver. Much of the next part of the report is wholly illegible due to poor quality photocopying, having the effect of redaction. What is clear is that the driver was killed, and that one round ricocheted and wounded another Iraqi in the hip. Some recommendations are illegible; others include training on the proper weapon to use in such situations, Escalation of Force (EOF) retraining, using headsets, and replacing the shooter with another gunner until he has been "recertified." The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 16699-16734	Army	7/20/2005	Abu Ghraib, Iraq	Army soldiers removing the wreckage of a destroyed Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) observed an approaching vehicle and try to signal to it to stop, at the same time that they are receiving small arms fire from another direction. The driver of the vehicle did not make efforts to stop, and accelerated towards the platoon in response to warning shots. The vehicle keeps driving at two of the soldiers as one soldier begins with disabling shots, then shoots to kill the driver. The vehicle is a taxi, with no munitions inside. Escalation of Force (EOF) and Rules of Engagement (ROE) found to be properly employed, investigating officer recommends no further action. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 16735-16754 Army 16755-16774 Army 16775-16793	Army	7/22/2005	Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle approaching an Army patrol ignores signals and warning shots. Shots are then fired into the windshield, killing one Iraqi woman, wounding an Iraqi woman and Iraqi man. Report finds Escalation of Force (EOF) was properly used and that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). One Iraqi witness statement taken.
Army 16794-16843 Army 16844-16867	Army	8/3/2005	Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle approaching an Army patrol checkpoint ignores signals and warning shots. The driver is then shot and killed. While soldiers were attempting to resolve this situation, another vehicle approached them ignoring their warnings. The vehicle ignored warning shots, and then used "deadly force" when the driver didn't respond. The driver suffered two gunshot wounds to his arms. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). The investigation report recommends spotlights and laser lights, and designating a shooter for checkpoints. Recommends monitoring soldiers for mental/emotional stress. No Iraqi witness statement taken.
Army 16868-16917	Army	8/4/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers see two Iraqi cars approaching their checkpoint that match the description of cars they were supposed to "interdict." Warning shots successfully stop one car, whose occupants emerge to urge the second car to stop. In response to warning shots, the second car backs away from the checkpoint. Disabling shots were fired, and the driver was killed while the passenger was wounded. Rules of Engagement (ROE)/Escalation of Force (EOF) was properly employed, and the investigating officer suggests that Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) training be developed for the specific instances in which a potential threat starts to flee. Also, "appropriate claims officers should be notified of potential claims arising from this event." No Iraqi witness statements.
Army 16918-16926	Army	7/8/2005	Iraq	A string of interferences by Iraqi vehicles with an Army convoy are successfully dealt with, and one Iraqi vehicle that has been interfering with the convoy, and warned not to, swerves towards the convoy. A truck in the convoy swerves back towards the Iraqi vehicle, causing it to roll off the road. No mention is made of whether the U.S. forces stop to see what happened to the Iraqi(s) inside. It is left to the reader to assume that the driver died, and that the U.S. convoy simply continued driving. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommends limiting use of roads by "Combat Logistics Patrol" convoys to the hours of 11 PM to 5 AM to avoid traffic, and to "improve route status and intelligence monitoring procedures." No sworn witness statements included, no Iraqi witness statements included.
Army 16927-16981	Army	8/14/2005	Iraq	After an Iraqi driver ignores "hand and verbal gestures," and then a warning shot, while approaching an Army checkpoint, soldiers fire first disabling shots, and then, at a distance of 50 meters, "kill shots." More than a hundred shots were fired, and the driver was killed. He was 75 years old. The report finds that the conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Investigating officer recommends that Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) be reviewed for "fire distribution rates...in order to reduce the number of shots fired after the vehicle has been disabled." Also recommends reviewing engagement SOPs, suggesting shots should have been fired before 50 meters. Recommends compensation (condolence) "in order to reduce the tension" in the area of the incident. Appointing authority recommends not decreasing shots fired, but increasing caliber of bullet to ensure it has power capable of stopping the vehicle. No Iraqi witness statement taken.
Army 16982-17015	Army	8/18/2005	Near Baghdad, Iraq	An Iraqi driver attempts to bypass a barrier set up by an Army patrol securing an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The driver ignores signals and warning shots, and soldiers fire approximately 180 shots, killing the driver and wounding the passenger. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations include sealing off all avenues to the site of an IED that's being secured in the future. Condolence payments to be made.
Army 17016-17052	Army	8/5/2005	Iraq	An Army soldier dismounts on patrol to make a minor engine repair when soldiers see an approaching Iraqi vehicle. The driver did not heed voice, hand, and flash light signals, and at 15 meters, warning shots were fired. At 10 meters, 20 "disabling" shots were fired that stopped the vehicle, which was traveling too fast to recognize the patrol and stop. There is conflicting information, even in the investigative officer's report, about how far the driver was when warnings were given or warning shots fired. The driver was killed by the disabling shots, and his two passengers were uninjured. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations include reviewing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Rules of Engagement (ROE). Condolences were given and military will follow through, adding "it is not lost on us how serious of an incident this is."
Army 17053-17062 Army 17063-17065 Army 17066-17068 Army 17069-17071 Army 17072-17073 Army 17074-17075 Army 17076-17077 Army 17078-17079 Army 17080-17083 Army 17084-17088 Army 17089-17092 Army 17093-17097 Army 17098-17102 Army 17103-17115 Army 17116-17125 Army 17126-17147	Army	8/28/2005	Hay al Adel, Baghdad, Iraq	Army soldiers securing an ambush site see what they think is a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) launcher aimed at them from a white Daewoo. The car begins to move as a soldier is looking for a pair of binoculars, and the patrol leader orders warning shots, which the Daewoo does not respond to. Disabling shots are fired, which kill the driver (Walid Khaled Muhammad). "Through tactical questioning," soldiers realize the occupants of the car work for Reuters. Soldiers detain the other Reuters employee due to discrepancies in his story "regarding when he was sent to the scene." The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommends an expedited condolence payment to the family of the deceased and to the detained reporter. Report includes several news articles about the incident, and the statement of the detained Reuters employee, as well as affidavits from Reuters employees.
Army 17148-17163 Army 17164-17174	Army	8/21/2005	Iraq	An Iraqi civilian reports to Iraqi police that an Army patrol vehicle shot at his vehicle, killing one passenger. A coalition soldier admits that his patrol fired a warning shot at the only vehicle that had not yielded to the patrol. The Iraqi witness says he did not yield because "he was in a hurry." One other Iraqi, who fled the scene, was wounded. No warning shots were fired, only signals and then a "disabling" shot that turned lethal. Investigating officer still finds that Rules of Engagement (ROE) were properly employed. Recommendations include retraining soldiers on where to aim disabling shots. The investigating officer suggests attempts have been made to locate victims family unsuccessfully. Iraqi statements included.
Army 17175-17213	Army	8/28/2005	Likely Baghdad, Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle approaching an Army convoy from behind does not respond to signals, warning shots, or disabling shots, and passes the rear convoy vehicle to cut in front of it. The driver continues to ignore warning shots, and is eventually blocked by U.S. vehicles that have stopped the vehicle with shots to the tires and engine. The driver emerged from the car and briefly complied with orders to raise his hands and approach the soldiers. Then he got back in his car and tried to drive away, when the soldiers shot and killed him. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations are to review Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Rules of Engagement (ROE).
Army 17214-17227 Army 17228-17233 Army 17234-17242 Army 17243-17250	Army	9/5/2005	Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle passes 4 stopped vehicles, ignoring Army soldiers' hand and arm signals, and then ignoring a warning shot. The driver suffers a "minor" injury when struck by disabling shots and is given a claims card for compensation under the Foreign Claims Act. A few hours later, another vehicle does not respond to hand and arm signals, and a disabling shot is fired, without warning shots first. The driver did not respond to disabling shots, and was shot and killed. Detailed personal information was not collected. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations include gathering more personal information. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 17251-17270 Army 17271-17285 Army 17286-17302	Army	9/17/2005	Likely Baghdad, Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle ignores hand and arm signals from an Army convoy blocking traffic, which fires a warning shot from 30 meters. Disabling shots were fired 2 seconds later, and the car drove past the convoy. Soldiers believed they had not hit the car. The car came to a stop nearby a separate group of U.S. soldiers, who saw a man emerge from the car holding his son. A 6 year old boy was killed, and a 15 year old boy treated for wounds to his arm before being released. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statements.
Army 17303-17312 Army 17313-17317 Army 17318-17321 Army 17322-17325	Army	9/18/2005	Iraq	Repeat of Army 13635-13654
Army 17326-17350	Army	9/21/2005	Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle approaches an Army checkpoint, and does not respond to voice, arm, and light signals. A warning shot is fired from 150 meters. At 100 meters, soldiers open fire with deadly force, killing the driver whose vehicle stops 30 meters from the checkpoint. Iraqi police find three empty liquor bottles in the car and determine that he was intoxicated. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Iraqi police report not included, no Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 17351-17404	Army	9/21/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Army patrol is hit by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), and soldiers begin to "establish local security" and begin an evacuation when they take small arms fire from the west. Taking casualties and calling for additional ground support, soldiers see a silver car approaching them. The vehicle continues on despite voice and hand signals and a warning shot. The driver continued on despite disabling shots, and was then shot and killed. Multiple US soldiers were wounded. Iraqi police took the body and gave no information as to the identity of the victim. The investigating officer finds that Escalation of Force (EOF) was proper and therefore was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Report also claims that attempts are being made to locate the victim's family to make condolence payments. No statement from Iraqi police or witnesses
Army 17405-17416 Army 17417-17428 Army 17429-17440	Army	9/30/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers dismount to approach a "suspicious" Iraqi vehicle at a checkpoint, which begins backing away, and then driving towards soldiers. The driver ignores shouts from interpreters to stop the car and a warning shot. The driver ignores disabling shots, and a soldier shoots and kills the passenger. The driver pushes the victim out of the car and then tries to drive away, but is blocked in by U.S. vehicles. He claims he is a taxi driver and doesn't know his passenger. Investigating officer does not indicate whether the conduct was found to be within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statement is taken.
Army 17441-17466	Army	10/4/2005	Outside Baghdad, Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle "break[s] rank" at a traffic checkpoint, make a U turn, and drive away. The car is pursued by an Army Bradley. The car makes another "suspicious U-turn." The Bradley fires three warning shots, and a passenger in the Iraqi vehicle reportedly brandishes an AK-47. Soldiers fire on the vehicle, and the driver and a passenger exit, running "to a series of buildings." Pursuit of these two is unsuccessful. One Iraqi passenger was killed and one wounded. Investigating officer finds that suspicious U turns are not necessarily a reason for pursuit. Appointing authority finds the disabling shots were "unwarranted" and recommends review of Escalation of Force (EOF) procedures, as well as condolence payments to the wounded victim and the deceased's family. Investigating officer does not mention whether conduct was within Rules of Engagement (ROE) but does say that EOF was "questionable."
Army 17467-17481 Army 17482-17496	Army	10/5/2005	Iraq	Repeat of Army 11480-11514
Army 17497-17545	Army	10/11/2005	Iraq	Repeat of Army 11515-11565
Army 17546-17580	Army	10/12/2005	Iraq	An Army patrol conducting "barrier emplacement" sets up a checkpoint. A vehicle bypassing that checkpoint turns off its headlights when "warn[ed]" by a laser pointer, and continues to drive towards other members of the patrol. The driver ignores verbal warnings delivered over a vehicle intercom, and reacts to a warning shot fired into the air by turning its headlights back on. Another warning shot is fired at the ground, and the vehicle does not stop. Shots are fired into the engine block then into the windshield. One Iraqi died of gunshot wounds, the other was wounded and taken to the hospital. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations include emplacing barriers during curfew hours. Statement taken from Iraqi Army (IA) soldier.
Army 17581-17598 Army 17599-17610 Army 17611-17617	Army	10/16/2005	Iraq	Repeat of Army 13441-13466
Army 17618-17632 Army 17633-17641 Army 17642-17646	Army	10/16/2005	Kadhamiya, Baghdad, Iraq	Repeat of Army 11651-11733
Army 17647-17660	Army	10/26/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Army patrol is investigating Improvised Explosive Device (IED) activity when one Iraqi vehicle pulls in front of another, that had already stopped for the soldiers, and the soldiers fire a warning shot. When the vehicle does not respond, shots are fired at the vehicle, which turns, presumably to avoid the gunfire. This results in the gunfire hitting the passengers. Two children are killed. One child and the children's mother are wounded. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Recommendations include the future use of traffic cones, laser pointers, and disruption barriers like sandbags be used to slow traffic. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 17661-17694	Army	10/31/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle approaching an Army checkpoint slows from 50-60 mph to 5-10 mph, but fails to respond to the light signals, warning shots, and verbal commands used to request the vehicle stop. Though the report claims the vehicle was approaching at approximately 5 mph, it also claims that a soldier "was forced to jump to his right side" to avoid being hit by the car. The car was then parallel to that soldier and approaching his vehicle. The soldier was attempting to fire disabling shots when he tripped and fell over a guardrail. The other soldiers at the checkpoint see this and presume he is wounded, and shoot and kill the driver and a passenger. The report says that Escalation of Force (EOF) was properly used and that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE), but recommends retraining, as well as the use of "well defined trigger lines," which suggests EOF was not properly used. Report also recommends that the first two rounds in every soldier's weapon should be tracer rounds. Recommends condolence payments should the victims' families be located. No Iraqi witness reports.
Army 17695-17712	Army	10/14/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers conducting a "polling site assessment" are approached by "three vehicles speeding towards the patrol." The lead Iraqi vehicle does not respond to arm and vocal signals or warning shots, it is "engaged" with gunfire and comes to a stop. The car behind it swerved around to pass the stopped car and was immediately "engaged" from a distance of more than 75 meters. The third car turns around and leaves the scene. The driver of the first car was wounded in the head and the driver in the second car was killed. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statements taken, despite a "gathering crowd."
Army 17713-17732	Army	11/2/2005	Taji, Baghdad, Iraq	An Iraqi vehicle is headed east as an Army patrol is headed west. A soldier waves his arms and shouts to try to stop the vehicle. At 40 meters, the Iraqi vehicle decelerates from 40-50 mph to 5 mph in response to a warning shot. Because of its rapid deceleration, it began to skid onto the shoulder. A soldier shouts in Arabic and English and uses hand and arm signals to attempt to get the driver to exit the vehicle. The vehicle instead drives back on to the road, accelerating. The vehicle continues accelerating after a disabling shot is fired. The driver is then shot and killed. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statements.
Army 17733-17747 Army 17748-17762 Army 17763-17776	Army	11/3/2005	Iraq	An Army squad is conducting a mission to ambush Improvised Explosive Device (IED) emplacers. A soldier fires on Iraqis when he sees them 15 meters from his location, gesturing towards "previous IED holes" and talking on their cell phones. The soldier killed one Iraqi and wounded another. The report finds that the soldier violated Rules of Engagement (ROE) and that the Iraqi victims never showed hostile intent. Recommendations include counseling on weapon discipline for two soldiers, and the removal of the shooter from the sniper team. Appointing officer says that were it not for "sufficient ambiguity," he would recommend charging the shooter with negligent homicide. Investigating officer recommends retaining records in anticipation of the victims' families filing claims for compensation. No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 17777-17802	Army	11/10/2005	Iraq	An Army patrol fails to stop a weaving Iraqi vehicle with hand and arm signals, by pointing their weapons, and warning shots fired into the air at a distance of 50 meters. There was no response when a disabling shot was fired from 35 meters. The driver was then shot and killed. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statements.
Army 17803-17818 Army 17819-17833 Army 17834-17845 Army 17846-17848	Army	11/12/2005	Iraq	An Army patrol stopping traffic attempt to warn an oncoming driver with spotlights, flashlights, and warning shots, the first of which were fired from a distance of 200 meters. The vehicle does not stop, even after a soldier fires a shotgun at his tire. Soldiers fire on the vehicle, killing the passenger, and the vehicle comes to a stop. Investigating officer recommends seeking out the victim's family for condolence payments. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statement taken.
Army 17849-17892	Army	11/25/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers on patrol are hit with an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attack. As soldiers open fire on the surrounding area, attempting to "suppress" any potential "triggerman hide positions," they inadvertently kill an Iraqi man in a nearby vehicle. Also, they treat an Iraqi man wounded by shrapnel from the IED. Investigating Officer finds that the conduct was not in accordance with the Rules of Engagement (ROE), because there was no positive identification of the enemy. No mention of condolence payments, no Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 17893-17920	Army	11/14/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Army patrol discovers that 4 men in a black sedan had killed a local Imam in a drive by shooting. Soldiers set up a traffic checkpoint there, which is also accompanied by Iraqi police, who had their lights flashing to alert drivers. As an Iraqi vehicle drives towards and eventually through cones and wire, it is nonresponsive to warning shots and spot lights. The vehicle failed to respond to disabling shots, and the driver was shot and killed. Only recommendation is to "work vigorously" to provide victim's family with compensation/condolence. The Investigating officer finds that conduct was within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). No Iraqi witness statements taken.
Army 17921-17941	Army	11/15/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	An Army patrol attempting to intercept Improvised Explosive Device (IED) cells sets up a checkpoint. Soldiers watch a man exit his car, squat down, get back in the car, and exit the car a second time, at which point he begins to talk to the drivers of two other vehicles. One man tosses an unknown object into an old IED crater. Disabling shots are fired when all three men re-enter their vehicles and try to re-enter traffic. Only one car does not stop immediately, and continues to ignore disabling shots. The driver was then killed by the soldiers. A woman in one of the other cars was wounded by glass from the disabling shots. The man had placed an empty bag of rice in the crater. Conduct found to be within the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Compensation/condolence recommended. No Iraqi witness statement taken.
Army 17942-17961 Army 17962-17983 Army 17984-18005	Army	11/10/2005	Iraq	Army soldiers are conducting "normal route clearance operations." The gunner on a vehicle loses his balance when the vehicle stops. He slips and hits the "butterfly" of his M2, which fired a round, wounding both a driver and passenger in an Iraqi vehicle. The passenger's wounds were lethal. Report notes that M2's have no "formal" safety mechanism. Investigating officer doesn't indicate whether Rules of Engagement (ROE) were properly followed. No Iraqi witness statement.
Army 18009-18065 Army 18066-18110 Army 18111-18151	Army	25-Jan-05	Near Najaf, Iraq	An Army convoy is driving towards Najaf, Iraq and, "a cloud of dust was kicked up," and an Iraqi child is struck by one of the vehicles. The investigating officer determines that the child "either leaned into the truck trying to look back to see the next truck coming or the child tried to walk or run across the street." The soldiers did not stop, and the report notes that a soldier who was an "EMT in his civilian career" had determined that the child was likely dead, due to the loss of blood clearly visible. The report recommends no punitive action, but advises a campaign warning Iraqis to stay clear of convoys, through road signs and media, with the help of the Iraqi government. Also recommends guidance that units avoid congested areas when possible. The report indicates that there was video of the incident. (No Iraqi witness statements.)

Document	Agency	Incident Date	Specific Location	Description
Army Bates 11426-11479	Army	9/5/2005	West of Baghdad, Iraq exact location redacted	An Iraqi driver is shot and killed after he does not respond to signals to stop his vehicle. Investigating officers finds that the Iraqi was committing a hostile act and that the fatal shooting was in accordance with the Rules of Engagement. The investigator finds that the vehicle was over 50 meters away and that although the ROE demand deadly force at 30m, the use of such force was here justified. The victim was a prominent Iraqi "heart doctor" (surgeon? cardiologist?) named Abbas Hassan. Several redactions are made in the translated documents to conceal information available in the original Arabic language documents, including the name of the victim. The location is redacted but later in the production is identified as "in Baghdad" as well as "[redacted] district, west of Baghdad."
Army Bates 11480-11514	Army	10/5/2005	Unspecified, Iraq	An Iraqi driver is fatally shot within 200 meters of his home, possibly within sight of his family. He had ignored the hand signals and warning shots from the US soldiers. The investigating officer determined that the actions of the soldiers involved complied with the Rules of Engagement. The results of the investigation are complicated because the American Lieutenant in charge of the patrol left the scene prematurely to avoid an escalating confrontation with the Iraqi military and police on the scene, who were upset over the incident. Evidence was not taken until the US soldiers returned to the scene of the incident, but by that time the vehicle had been removed and was photographed it at a "local junk lot." The car was shot at least 15 times.
Army Bates 11515-11565	Army	10/11/2005	Unspecified, Iraq	Members of a US patrol believed they saw "friendly forces" engaging a suspected enemy vehicle, and that they saw that suspected enemy vehicle returning fire. They opened fire on the vehicle, and eventually determined that all of the vehicle's passengers were dead as well as unarmed. Because they were aiding the "friendly forces," they cannot be held accountable for the escalation of force, according to the investigating officer. Several redactions are made in the translation of an Arabic language statement that remain unredacted in the Arabic version.
Army Bates 11566-11605	Army	10/12/2005	Unspecified, Iraq	An Iraqi driver and passenger are shot after ignoring warnings to stop their vehicle. Both are wounded, one fatally. Because the driver "chose to ignore all warnings given," the investigating officer finds that the killing was in accordance with the ROE.
Army Bates 11606-11650	Army	10/13/2005	Unspecified, Iraq	An Iraqi man approached US soldiers who were trying to disable an IED. He acknoledged their warning shots but kept approaching. A soldier shot and wounded the Iraqi man with "3 to 5 rounds." The investigating officer determined that the Iraqi man exhibited hostile intent and his approach was consistent with that of "reported suicide bombers." The report does not mention that the Iraqi was found with any weapon on his person. The disposition of the wounded man was unknown at the time the report was written.
Army Bates 11651-11733	Army	10/16/2005	Unspecified	An Iraqi soldier was driving with his fiance when a bullet is fired from behind their vehicle. The bullet strikes his fiance, eventually killing her. The bullet is from a US weapon but the investigating officer is unable to determine who is responsible for the killing.
Army Bates 11734-11736	Army	1/30/2006	Unspecified, Iraq	Members of a US patrol returned fire on an Iraqi woman, killing her.
Army Bates 11737-11739	Army	1/30/2006	Unspecified, Iraq	Duplicate of prior production (11734-11736)
Army Bates 11740-11758	Army	5/12/2006	Unspecified, Iraq	Investigation finds that during a checkpoint intended to search Iraqi vehicles, soldiers fired warning shots initially comporting with ROE. However, as the vehicle "came to within" 50 meters away from the checkpoint, soldiers opened fire in violation of ROE, killing the driver. The passenger, wife of the victim, was unhurt. She stated that they were returning from their son's funeral and that her husband had bad eyesight. No determination of responsibility for the incident is given.

Criminal Investigation Demand Files
(Released on September 4, 2007 | Learn More: The Human Cost of War - Civilian Casualties in Iraq & Afghanistan)

Document	Agency	Incident Date	Specific Location	Description
Army Bates 000001	Army	14-Jan-05	Roadside Asr Kiev, Ash-Shumali, Iraq	A family approached a U.S. Convoy and the Convoy opened fire. Three civilian assualts were reported and a bystander named Faysal Kamel Hamza was killed. The death was ruled as justified. Memo date February 19, 2005.
Army Bates 000002	Army	21-Feb-05	Grid Coordinate MF 33702 29222, Shaqlawa, Iraq	U.S. solider committed the offenses of negligent homicide and reckless endangerment when he/she drove his/her vehicle recklessly and caused the death of a six-month-old Iraqi girl named Merro, Summa Soman. Memo date April 6, 2005.
Army Bates 000003	Army	30-Jan-05	Bagdad Central Confinement Facility (BCCF); Grid: 38S MB 130 840; Abu Graib, Iraq	Detainee - Fawzzi, Abdullah - died as a result of complications associated with gunshot wounds received in battle with U.S. Forces. Memo date May 15, 2005.
Army Bates 000004	Army	21-Apr-05	Grid Coordinate , WD18318038146, Afghanistan	Sayed Rahman was struck by a Humvee driven by a U.S. soldier. Facts allege that the Humvee was traveling at 17.32 miles per hour and that the side mirror of the car struck Rahman. Rahman died of his injuries. Death was classified a "traffic fatality." Memo date May 18, 2005.
Army Bates 000005	Army	17-Feb-05	200 Meters North of the Main gate, Shindand Air Field, Afghanistan	After a New York Times article questioned the deaths of two individuals - Naieb and Rasul - the government engaged in an investigation. The article "indicated [that] U.S. soldiers had shot and killed two Afghanistan villagers outside the U.S. base near Shindand, Afghanistan. The investigation determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that soldiers had committed "the offense of Murder as initially alleged." Memo date May 30, 2005.
Army Bates 000006	Army	31-Jan-05	Compound 5, Theater Internment Facility, Camp Bucca, Iraq APO AE 09375 (CBI), CRID 38S MB 130840	After two hours of rioting, allegedly in response to U.S. defacement of Qur'ans, prison guards opened fire on detainees. The following four detainees were killed: Abid, Ismail Hammed; Mousa, Mahmood Ismaeel; Hamed, Khaleed Yassen; and Tawfeeek, Hauthaifah Nazar. Five other individuals were alleged to have been assaulted but their names were redacted. The deaths were ruled as justifiable homicide and the assaults were ruled unfounded.
Army Bates 000007	Army	24-Apr-05	Baghdad Central Confinement Facility (BCCF); Grid: 38S MB 130 840; Abu Ghraib, Iraq	Detainee - Muhammed, Ali Ali - died as a result of a gunshot wound to the abdomen during an altercation with U.S. Forces. An autopsy was performed and the death was ruled as justifiable homicide. Memo date July 21, 2005.
Army Bates 000008	Army	10-May-05	Main Supply Route Red, 8 Miles South From Kabul, Near Grid Coordinate WD 0627420207, Kabul, Afghanistan	A U.S. soldier was accused of committing negligent homicide when a car he/she was driving struck an individual. The individual was killed and his identity was never discovered. The investigation states that there was insufficient evidence to prove negligent homicide and the death was ruled a traffic fatality. Memo date July 29, 2005
Army Bates 000009	Army	14-May-05	Compound 4 and Internment Facility Aid Station (IFAS), Theater Internment Facility (TIF), Camp Bucca, Iraq APO AE 09375 (CBI), GRID 38 S MB 130840	Detainee - Sweidan al Halbosi - died after a piece of surgical gauze was left in his throat after a surgical procedure. The death was ruled accidental. Memo date August 15, 2005
Army Bates 000010	Army	29-Jul-05	Grid MB 25251 82657, Highway One, Vicinity of Camp Sather, Baghdad International Airport (BIAP), Baghdad, Iraq	A construction worker named Bekir Mehmet Sultan Kayim was killed when a U.S. military vehicle off-roaded and hit Kayim's vehicle head on. The death was ruled a traffic fatality. Memo date September 6, 2005.
Army Bates 000011	Army	22-Aug-05	Baghdad Central Confinement Facility (BCCF); Grid: 38S MB 130 840; Abu Ghraib, Iraq	Detainee - Jaseem Emad - died as a result of gunshot wounds received in battle with U.S. Forces. Memo date December 3, 2005
Army Bates 000012	Army	5-Jul-05	Grid Coordinate MC28880017100	Private First Class Anthony Michael Mazzarella lost control of his car and struck civilian Arkan Jassim Fayath. Both were killed. The deaths were ruled accidental. Memo date February 17, 2006.

Courts Martial Records
(Released on September 4, 2007 | Learn More: The Human Cost of War - Civilian Casualties in Iraq & Afghanistan)

Document	Agency	Incident Date	Specific Location	Description
Army Bates 1778 - 2113 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7	Army	20-Mar-05	Iraq	Sergeant Ricky A. Burke was accused of shooting an alleged Iraqi insurgent after a battle on March 20, 2005. Burke was charged and acquitted of attempted premeditated murder.
Army Bates 2114 - 2833 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	Army	22-Sep-04	Iraq	Private First Class James E. Combs III was guarding a police station and took his gun off safety - in violation of the Rules of Engagement - forgot to put the safety back on, and then shot an Iraqi woman in a market on September 22, 2004. Combs was charged with "culpable negligence" manslaughter. Combs was sentenced to six months in prison, and a bad conduct discharge.
Army Bates 2834 - 3640 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8	Army	Jan-04	Iraq	Sergeant First Class Tracy E. Perkins was accused of forcing two Iraqi men to jump from a bridge into the Tigris River in January 2004. One of the men allegedly died as a result. Perkins was charged with involuntary manslaughter, and of making a false statement. Perkins was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter, and making a false statement. Perkins was convicted of assault for forcing the Iraqi men into the Tigris River. Perkins was sentenced to six months in prison, a reduction in rank to staff sergeant, and forfeited $2,000.
Army Bates 3641 - 4082 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4	Army	18-Aug-04	Iraq	Staff Sergeant Jonathan J. Alban-Cardenas was accused of killing an unarmed, wounded sixteen-year-old Iraqi on August 18, 2005. Alban-Cardenas was charged with premeditated murder. Alban-Cardenas was convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder. Alban-Cardenas was sentenced to one year in prison, reduction to the lowest army rank (E-1), and a bad conduct discharge.
Army Bates 4083 - 6470 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22	Army	28-Aug-04	Iraq	Specialist Brent W. May was accused of shooting an Iraqi man in his home during a house-to-house search on August 28, 2004. May claimed that his co-accused - Sergeant Michael P. Williams - ordered him to shoot the Iraqi man. May was also accused of trying to cover up the crime. May was convicted of unpremeditated murder. May was sentenced to five years in prison, and a dishonorable discharge.
Army Bates 6471 - 7052 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6	Army	28-Aug-04	Iraq	Specialist Brent W. May was accused of shooting an Iraqi man in his home during a house-to-house search on August 28, 2004. May claimed that his co-accused - Sergeant Michael P. Williams - ordered him to shoot the Iraqi man. May was also accused of trying to cover up the crime. May was convicted of unpremeditated murder. May was sentenced to five years in prison, and a dishonorable discharge.
Army Bates 7053 - 8906 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23	Army	Aug-04	Iraq	Sergeant Michael P. Williams was accused of killing three Iraqis and of trying to cover up his crimes. The killings occurred on August 18, 2004, and August 28, 2004. Williams was accused of shooting an Iraqi man running from garbage truck, and of killing two other Iraqi men in house-to-house searches. Williams was convicted of premeditated murder and unpremeditated murder. Williams was sentenced to life in prison (which was later reduced to 25 years), a reduction in rank, and a dishonorable discharge.
Army Bates 8907 - 9789 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7	Army	Oct-04	Iraq	Sergeant First Class Jorge L. Diaz was accused of shooting and killing a handcuffed Iraqi man in October 2004. In a separate incident the day before the killing, Diaz was accused of punching and choking a blindfolded Iraqi teen, pointing a gun at his head, and then forcing the Iraqi teen hold a smoke grenade with the pin pulled. Diaz was charged with the killing, making false statements after the killing, and mistreating the Iraqi teen. Diaz was convicted of unpremeditated murder and mistreating the Iraqi teen. Diaz was acquitted of making a false statement. Diaz was sentenced to eight years in prison (reduced to seven years due to plea deal), reduction to the lowest army rank (E-1), and a dishonorable discharge.
Army Bates 9790 - 10188 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5	Army	Jan-04	Iraq	First Lieutenant Jack M. Saville was accused of forcing two Iraqi men to jump from a bridge into the Tigris River in January 2004. One of the men allegedly died as a result. Saville faced charges of manslaughter, and making false statements. Saville pled guilty to two charges of assault, dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of justice. Saville was also charged and found guilty of battery based on a different incident in December 2003. Saville was found not guilty of that incident. For the Tigris River incident Saville was sentenced to forty-five days in prison, and forfeiture of two-thirds of his pay for six months.
Army Bates 10189 - 10303 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6	Army	3-Jan	Iraq	Army Staff Sergeant Shane Werst was accused of killing an unarmed alleged Iraqi insurgent on January 3, 2004. Werst claimed he was trying to protect a fellow soldier. Werst was charged and acquitted of premeditated murder.
Army Bates 10652 - 11421 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9	Army	26-Nov-03	Iraq	Chief Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer, Jr. was convicted of negligent homicide and dereliction of duty for killing an Iraqi general after stuffing the man headfirst into a sleeping bag, wrapping an electrical cord around the sleeping bag, and than sitting on the man’s chest on November 26, 2003. Welshofer was acquitted of murder and assault charges. Welshofer received a formal reprimand, forfeited $6,000 of his salary and was required to spend 60 days restricted to a post.

Inspector General Files
(Released on September 4, 2007 | Learn More: The Human Cost of War - Civilian Casualties in Iraq & Afghanistan)

Document	Agency	Incident Date	Specific Location	Description
Army Bates 10654 - 10657	Army Inspector General		Iraq	Department of the Army Inspector General Action Reqeust System (Electronic 1559 form). This case was opened on December 21, 2005, and closed on September 26, 2005. The complaint was made by a solider alleging criminal conduct in Iraq. He alleged mass misconduct on the part of soldiers in Iraq. He alleged that "1/4 of soliders in war are good men." He stated to the IG officer there are "more" soldiers on the "dark side." He went on to state that "[s]oldiers are complaining that they hadn't got to shoot anyone and LT[REDACTED] said 'We'll get you a kill' and they killed a grandma and grandpa for no reason. SPC[REDACTED] the medic was there. LT[REDACTED] said he would kill the soldier if he said anything. The army did a big investigation and blew it off." There are also allegations of illegally importing AK47s in Iraq. The IG officer spoke with others and has notes that imply that the reporting solider may be suffering from some mental illness - perhaps post traumatic stress disorder. The IG officer then referred the allegations relating to Iraq to Criminal Investigative Demand. CID only pursed the AK47 charges saying that it had looked into the murder allegations and that the allegations were not worthy of investigation.
Army Bates 10658 - 10660	Army Inspector General		Iraq	Department of the Army Inspector General Action Reqeust System (Electronic 1559 form). This case was opened on March 6, 2006, and closed on March 6, 2006. The complaint made by a soldier to an IG officer that soldiers in "FST element . . . had killed innocent people and gotten away with it numerous times. He stated that the unit had an 'SOP' for the sworn statements in which Soliders stated that they felt threatened and the incident was not closely scrutinized. He stated that one Solider, whose name I don't recall, had threatened to go to CID and was moved." The IG officer noted that the reporting solider seemed very nervous and not himself. The IG officer had a previous relationship with the reporting soldier. The IG officer had been the reporting soldier's platoon leader. The IG officer then contacted CID about the reporting soldier's allegations. CID asked the IG officer whether the reporting officer was credible. The IG officer responded that the reporting officer "had no reason to lie to me." The case was then referred to CID.

Claims Filed Under the Foreign Claims Act by Civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq
(Released by the ACLU on 4/12/07 | Learn More: The Human Cost of War - Civilian Casualties in Iraq & Afghanistan)

Document	Incident Date	Specific Location	Description
Army Bates 18 - 22	5/29/2006	Kabul, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan taxi driver [Redacted] by brother. Taxi driver happened to be at site of a riot that broke out after a US Forces HEMMT vehicle lost control and crashed into several cars. US soldiers and Afghan personnel fired into the crowd, killing [Redacted]. Finding: negligence; Compensation: 200, 000 Afghani (appx. $3,991.22 US). See Army 30- 34, 35- 39, 40- 43, 44- 48, 49- 51, 67- 74 for related deaths. The Statement of Facts in the DOD memo appear to be copied for all relevant death investigations.
Army Bates 23 - 29	6/17/2005	Bagram, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] had trade dealings with military personnel at Tower 14, Bagram, and was fatally shot when he approached the tower for business. Finding: negligence; Compensation: 300,000 Afghani (appx. $5,986.83 US). The claim was initially rejected by FCC with negative findings. A second investigation found the trade relationship between [Redacted] and military personnel.
Army Bates 30 - 34	5/29/2006	Kabul, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of 13 year old Afghan [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was selling pizza from a street cart when a riot broke out after a US Forces HEMMT vehicle lost control and crashed into several cars. US soldiers and Afghan personnel fired into the crowd, killing the claimant. Finding: negligence; Compensation: 200,000 Afghani (appx. $3,991.22 US). See Army 18- 22, 35- 39, 40- 43, 44- 48 49- 51, 67- 74 for related deaths.
Army Bates 35 - 39	5/29/2006	Kabul, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redacted] by cousin. [Redacted] was shot when a riot broke out after a US Forces HEMMT vehicle lost control and crashed into several cars. US soldiers and Afghan personnel fired into the crowd, killing [Redcated]. Finding: negligence; Compensation: 200,000 Afghani (appx. $3,991.22 US). See Army 18 - 22, 30 - 34, 40- 43, 44- 48, 49- 51, 67- 74 for related deaths.
Army Bates 40 - 43	5/29/2006	Kabul, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was carrying spare parts from a mechanic shop when a riot broke out after a US Forces HEMMT vehicle lost control and crashed into several cars. US soldiers and Afghan personnel fired into the crowd, killing [Redacted]. Finding: negligence; Compensation: 350,000 Afghani (appx. $6,984.63 US). See Army 18- 22, 30- 34, 35- 39, 44- 48, 49- 51, 67- 74 for related deaths.
Army Bates 44 - 48	5/29/2006	Kabul, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan Ejmal [Redacted] by father. Ejmal [Redacted] was returning from school when a riot broke out after a US Forces HEMMT vehicle lost control and crashed into several cars. US soldiers and Afghan personnel fired into the crowd, killing [Redacted]. Finding: negligence; Compensation: 200,000 Afghani (appx. $3,991.22 US). See Army 18- 22, 30- 34, 35-39, 40- 43, 49- 51, 67- 74 for related deaths.
Army Bates 49 - 51	5/29/2006	Kabul, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was returning from work when a riot broke out after a US Forces HEMMT vehicle lost control and crashed into several cars. US soldiers and Afghan personnel fired into the crowd, killing the claimant. [Redacted]'s brother states that [Redacted] was shot by Afghan National Army (ANA) personnel. Finding: the Foreign Claims Act (FCA) does not cover deaths due to actions by ANA. See Army 18- 22, 30 -34, 35- 39, 40- 43, 44- 48, 67-74 for related deaths.
Army Bates 52 - 56	4/21/2005	Old Kabul Road, approx. 5 km north of Charikar, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was riding his bicycle near the Company village bazaar in the Paghman district. A US military HMMWV struck [Redacted], killing him. The HMMWV may have struck [Redacted] with a side mirror, or [Redacted] may have swerved into the truck's lane. Finding: partial negligence; Compensation: 199,000 Afghani. Notes calculation of compensation is based on projected income, life expectancy, and negligence of [Redacted].
Army Bates 57 - 58	6/1/2004	Checkpoint 14, near Bagram, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan Abdul Mougeeb by uncle. Claim denied based on lack of evidence.
Army Bates 59 - 65	8/27/2005	Construction site, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of two Afghans [Redacted]. [Redacted] was driving a motorcycle and carrying one passenger when he collided with a UAH B-33 in a convoy. [Redacted] was killed and claimant's brother was seriously injured. The convoy truck swerved to avoid a construction site and when returning to the lane, struck the motorcycle. Finding: negligence; Compensation: 151,020 Afghani. Notes a "valuation chart for death claims in Afghanistan."
Army Bates 66	12/1/2001	Polecharkhi, Kabul, Afghanistan	Statement of a claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was a factory worker for the "MINBS" when he was "bombed" by US troops.
Army Bates 67 - 74	5/29/2006	Kabul, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redcated] by son. [Redacted] was driving with his son from the Sarykhoja district to Kabul. A US Forces HEMMT vehicle lost control and crashed into several cars, including one belonging to the son. US soldiers and Afghan personnel fired into the crowd, killing [Redacted]. Finding: negligence ; Compensation: 103, 500 Afghani (appx. $2,071.63 US) for damage to car and 350,000 Afghani (appx. $6,984.62 US) for father's death. See Army 18 -22, 30- 34, 35- 39, 40- 43, 44- 48, 49- 51 for related deaths.
Army Bates 75 - 78	3/4/2003	Kandahar, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted] (a young child) was hit by a US Humvee while crossing the road. [Redacted] was hospitalized for three weeks before dying of his injuries. Finding: negligence; Compensation: $1,500 US.
Army Bates 79 - 80	2/1/2004	Mazar-i-Shariff, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redacted] by a legal representative who claims power of attorney. [Redacted] was killed by US coalition forces' vehicles. "Details of this accident are recorded in Accident Report # 139-2004. This claim was originally submitted to [Redacted] Task Force 180 claims attorney." Finding: no evidence of negligence. Signatory's (claimant's) phone number is listed as 070298152.
Army Bates 81 - 88	8/27/2005	Construction site, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghan [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was driving a motorcycle and carrying one passenger when he collided with a UAH B-33 in a convoy. [Redacted] (husband of claimant) was killed and [Redacted] was seriously injured. The convoy truck swerved to avoid a construction site and when returning to the lane, struck the motorcycle. Finding: negligence; Compensation: 302, 040 Afghani (appx. $6,111.76 US). Notes the "valuation chart for death claims in Afghanistan." See Army 59 -65 for related death.
Army Bates 89 - 90	11/2/2003	Airport Access Road, Mazar-i-Shariff, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of Afghani [Redacted] by Mr. Baiani, legal representative. [Redacted], a taxi driver, was driving down the center of the road when he collided with a US vehicle. Findings: negligence on behalf of deceased.
Army Bates 91	8/24/2004	Accident between Orgun and Khoust, Afghanistan	Claim filed on behalf of two parties [Redacted] and Atiq Ullah. [Redacted], a shop keeper in Khoust province of Afghanistan was driving when "one of the small [vehicles]" crossed his path and fired at him. The driver, [Redacted], was shot in the arm and the passenger, Atiq Ullah, was shot and killed. The engine of the car was damaged.
Army Bates 92 - 103	2/18/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was shot by US forces while driving along the Al Said Mohammed highway road. Father claims son was driving "very slowly" though official Army findings describe the son's manner as "threatening." The car also sustained damage. Includes Balad Court "Experiences Report" charting damage to the car and compensatory amounts. Also includes similar report estimating son's death compensation at $5,000 and "incorporeity damages" at $2,500. Finding: no negligence because of [Redacted]'s threatening behavior towards US personnel.
Army Bates 104 - 107	2/18/2006	Balad, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was shot by US forces while driving along the Al Said Mohammed highway road. Father claims son was driving "very slowly" though official Army findings describe the son's manner as "threatening." The car also sustained damage. Includes Balad Court "Experiences Report" charting damage to the car and compensatory amounts. Also includes similar report estimating son's death compensation at $5,000 and "incorporeity damages" at $2,500. Finding: no negligence because of [Redacted]'s threatening behavior towards US personnel. Appears to be duplicate of Army 92 - 103.
Army Bates 108 - 113	12/2/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claims filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife and sibling. [Redacted] was driving produce from his farm to the market when he was shot by Coalition Forces (CF). The CF stated that [Redacted] "demonstrated hostile intent by pulling into the middle of the convoy." Finding: not negligent.
Army Bates 114 - 117	12/28/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent and sibling. [Redacted] was in uncle's house when US forces dropped a bomb in the Al Duluyia area as part of a combat operation. [Redacted] was killed when the house was damaged. Finding: not qualified for compensation since US forces were engaged with insurgents from [Redacted]'s uncle's house and two others. See Army 124 -127 for related death.
Army Bates 118 - 119	1/29/2005	Buhriz, Iraq	Claim made on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. Claim was already paid to [Redacted]'s mother, and so the second claim for compensation was denied.
Army Bates 120 - 121	12/18/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim made on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was present in house when US forces raided it and killed him. [Redacted]'s father claims that he had no idea why the forces raided his house and denied ties to insurgents. Findings: denied for lack of evidence ("We cannot confirm incident in our SIGACT report as the incident occurred in Balad.")
Army Bates 122 - 123	9/20/2005	Khalis, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) on the road after he didn't stop at their checkpoint. CF had closed the road in order to secure a weapon from the middle of the road. Finding: denied due to negligence of [Redacted].
Army Bates 124 - 127	12/28/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by family member. [Redacted] was killed when US forces dropped a bomb on Al Duluyia homes in a combat operation. Finding: denied due to combat exception and insurgents' engaging the US from this house and two others.
Army Bates 128 - 132	9/29/2005	Khalis, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] died in a vehicular collision with US forces. The claim was initially denied after its filing in Nov. 2005 due to lack of evidence, specifically the absence of an engine in the car and lack of blood in the car interior. In Feb. 2006, claimant re-filed a new statement explaining what happened to the car engine. Reconsideration denied because US forces found that it was "hard to believe that someone would be interested in stealing a broken engine," and that this fact was damaging to the claim's validity. In Mar. 2006, claimant re-filed with "new evidence" stating "that the young boy was the casualty. The old evidence says the father died." Second reconsideration denied. Last reconsideration of June 2006 found that no evidence suggested the occurrence of the incident.
Army Bates 133 - 134	11/5/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] along with claimant and another person were shot at a crossroads close to a police station. [Redacted] died in the incident. Finding: Denied due to insufficient evidence and the incident's failure to appear in the SIGACT report.
Army Bates 135 - 136	11/5/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was dropping off his son at university when he was shot and killed by US forces. [Redacted] was parking his car when he "came too close to the CF convoy" and was shot. Finding: no negligence because of [Redacted]'s behavior and the fact that the bullet extracted from [Redacted] did not match any ammunition used by US forces.
Army Bates 137 - 139	1/15/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was riding a bus from Tikrit University to Al Alam. The bus cut across a field instead of taking the main road and headed towards a US Bradley/tank. The US tank viewed the bus as a threat and opened fired, killing "several passengers" and destroying the bus. Though there is "sufficient evidence" to prove that US forces shot at the bus and killed [Redacted], the bus driver's behavior was interpreted as hostile. Finding: Denied for combat exception.
Army Bates 140 - 141	3/29/2005	Aljama district, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by cousin, Hamza. Hamza and his cousin were driving through the Aljama neighborhood when Americans shot at them, damaging their car and killing at least one of them (perhaps both).
Army Bates 142 - 143	3/29/2005	Hae Algamece (illegible), Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by cousin. While driving with [Redacted] in a "Daiwo" 1993 model car, the two people were shot at by American forces, killing at least one of them (and perhaps both). Compensation sought for death(s) and damage to car.
Army Bates 144 - 145	2/12/2005	Taji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was riding on a KIA bus from Almishda (illegible) towards Baghdad. When the bus stopped to pick up another passenger, a US convoy appeared and shot at the passengers, killing [Redacted]. Finding: not included.
Army Bates 146 - 147	4/14/2005	Shaab, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was killed by US patrol near the intersection of the "Oil Club" after an explosion occurred nearby. Finding: not included.
Army Bates 148 - 150	7/4/2005	Shulla, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was driving his KIA car in the Alshola (illegible) district when American troops started "random" shootings and killed [Redacted]. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US military involvement.
Army Bates 151 - 152	6/8/2005	Taji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was driving his 1982 Toyota car to the mechanic. At the Taji highway, American soldiers (military police) shot at [Redacted], killing him and damaging the car. Finding: not included.
Army Bates 153 - 154	5/27/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was killed during a raid. Finding: denied for insufficient evidence of negligence. After reconsideration was brought in Jan. 2006, the claim was again denied for lack of evidence.
Army Bates 155 - 156	1/26/2006	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot in the shoulder and leg by Coalition forces while he was traveling with two companions. [Redacted]'s companions were compensated by coalition forces for their injuries. [Redacted] requested compensation for wound and damage to the car. [Redacted] named C/14 EN MC9574 5696 as the personnel/ unit involved in incident. Finding: denied for lack of evidence.
Army Bates 157 - 160	6/1/2006	Hib Hib, Iraq	Claim on behalf of three Iraqi children [Redacted], ages 16, 18, and 5 by father (or older brother). The children were killed when soldiers from FOB Warhorse accidentally discharged 155 mm rounds. The house was also damaged. Finding: negligent behavior; Compensation: $35,000 total ($11,000 each for deaths of three children and $2,000 for damage to house).
Army Bates 161 - 164	5/5/2005	Dhoyala (illegible), Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was driving a KIA minibus from Samarra to Baghdad when a US convoy hit his bus from behind and pushed him towards another member of the convoy coming from the opposite direction. The opposite convoy struck [Redacted]'s car and flipped it over. [Redacted] was taken to hospital for injuries where he died. No findings are mentioned, but claimant was awarded $2,500 in compensation for property damage.
Army Bates 165 - 166	2/8/2005	Iron Horse Base, Al Mashtal, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi child [Redacted] by relative. [Redacted] was passing a tower of the base when he held up his school bag. A sniper at the base mistook the bag for a dangerous object and shot and killed the child. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 167 - 168	5/3/2005	Al Mashtal, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was shot and killed while driving past or at an American check point. Finding: denied for "claim code 1" (likely as a result of combat operations).
Army Bates 169 - 170	1/16/2005	Buhriz, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was killed when Coalition Forces (CF) raided a coffee shop. Several people from the shop were lined up on the ground and [Redacted] was shot. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of participation of US forces or evidence of incident occurring.
Army Bates 171 - 174	12/24/2005	Al Duluyehai, Salah ad Din province, Iraq	Claim made on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was visiting a neighbor when Coalition Forces (CF) raided the house and killed both [Redacted] and the neighbor. CF reported being attacked in the area and returning fire to kill three insurgents; report does not state whether [Redacted] was one of these insurgents. Finding: denied due to combat.
Army Bates 175 - 176	1/23/2006	Beladruz, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces on the road after an IED exploded about 200 meters away from them. Finding: denied on combat grounds.
Army Bates 177 - 178	11/12/2005	Abi Garma, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was at a US checkpoint and attempting to turn his car around, as instructed, when he was shot and killed. Finding: lack of evidence to prove negligence. "Additionally, such fire engagement by any checkpoint guardsman was likely a result of the deceased's failure to follow written or verbal instruction at a checkpoint."
Army Bates 179	2/18/2006	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of one deceased Iraqi [Redacted] and two wounded children [Redacted]. [Redacted] were shot while in taxi in "EOF." Notes investigation completed and compensation already paid. This claim by family denies that they were paid. Investigation into payment to ensue.
Army Bates 180 - 181	11/22/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted] was forced off the road while driving by US forces who hit his car from behind, resulting in [Redacted]'s death. Finding: "Claimant needs to bring in pictures for this office to fully understand extent of damages."
Army Bates 182 - 183	10/20/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted] was pulled over to the side of the road and shot and killed by US forces without provocation. Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US forces involvement.
Army Bates 184 - 188	4/11/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. Son was at work when he was told that his father had been shot by US soldiers. When son arrived at the scene, soldiers were present and the body was 100 m away. "A SIGACTS investigation revealed that a VBIED attacked a US patrol, resulting in 22 civilian WIA and 3 civilian KIA." Finding: denied for combat exception (Dec. 05) and for lack of evidence (Jan. 06).
Army Bates 189 - 192	6/1/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by relative. [Redacted] was trying to hail a taxi when he was shot. Claimant says that [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF), but according to a SIGACTS investigation, [Redacted] was shot by Iraqi Police. Finding: denial due to lack of involvement by US forces.
Army Bates 193 - 196	11/2/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was a passenger in son in law's car, traveling from an industrial area to the market. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) for no apparent reason while on the road. Finding: denied due to combat grounds.
Army Bates 197 - 200	1/1/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was standing in the street when Coalition Forces (CF) convoy left the parking lot of the Youth Center and shot and killed him. SIGACTS investigation revealed that the convoy was firing back at attacking insurgents. Finding: denied on combat grounds.
Army Bates 201 - 204	1/10/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. Claimant's cousin was driving a 1995 GMC Suburban vehicle through a checkpoint set up to find an IED (improvised explosive device). SIGACT investigation showed vehicle tried to bypass vehicles ahead in line at the checkpoint and Coalition Forces (CF) fired at the vehicle, causing it to catch on fire. CF warning shots were not acknowledged. Several people inside the car were injured or killed. Claimant also asked for compensation for car. Finding: denied based on combat grounds. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 205 - 207	4/2/2005	Redacted	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. Husband, wife, and children were returning home from a party when they were fired on by Coalition Forces (CF). An RPG had been previously fired at CF and CF were returning fire when they struck and killed [Redacted]. The vehicle was also damaged by gunfire. Finding: not included. A condolence payment of $4,000 US total ($2,500 for death and $1,500 for damage) is offered and justified as follows: "By making this condolence payment, MNF ensures the family and community recognize the MNFs' sympathy for the unfortunate occurrence. Support will positively influence both the community and local Iraqi leaders."
Army Bates 208 - 211	8/4/2005	Owja, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was waiting for a taxi along the highway about 1500 meters from an Owja fuel station. A cousin at the fuel station witnessed a US convoy drive by and shoot [Redacted] in the neck and chest. [Redacted] died at the hospital. Cousin held $1,500 in his pocket to buy a car, which become bloodied. Finding: initially recommended to be denied (Oct. 2005) due to combat grounds. Condolence payment granted on Nov. 2005 for $2,500 US. The interpreter taking the initial statement made a note in the margin saying, "This is true!"
Army Bates 212 - 214	2/27/2005	Taji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. Father was driving his family towards Taji. Near a gas station, a US convoy pulled up beside him and behind him. A convoy shot into the car, killing his daughter and wounding his wife and other daughter. The car was also damaged. Finding: lack of evidence of US involvement. Claim denied for lack of evidence despite the presence of three eyewitnesses (father, wife, and daughter).
Army Bates 215 - 217	1/2/2005	Almishada, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father, Nawaf Khaled Homedi. After a bomb exploded near the Almishada mosque, [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces who were randomly firing. Finding: denied for lack of proof of US involvement.
Army Bates 218 - 220	2/24/2005	Almishada, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces while waiting in line to fill a fuel can at a gas station. Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 221 - 223	2/13/2005	Adhamiya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by friend. Four friends were driving in a KIA Prejio when they were shot by US Army in Humvees. Three were injured and one was killed. Finding: denied for lack proof of US involvement. Denied for lack of proof despite three eyewitnesses (friends in the car).
Army Bates 224 - 226	1/30/2005	Al-Fadhil, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was playing football with friends in the early morning when he was shot and killed by US army patrol. Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 227 - 228	1/20/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of [Redacted]'s car and his injured wife. [Redacted], a taxi driver, and wife were driving in a circle when a US Humvee hit their car. [Redacted] said that US soldiers stopped, took photos of the damage, and apologized. Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US involvement. Note: The letter denying the claim ends with "I wish you well in a Free Iraq" (this phrase is part of the form language and appears elsewhere).
Army Bates 229 - 230	2/13/2005	Hawija Market, Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by relative. [Redacted] was killed by a stray bullet on the way to the graveyard to visit his uncle's grave. Relatives says that the firefight was between Coalition Forces (CF) and anti-CF. [Redacted] was deaf and mute. Finding: denied for lack of evidence that US was involved in a firefight at that location/date.
Army Bates 231 - 234	6/26/2005	Al Dujayl, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of [Redacted] for damages to his car. [Redacted]'s brother was driving [Redacted]'s car as a taxi from Tikrit to Baghdad. As he passed a US convoy, he was shot and killed. The car was also damaged. There is no record of the claimant asking for compensation for the brother's death. Claimant seeks compensation for car. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $600 US.
Army Bates 235 - 236	4/12/2005	Ageel (illegible) area close to Fatha, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was a site supervisor in the Oil Protection Force. Traveling between his site and headquarters, he was involved in an ambush and shot and killed by unknown people. His vehicle and rifle were also stolen. Finding: denied due to lack of proof of US involvement.
Army Bates 237 - 238	5/12/2005	Between Shourjah and Raheem, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of [Redacted] for damages to his car. [Redacted] described turning on the road and being fired upon by Coalition Forces (CF) from or near an arch after he failed to stop for CF near a checkpoint. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 239 - 240	8/30/2003	Hawija, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was killed along with his friend [Redacted] when Coalition Forces (CF) bombed an area associated with a terrorist. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 241 - 242	11/11/2004	Hawija, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted], a student, was standing in the doorway of his house with his brothers when he was struck by a stray bullet from Coalition Forces (CF) and anti-CF fighting. [Redacted] died in the hospital. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 243 - 244	7/10/2004	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by his wife. [Redacted] was working as a guard at the Dep't of Agriculture when a Coalition Forces (CF) convoy passed and shot and killed him. According to the wife's statement, the CF "started shooting randomly responding to the shooting." Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 245 - 246	4/7/2004	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed during a clash between Coalition Forces (CF) and anti-CF in the market. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 247 - 248	7/11/2003	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of three Iraqis [Redacted] by father. The three victims were driving with other passengers (possibly the father) to the hospital when they were shot by Coalition Forces (CF). The three sons were killed along with a fourth, not related. Father says that he later learned that CF were staging an ambush at the place where his sons were killed and that "they [CF] were suspecting those people were a terrorist." It's unclear whether "those people" refers to the sons or other individuals outside the car. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 249 - 250	7/11/2003	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was in a car with several other passengers on their way to the hospital. [Redacted] was shot and killed by CF forces who were staging an ambush. Three others were also killed. Seeks compensation for death and car damage. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Notes that the car [Redacted] was traveling in had been repaired at the time of parent's witness statement.
Army Bates 251 - 252	11/12/2004	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed by a stray bullet during a firefight between Coalition Forces (CF) and anti-CF. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 253 - 254	4/2/2004	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi student [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], a student at Mousel University, left his house to meet his friend and never returned. His father was informed by local police that his son had been killed in Coalition Forces (CF) and anti-CF firefight. Finding: denied for combat exemption.
Army Bates 255 - 256	4/7/2004	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was returning from sentry duty at a chemical warehouse when he was killed by Coalition Forces (CF) snipers engaged in battle with anti-CF. [Redacted] had eleven members in his family. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 257 - 259	10/9/2003	Bank of Al Zab river near Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was fishing with a friend when he was killed by Coalition Forces (CF). The friend was also killed. Finding: denied in June 2003 for combat exemption. A note at the bottom of the page says "Appeal denied- new stmt says he had a rifle." Claim was appealed and denied for combat exemption in Aug. 2005.
Army Bates 260 - 261	11/11/2004	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed by Coalition Forces (CF). Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement. Two witnesses are mentioned, without addresses except cities, yet the claim was denied for lack of proof of CF involvement.
Army Bates 262 - 263	7/3/2003	Al Wasti district, Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqi brothers [Redacted] and Hersh by sibling. The brothers were doing construction on a house when a suspected "fedaeen Saddam" ran into the house. Coalition Forces (CF) shot the brothers in an attempt to hit the suspect. [Redacted] was injured and Hersh was killed. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of CF involvement and combat exemption. The investigation officer at the Al-miqdad police station listed as a witness and the surviving brother should have been able to provide evidence, yet claim was denied for lack of evidence.
Army Bates 264 - 265	4/10/2003	Al-Rashad suburb, Bulldag village, Iraq	Claim on behalf of four Iraqis [Redacted] by family member. The four family members were killed when their house was destroyed during an air raid in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Claim also filed for damage to house. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Notes a similar claim filed on 12/28/03 that was also denied.
Army Bates 266 - 267	2/19/2004	Near the bank of Wahid Huzeeran, Kikurk, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for injury. [Redacted] and his friend, Falah Hither Hector were driving in a car when they saw a firefight. They took a side street to avoid the fight, but ran into a Coalition Forces (CF) check point. When they tried to turn around, CF fired, killing Hector and wounding the driver, [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of CF involvement.
Army Bates 268 - 270	11/12/2004	Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was killed outside the gate of his house by Coalition Forces (CF). Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $500.00 US. Notes that "condolence payments are cash payments to local nationals, or to their family members" who suffer death or injury due to CF action. Condolence payments are made "without reference to fault by either the local national or US forces, as an expression of sympathy and good will and in the best interest of the US government."
Army Bates 271 - 272	3/27/2006	Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was riding in a taxi when Coalition Forces fired on the car, killing the driver and paralyzing the son. The son was rendered blind, fully paralyzed, and "unconscious." Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 273 - 274	4/7/2004	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. [Redacted] was shot by US forces during a firefight with Anti-Iraqi forces. A peaceful demonstration near [Redacted's] house became a firefight between Anti-Iraqi forces within the crowd and Coalition Forces (CF). A stray bullet killed [Redacted] in her house. Husband stated that he knew his wife was killed by CF because at the time of her shooting, only American soldiers were left at the scene. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of CF involvement in a firefight on that date and combat exception. Two neighbor eyewitnesses are identified, yet claim denied for lack of evidence.
Army Bates 275 - 276	1/8/2006	Khalis, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for injuries he sustained and destruction of his car. [Redacted] was driving his taxi cab when an accident occurred that resulted in injuries to [Redacted], the death of three unnamed Iraqis, and the loss of the car. Finding: denied due to "insufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. Not enough evidence to show this was not combat related."
Army Bates 277 - 278	1/8/2006	Udaim, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], a taxi passenger, was killed in an accident with US forces. Finding: denied due to "insufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. Not enough evidence to show this was not combat related."
Army Bates 279 - 280	1/8/2006	Between Khalis and Kikurk, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraiq, Muthan Nori Ibrahim by father. Ibrahim, a taxi passenger, was killed in an accident with US forces. Finding: denied due to "insufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. Not enough evidence to show this was not combat related."
Army Bates 281 - 283	10/14/2005	Camp Normandy, Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. [Redacted] was riding in a car with three other unnamed people. Shots were fired from a gate at Normandy, and [Redacted] died along with another passenger. Two others were injured. Finding: denied (3/14/06) due to lack of evidence of US negligence; denied after reconsideration (4/23/06) because of lack of photographs, autopsy, and evidence warranting US forces' negligence.
Army Bates 284 - 287	3/5/2006	Al Duluyia, Iraq or Farhatya, Eshaki, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was killed by US forces in Balad while driving in a taxi on the way to town. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement ("There is no record of this incident.") and time between incident and filing of claim (11 months) made investigation impossible.
Army Bates 288 - 289	1/1/2005	Al Rashad hospital, Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was shot in the head by American forces. [Redacted] died of his wound in the hospital. Finding: denied for combat exemption).
Army Bates 290 - 291	4/9/2004	Al Naif Quarter, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for injuries sustained while he was driving in front of an American patrol. Car damage also reported. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence supporting US negligence.
Army Bates 292 - 293	2/28/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted], a businessman, was shot and killed at home by an American patrol. [Redacted] left behind a family and children without support. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 294 - 295	1/12/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	Claim filed on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was on his way to the gas station in Baghdad when he was shot by American forces. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US fault.
Army Bates 296 - 297	2/22/2005	Al Qanal highway near "amusement town," between Sadr City and Al Amin Quarter, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was driving to Al Amin Quarter from Al Sadr City when he was involved in an accident with Coalition Forces and killed (CF). An Iraqi witness confirmed that the accident was caused by CF. [Redacted] lived with his son and both parents in a rented room. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US fault. Denied due to lack of evidence despite presence of witness.
Army Bates 298 - 301	10/26/2004	Diyala Bridge, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was driving when Coalition Forces (CF) started firing at the vehicle in front of [Redacted]'s. [Redacted] was hit with a stray bullet and died. Finding: denied due to combat exemption (Aug 2005); denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement (Sept. 2005). The earlier Dep't of Army memo also questions validity of claim: "By the use of bad grammar and Iraqi wording, it is believable that the claims card [presented by claimant] was falsely made to make the claim look meritorious."
Army Bates 302 - 303	5/11/2005	Mohammed Al-Qassim street, Al-Jadedah, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was driving on Al-Qassim street near an American convoy. When one of his wheels separated from the car, the convoy forces shot at him, killing [Redacted] and damaging the car. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence supporting US negligence or fault. Appears to be same incident as Army 305 -306.
Army Bates 304 - 304a	8/23/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] filed by brother, an Iraqi policeman. The policeman and his brother were in a vehicle when US forces shot in their direction and killed [Redacted]. Finding: denied because the Foreign Claims Commission could not identify the incident on SIGACT. Relies on SIGACT log to determine whether incident occurred. Policeman's word not able to overcome SIGACT burden. Claims form does not describe incident and instead refers to an "evidence packet," which is not included.
Army Bates 305 - 306	5/11/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim for vehicle damage filed by Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was driving on Al-Qassim street near an American convoy. When one of his wheels separated from the car, the convoy forces shot at him, killing [Redacted] and damaging the car. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence supporting US negligence or fault. Appears to be same incident as Army 302- 303.
Army Bates 307 - 309	12/24/2005	Salah ad Din province, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father and wife. [Redacted] was visiting a friend when he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces at the friend's house. The medical report showed the bullets to be American and witnesses also gave statements. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 310 - 313	12/25/2005	Al Mansuriyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was killed when a Humvee hit the car he was riding in. Claimant notes that "U.S. forces stopped on the scene but did not provide any paperwork." Finding: denied initially (1/31/06) due to lack of evidence to substantiate the claim "in the SIGACT report;" granted later and compensated for $3,000 US (3/27/06) due to "evidence that US soldiers might have been negligent in the act."
Army Bates 314 - 317	12/22/2005	Khalis, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was hit by a Humvee and killed. According to [Redacted]'s parent, at the time of the accident, the driver, a sergeant, cried and said "It was my fault." Army Memo states "Story checks out with SIGACT." Finding: negligence; Compensation: $6,000 US. Afterwards, the parent filed an additional request for $9,000. This finding was denied.
Army Bates 318 - 319	5/7/2005	Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother or parent. [Redacted] was selling CDs on the street when a clash broke out between American troops and Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF), killing [Redacted] in the cross-fire. Finding: denied for combat exemption.
Army Bates 320 - 321	4/13/2005	Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was killed while standing at his front door when a firefight broke out between American troops and Anti-Iraqi Forces. Finding: denied for combat exemption.
Army Bates 322 - 323	5/7/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed at his house by US Forces who believed he was a terrorist. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 324 - 327	6/10/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed by US Forces when the car he was riding in as part of a wedding procession drove near a US patrol. The vehicle was also damaged. Refers to a legal expert report's estimate of damage to the car. Notes that "there is no report of this incident in Division records." Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 328 - 330	8/14/2004	Al Rusafa, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was driving (possibly as a taxi driver) when he was shot and killed by US military. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 331 - 333	9/13/2005	Al Madaeen, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] who was driving his car at 3:00 a.m. [Redacted] arrived at an intersection where American Forces fired upon him, causing his death and the car to flip. Request for $10,000 US compensation for car and $1,000 for death. Finding: claim for $10,000 US denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 334 - 341	4/6/2005	Al Haidaya, Najaf, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother who was killed in a car accident while his car was pulled over on the side of the road. The second vehicle in a US convoy hit [Redacted]'s car, additionally damaging the vehicle and injuring his nephew, a young passenger. Finding: claim is credible; Compensation: $2,500 US for death; $2,000 US for vehicle damage and injuries.
Army Bates 342 - 343	1/1/2006	Ishaki, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was shot while standing at the window of his house 200 meters away from a house being raided by US Forces. In the process of the raid, US Forces killed [Redacted]. Finding: the claim was verified and an investigation was conducted. Compensation: $6,000 US.
Army Bates 344 - 347	12/24/2005	Kanaan, Iraq	Claim for reconsideration on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was killed by Coalition Forces while riding in a vehicle. Finding: originally denied because SIGACT report showed Iraqi police not US involvement; denied on reconsideration 1/29/06 for lack of evidence of US involvement (SIGACT report shows that Iraqi police were engaged with Anti-Iraqi Forces which led to the death or [Redacted]); denied on 3/9/06 for lack of evidence to substantiate claim.
Army Bates 348 - 352	1/6/2006	Diwaniyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. While driving, [Redacted] approached a US convoy from behind. The convoy waved at [Redacted] and then fired a warning shot into the ground. The shot ricocheted and struck and killed [Redacted]. [Redacted] was the sole provider for his family. Finding: negligence by gunmen due to violation of established guidelines for warning shots and partial negligence by [Redacted]; Compensation: $3,500 US. The compensation was reduced due to the partial negligence on the deceased's behalf. Includes a page signed by beneficiary of compensation, stating that he accepts payment and waives his claim against the US.
Army Bates 353 - 356	8/7/2005	Al Hillah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqis [Redacted], a mother and brother. The deceased were killed while driving near a camp in Babil at 10:00 p.m. Finding: denied without reason offered; denied after appeal.
Army Bates 357 - 359	9/26/2006	Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot by a US convoy while on the way to Baghdad. Finding: denied without specific reason offered (may be due to lack of a "spot report").
Army Bates 360 - 362	10/1/2005	Diwaniyah, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for his injuries and damage to his car. [Redacted], a taxi driver, was driving from Affak to Diwaniyah when a military convoy shot at him near a checkpoint. [Redacted] was injured in his head and shoulders, his car was severely damaged, and his passenger was either injured or killed. Finding: denied without specific reason.
Army Bates 363 - 365	8/31/2005	Diwaniyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was riding in a van between Najaf and Diwaniyah when American patrols fired on the van, killing him. [Redacted] was killed close to the first checkpoint from Diwaniyah. In a section left to describe the extent of the damage, claimant wrote "big family." Finding: denied without specific reason.
Army Bates 366 - 370	9/23/2005	Masayyib, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis, [Redacted] by brother/brother-in-law. The brother and his wife were driving with their two children (aged 7 and 4 according to claimant and 9 and 6 according to the government) when they approached a US patrol. The patrol signaled for the car to stop, and when it did not, the patrol fired 200 rounds, killing the two parents, injuring the children, and damaging the children. Finding: negligent due to "excessive" use of firearms; also negligence on behalf of driver for refusing to stop his vehicle; Compensation: $10,000 US.
Army Bates 371 - 373	4/1/2005	Najaf, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was driving his car when he was hit by an American convoy. When he tried to escape the damaged vehicle, the troops shot and killed him. [Redacted] was reported to be the sole earner in his family after his parents both died in 1991. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied without specific explanation.
Army Bates 374 - 377	3/19/2006	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], a member of the Iraqi Army, was visiting his parents while on leave. When [Redacted] stepped out of the house, he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) who were conducting a raid in the area. Though a SIGACT report mentions the raid, it does not mention the specific shooting of [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of wrongdoing by CF. The father provided his own witness statement plus the statements of his wife, and two cousins, which were all found to be consistent. These statements are not enough evidence to outweigh the absence of the event in the SIGACT report.
Army Bates 378 - 380	11/7/2005	Road between Diwaniyah and Najaf, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was stopped by a convoy at a checkpoint. The convoy then fired at the car, killing [Redacted]. The truck was also damaged. According to the claim statement, that US reported the incident. Finding: denied without specific explanation.
Army Bates 381 - 384	9/10/2005	Al Ramadi, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], on his way from Jordan, was shot when he passed a US military camp near Al Ramadi. [Redacted]'s car was also "burn[ed]...completely." The soldiers then delivered the body to his family. [Redacted] was an electrical engineer and supported his family. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 385 - 388	9/1/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was killed when a US convoy approaching from the opposite direction shot at him and caused his car to overturn. Iraqi police then took [Redacted] to the hospital. [Redacted] may have had a passenger with him at the time who was also injured. Finding: claim granted without explanation (likely negligence found); Compensation: $7,000 US.
Army Bates 389 - 393	2/21/2005	Al Wihda district, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by uncle. [Redacted] and his uncle drove to a gas station to pick up fuel. On the way, US forces fired on the vehicle, killing [Redacted], injuring the uncle's hand, and damaging the car. "When the other relative came to the incident place he found that there was a black female soldier crying near the body, she was also shouting on [sic] the soldier who shot [Redacted]." Finding: claim granted; Compensation: $4,000 US.
Army Bates 394 - 397	4/10/2006	Al Axa village, Ishaki, Iraq	Claim on behalf of [Redacted] by husband. [Redacted] was shot while retrieving her husband's heart medication from the refrigerator by Coalition Forces (CF) during a raid. CF then raided the home and saw the dead wife. The husband was also injured during the raid, and taken to "Abu G and Anaconda." According to the Army memo," A SIGACTS investigation revealed no raids or detainees in the area." Finding: denied for lack of evidence to support the claim and also due to combat exception.
Army Bates 398 - 401	2/11/2006	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted], an Iraqi Police officer, was allegedly killed by a Coalition Forces sniper near a checkpoint close to Forward Operating Base (FOB) Pailwoda. SIGACT investigation revealed that an Iraqi police officer was killed at this place, but that the death was caused by Anti Iraqi Forces (AIF). Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of CF involvement.
Army Bates 402 - 405	3/10/2006	Al Qadasia quarter, Samarra, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for injuries (it is unclear whether the claim is by a man for his injuries or by a man for another's death). [Redacted] encountered a firefight between Coalition Forces (CF) and Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF) and was shot. SIGACTS investigation revealed that CF had two operations against AIF, but in different areas of the city than claim. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of CF involvement, and because were the claims true, the combat exemption would apply.
Army Bates 406 - 409	4/25/2006	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son, Badrich Kamel Mohammed. Mohammed's father was an employee with the Samarra municipality. He was on his way to work when he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces. An incorrectly reported date of incident may have resulted in the 6/23/06 finding that CF forces were not involved. Finding: denied due to combat exception (7/5/06) and denied due to negligence by deceased (7/11/06).
Army Bates 410 - 412	2/3/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqi children [Redacted] by their parent. The two children were returning home from school when a convoy passing through their quarter struck an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The convoy started shooting randomly and hit and killed the two children. Two witnesses observed the incident. According to SIGACTS, no IED attacks occurred in Samarra on the reported date (though two attacks occurred during previous days). Finding: denied for insufficient evidence and combat exemption. The SIGACT report is valued over two witness statements (which are referenced but not included). The Army memo states "Facts as alleged show CF were reacting to an IED, a combat activity" though it also contends that there is not enough information to prove the claim.
Army Bates 413 - 416	4/2/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband or brother. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) returning fire outside of her house. The CF were responding to Anti-Iraqi Forces. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exemption (had enough evidence been presented). Relies on SIGACT log to determine whether incident occurred.
Army Bates 417 - 420	1/12/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. The parent is a farmer who lives in a mud hut near the highway. A Coalition Forces (CF) convoy passed near a detonated Improvised Explosive Device and started shooting randomly, hitting and killing [Redacted]. Two witnesses observed the incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exception. Values SIGACTS investigation over eyewitnesses in determining whether incident occurred.
Army Bates 421 - 425	3/29/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. The husband and wife were traveling by car to Samarra General Hospital. The wife may have been in labor or having pains associated with labor (illegible). American forces open fired on the car, killing the wife. Finding: denied 7/2/06 due to lack of evidence/ combat exception; denied 7/5/06 after date of incident was corrected due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 426 - 429	12/17/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. The husband was traveling in a taxi through a Coalition Forces (CF) checkpoint. After receiving a wave to go ahead, the taxi proceeded and the CF shot the vehicle. The taxi caught on fire and [Redacted] and another passenger burned to death. Two witnesses provided statements but SIGACTS investigation didn't turn up any similar activity. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exception.
Army Bates 430 - 438	10/1/2005	Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father, Abdulkalik . The son, a newlywed whose wife was pregnant, was killed driving from Baghdad to Kikurk. He was shot in the abdomen by Coalition Forces (CF) when he stopped at a checkpoint, and his car was flipped. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence: "No deaths or EOF [escalation of force incidents] were reported by Coalition Forces on 1 October 2005." Email from [Redacted] administrator to [Redacted] paralegal NCO states: "If he [claimant] wants to come file a claim here to possibly get a CERP [condolence] payment that's fine. How was he [deceased] supposed to know to get out of the vehicle when they fired warning shots If I was [sic] in his place I would have stayed put too. All TF BoB SIGACTs from early October are missing from their database...a general search turned up a couple of EOFs that could match Abdulkalik's claim. Again, combat denied." There appears to be a discrepancy over whether EOF incidents did occur at the time of the claim.
Army Bates 439 - 454	10/31/2005	Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Yousif [Redacted] by father. Yousif, his two children, and his wife attempted to drive around cars stopped to let a US convoy pass. After the convoy signaled Yousif to stop without result, one soldier shot the Yousif in the shoulder, killing him. Yousif's car was similar to a car described to the convoy earlier as being occupied by a possible suicide bomber. The Army conducted an investigation into the incident and recommended that the gunner responsible for the shooting receive retraining but that no punitive actions should be taken against him. Finding: denied due to combat exception. A CERP Condolence payment was paid to Yousif's wife ($2,500 US for his death; $300 US for the car damage). While signing and approving the condolence payment, [Redacted] MAJ JA Command Judge Advocate notes "Lieutenant was negligent in his actions...[there] may be a later claim for car damage."
Army Bates 455 - 458	11/1/2005	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of 17 year old Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was shot and killed when Coalition Forces (CF) returned fire after an ambush. Police investigator in Haweja verified incident. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 459 - 462	4/7/2005	Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. Claimant's husband was shot and killed by Coalition Forces when he failed to stop for a US patrol. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 463 - 466	8/15/2005	Al Khailani, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted], a police officer was on his way to work at the Ministry of Interior when he was shot and killed by US forces. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 467 - 473	3/4/2005	Al Masthal Quarter, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) conducting a security patrol. [Redacted] did not stop his vehicle when warned, and CF shot towards the car. Notes that [Redacted], the driver, may have been drunk. In addition to [Redacted], two of the other three passengers were shot, including a 23 year old male and a 12 year old boy. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence: the family received a condolence payment for an unspecified amount.
Army Bates 474 - 477	7/20/2005	Al Kamalya highway towards Al Mashta, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot and killed by an American convoy that approached his vehicle from behind. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Claim is denied due to combat, but a note indicates that the unit that filled out the claims card wasn't involved in any EOF and SIGACTS and DIV do not mention this incident. Includes copy of Iraqi Claims Pocket Card.
Army Bates 478 - 482	6/11/2005	Canal Road, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted], the driver of the car, let off a passenger on the side of the highway in front of a US patrol. The passenger picked up a long cylindrical object (in an attempt to repair the car). The car began to drive off, and soldiers fired warning shots before shooting and killing [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 483 - 486	5/31/2005	Canal Road, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted] was driving on the right side of the road when an American tank approached it in the same lane, crushing the car and killing the driver. Finding: denied based on lack of evidence involving US forces and for use of an unoriginal claims card that had been used previously.
Army Bates 487 - 490	6/24/2005	Al Madaeen, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was sleeping on the roof of his house when he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces' fire. Finding: denied, combat exception.
Army Bates 491 - 494	7/27/2005	Baghdad , Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. Thaer Marhoong Thaer was in the car with his wife and kids when his son was killed by Coalition Forces fire. The vehicle was also damaged. Claimant asks for "[t]he blood money for killing my husband $4000." Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 495 - 498	1/8/2005	Shirgat, Iraq	Claim on behalf of 13 Iraqis [Redacted] by family member. Claimant's father and twelve relatives were killed when US forces mistakenly dropped a bomb on their house. Claimant notes that the US apologized for this mistake, which was covered in the news. The bomb also damaged the house and destroyed 85,750,000 ID that were inside. Army memo: "There was no report of this incident by artillery units, aviation units, or on significant acts." Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 499 - 501	8/8/2005	Road between Owja and Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] for injuries he incurred when he drove into a US convoy and was shot. His cousin was also killed, and his car, which flipped, was damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 502 - 505	8/24/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was killed in her house by US artillery. Finding: negligence and/or wrongful acts by US forces; Compensation: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 506 - 508	1/6/2005	Yousifya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed in his car by multi-national forces. A car belonging to Sennia A. Obaed was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 509 - 510	7/24/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], who was 20 years old, was shot and killed inside his house by a US artillery raid. Finding: not included.
Army Bates 511 - 513	12/13/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted], who was mentally ill, was killed by US forces who shot him as he ran from them with wires exposed on his body. Claim was validated by "commander on site at the time." Finding: granted without specific reason; Compensation: $4,000 US.
Army Bates 514 - 517	4/16/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted] was killed in the crossfire between Coalition Forces (CF) and Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF). Army memo reveals a "SIGACTS investigation (#6595) revealed than an IP patrol was attacked by an AIF drive by shooting near the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The SIGACT revealed no Iraqi civilian injuries." Finding: denied due to lack of CF responsibility and combat exemption.
Army Bates 518 - 521	2/24/2005	Al Dijail, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], a shepherd, was tending his sheep 1,000 meters from a site where Coalition Forces (CF) detonated a stockpile of old regime ammunition. The detonation resulted in shrapnel, some of which hit and killed [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Finds that "detonation of ammunition" is a combat activity.
Army Bates 522 - 525	1/25/2006	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was driving towards a checkpoint when his brakes failed. US forces shot and killed him when he did not stop at the checkpoint. Army memo: "A SIGACTS investigation revealed no escalations of force during the alleged time and place of the incident." Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of event occurring.
Army Bates 526 - 530	10/2/2004	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. Claimant's husband and son were driving to Mosul to buy supplies for their shop. They carried $7,000 with them for the trip. A Coalition Forces (CF) convoy stopped the car and killed [Redacted]. A SIGACTS report revealed that CF tried to get the car to stop, and fired when it did not. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Wife was compensated $2,500 US in condolence payment. Compensation for money inside the car isn't mentioned (except by claimant who requests it).
Army Bates 531 - 534	10/2/2004	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. The driver of a car was traveling from Mosul to Baghdad when he was stopped at a Tikrit checkpoint. As he tried to pull over to get out of the way, a Humvee across the street shot and killed the passenger, [Redacted]. Amry memo: "SIGACTS revealed no incidents similar to claimant's description." Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exception (had evidence existed). CTS accepted over two witness statements to deny claim.
Army Bates 535 - 536	1/18/2005	Baghdad , Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was driving or riding in a bus when he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces gunfire. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US fault.
Army Bates 537 - 538	1/19/2005	Alwiya Hospital, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was in his car near the hospital when an explosion killed him and damaged the vehicle. Finding: denied due to loss being result of Anti-Coalition forces.
Army Bates 539 - 540	1/26/2005	Dalchel Gas Station, Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was waiting at a gas station to purchase kerosene when fighting broke out and he was shot and killed. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US fault.
Army Bates 541 - 542	1/30/2005	Election Centre, New Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by family member. [Redacted], a policeman, was protecting an election center when he was killed by a nearby explosion. Finding: denied due to loss being result of Anti-Coalition forces.
Army Bates 543 - 545	5/27/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted], a captain in IN6, and his wife were at home when Coalition Forces (CF) mistakenly raided his home. [Redacted], who "had gun when he confronted CF," was shot and killed. His wife was injured and the house was also damaged. Finding: denied based on lack of evidence of US fault.
Army Bates 546 - 549	11/3/2005	Tuz, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. The brother and nephew were killed in a vehicular accident with Coalition Forces (CF). The vehicle was also damaged. Both the deceased brother and nephew were married with four children apiece. The claim for each life is $12,000 "based off of what the local mayor was purportedly paid for his son's death." Finding: denied because condolence payment ($2,500 US from "Bulk Condolence Fund") was already made for each death; vehicular claim denied because claimant lacked power of attorney to file on behalf of the owner of the car. Chart of "CERP PYMT" lists payment of condolence to "nephew Najeb" on behalf of the two deceased Iraqis. Chart also describes the incident further: "[Redacted] was shot in shoulder and died at hospital by CF convoy after he failed to stop."
Army Bates 550 - 554	2/13/2006	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by cousin, an Iraqi Army Lieutenant. [Redacted], a fisherman, was fishing on the Tigris River in the early morning when a Coalition Forces (CF) helicopter flew over and shone a spotlight on him. [Redacted] began to shout in English, "Fish! Fish!" while pointing to his catch. A patrol of Humvees arrived, and as the deceased bent down to turn off the boat's motor, CF shot and killed him. CF did not secure the boat, which drifted off and was never retrieved. SIGACTS confirmed the events. Finding: compensation for death denied due to combat exception (because the soldiers thought [Redacted] was reaching for a weapon); compensation for boat granted: $3,500 US. (Army Memo: "The claimant has presented receipts for the boat, cell phone, engine a fishing net retrieval [sic] mechanism totaling $5,600, however the actual value of these items is less."
Army Bates 555 - 557	8/6/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Ali Mahdi Salih by wife. As he drove past a convoy of US contractors, Salih was shot and killed by the contractors. The vehicle was also damaged. Salih left behind two wives. Finding: denied because the contractors are not governmental employees.
Army Bates 558 - 563	3/29/2005	Taji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacated], a taxi driver, had pulled off the road near the Baghdad gate for a convoy. As the convoy approached, Coalition Forces shot [Redacted] inside his car and killed him. The deceased was the sole provider of income for his wife and three children. Two eyewitnesses corroborated the story (including one passenger inside the car). SIGACTS revealed no similar activity. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of event occurring. Values SIGACTS investigation over eyewitnesses in determining whether incident occurred.
Army Bates 564 - 567	9/25/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of seven Iraiqs [Redacted] by family member. Coalition Forces (CF) artillery fire killed seven members of a family (ages 1, 12, 15, 18, 22, 28, and 33 ). The claimant's wife and grandchild were also injured. Claimant provided seven death certificates and produced two witnesses. SIGACTS revealed that there was no CF artillery fire on that day. Evidence of Anti-Iraqi Forces involvement was found. Finding: denied due to lack of CF involvement.
Army Bates 568 - 569	2/16/2005	Palestine Street, Baghdad , Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was driving through Palestine Street when three cars belonging to US forces appeared and opened fire, killing [Redacted]. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to lack evidence of US fault.
Army Bates 570	2/23/2005	CP 546	Claims on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] met a US convoy that was driving northbound in a southbound lane at night. [Redacted] did not move out of the path of the convoy. The convoy fired warning shots, which entered the car and killed [Redacted]. [Redacted] had one wife and two kids. NCOIC Notes: "3-7 & 15-6 Inv want to pay claim and say they were responsible. Recommend $7,000 if you decide to pay this." Finding: granted without specific reason provided; Compensation: $7,000 US. Example of Claims Info. Sheet.
Army Bates 571 - 573	1/11/2005	Bab Al-Sheelah, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces that were passing by in a vehicle. The US forces began shooting at random, and hit [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 574 - 576	3/24/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] got into an accident with a US tank. [Redacted] was killed and the vehicle was damaged as a result. Finding: granted for evidence that the claimant's vehicle was hit by a US truck; Compensation: $6,000 US.
Army Bates 577 - 580	7/7/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by nephew or niece. While in a car, [Redacted] was hit and killed by a US Bradley. The car was also damaged. SIGACTS showed that US forces were involved in the accident. Finding: granted without specific reason; Compensation: $7,000 US ($5,000 US for death and $2,000 US for car).
Army Bates 581	2/14/2005	Diyala province, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was killed by Coalition Forces when they fired at his truck. Finding: denied because "No denial memo to reference original claim. A name search turned up negative results." Appears to be a secondary claim; the original claim is not included. The claim form is not included either.
Army Bates 582 - 584	1/9/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife or mother. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces who fired at him and his car while on patrol. Army Memo: "The incident date for this claim predates the arrival of the 1/15th IN and thus there is no record of this incident." Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 585 - 587	9/20/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was working in his shop when he was hit by random firing from a US patrol. The father underwent two operations subsequent to the injury, and then died. On the date in question, there was a "major engagement" with Anti-Iraqi Forces in the Jubour peninsula. Father was sole provider for family. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of negligence (and likely for the combat exemption).
Army Bates 588 - 591	4/28/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted], a four year-old girl, was playing in her front yard when she was killed by Coalition Forces' (CF) fire. The CF and a Humvee were trying to cross the road and they shot to clear the traffic. A bullet ricocheted off of a wall and hit [Redacted]. Army memo: "A SIGACTS investigation revealed no activity meeting" the incident's description, and "the claim is too old to verify." Finding: denied due to lack of evidence. Condolence payment of $2,500 US granted.
Army Bates 592 - 595	9/17/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. The husband was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) while acting as a civilian guard near a market in Balad. SIGACTS investigation revealed no corresponding activity. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of CF involvement or negligence.
Army Bates 596 - 600	12/11/2006	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted], a passenger in a car, was killed along with another passenger when his vehicle became caught between two members of a US convoy. According to SIGACTS investigation, the firing came from anti-US forces. Finding: denied because the death was caused by Anti-Iraqi Forces. Condolence payment of $2,500 US granted.
Army Bates 601 - 605	12/11/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by cousin. [Redacted] was shot and killed while traveling on the Bayji Tikrit bypass by Coalition Forces. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence. Condolence payment of $2,500 US granted.
Army Bates 606 - 608	12/12/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was killed during a raid by Coalition Forces and Iraqi Army (IA) Forces. Finding: not included. Condolence payment of $2,500 US granted. The IA may have attempted to pay the condolence earlier, but may have paid it to the wrong person.
Army Bates 609 - 611	5/16/2005	Kanaan, Iraq	Claim by Iraiq [Redacted]. [Redacted] was driving his van from Baquba to Balad Ruze with several passengers. Near Kanan, Coalition Forces started shooting at the van, killing a passenger, injuring the claimant, and damaging the van. Finding: claim found to be "cognizable" but occurring outside the operation of the 278th RCT. The claim is denied and referred to the Third BCT for proper processing.
Army Bates 612 - 617	3/3/2004	Tuz, Iraq	Claim on behalf of four Iraqi family members. Claimant's mother, father, and brother were shot and killed inside their house by US forces while sleeping. Thirty-two sheep belonging to the claimant were also killed, and forty others were injured. The claimant was injured himself as well. The US unit was responding to an attack from the direction of the village. Finding: negligence on behalf of US troops; Compensation: $11,020 US. Condolence payment of $2,500 US granted. Notes (from the Foreign Claims Act) that "In cases of personal injury…the claim may be presented by the injured person, his authorized agent, legal representative, or by any person determined to be legally and beneficially entitled."
Army Bates 618 - 622	2/14/2005	Kanaan, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was driving near Forward Operating Base (FOB) Gabe when US forces opened fire on his car, killing him and damaging the vehicle. Claim for reconsideration contains no additional evidence. SIGACTS investigation does not corroborate event. Finding: denied based on lack of evidence. Denied even though claimant had submitted witness statements, police report, and medical examination report.
Army Bates 623 - 628	8/13/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed by Coalition Forces (CF) while he was at home and his wife was out feeding the livestock. "A SIGACTS investigation revealed various instances of CF patrols receiving small arms fire and IEDs in the vicinity." Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exemption (had it occurred).
Army Bates 629 - 631	4/30/2005	Mufrak Circle, Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was at home while US and Iraqi forces conducted a raid. A vehicle drove up and a VBIED detonated near claimant's son, killing him. Finding: denied due to combat exclusion.
Army Bates 632 - 635	5/25/2005	Al Abarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was outside his uncle's house when he heard gunfire from Coalition Forces (CF) conducting a raid inside the house. [Redacted] ran inside to attend to his uncle, and was mistaken by the CF for an insurgent and shot and killed. Finding: granted, without reason; Compensation: $4,000 US. The second page of the Army memo (which would contain the reason for granting the claim) is missing.
Army Bates 636 - 638	10/14/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was killed when Coalition Forces opened fire on the police car that he was riding in. [Redacted] had four children, ages 1, 2, 3, and 4. Claims form notes that "The S-5 should be able to verify the incident according to claimant." Finding: granted due to sufficient evidence to substantiate claim; Compensation: $6,000 US.
Army Bates 639 - 641	1/1/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. At 3:00 a.m., an American air bombardment dropped a rocket on claimant's house, killing his son and injuring seven other members of his family. The house was also destroyed. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 642 - 644	1/18/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] left his house and was shot and killed by the US Army. The soldiers then left [Redacted]'s body at one of the Al Radhwaneeya mosques. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 645 - 647	11/21/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was shot and killed when US forces fired upon his vehicle as it was leaving a warehouse. Army Memo: "TF Badger's S-5 Officer verifies" the incident. Finding: granted; Compensation: $6,000 US.
Army Bates 648 - 649	12/2/2005	Al Asshagi, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was driving to Diyala province to deliver farm products when a US convoy in front of him turned and began firing. [Redacted] was killed on site. Army Memo: "The SIGACT report confirmed occurrence of the incident and US negligence was involved." Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $6,000 US.
Army Bates 650 - 652	3/7/2005	Kanaan, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] and his brothers were in a heated argument, and fired weapons into the air. US forces nearby returned fire, killing [Redacted] and injuring one brother. A condolence payment was previously made. Finding: granted because of sufficient evidence to establish claim; Compensation: $6,000 US.
Army Bates 653 - 655	5/7/2005	Kanaan, Iraq	Claim for personal injuries by Iraqi [Redacted]. Claimant and his brother were shot by US forces. [Redacted] sustained a severe injury to his arm and his brother was killed. (Claim is not on behalf of brother.) Finding: granted due to sufficient evidence; Compensation: $4,000 US.
Army Bates 656 - 659	1/3/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted], who was deaf and nearly blind, was killed by Coalition Forces sniper on Al Shawaf street. His other brother witnessed the incident on his way to evening prayer. The SIGACTS report was unavailable. Army Memo: "Here, there is a presumption that snipers do not kill innocent civilians during force protection. There is no evidence of wrong-doing." Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 660 - 662	8/10/2005	Al Duluyehar, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted], 22 years old, was sleeping on the roof of his house when he was shot and killed by US forces. US Forces say the son was holding a weapon. Claimant also says that US forces entered his house, damaged it, and took $2,000 US and 250,000 Iraqi dinnari. Finding: denied due to lack of negligence since son wielded a weapon.
Army Bates 663 - 665	1/24/2005	Al Shaah Stadium, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was on his way to work when he was shot and killed by US patrol. His car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US negligence.
Army Bates 666 - 668	6/29/2005	Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was driving to work with his two sons when he neared a checkpoint. According to claimant, [Redacted] reduced his speed and US forces shot on him without warning, killing him and damaging the car. According to the Army memo, [Redacted] increased speed towards the checkpoint and did not stop at the warning shots. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 669 - 672	2/28/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. Claimant previously agreed to receive land in compensation for her husband's death by US forces. After the US forces failed to give her the land, she filed for monetary compensation. A commander involved substantiated the incident. Finding: granted. Compensation: $5,000 US.
Army Bates 673 - 676	9/3/2005	Ishaki, Iraq	Claim on behalf or Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed while driving behind a US convoy in a traffic circle. SIGACTS revealed that [Redacted] was killed in an escalation of force when he approached the convoy at a high speed. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 677	6/18/2004	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was mistaken for an insurgent and shot and killed by US forces outside of his house. Finding: not included. Army Memo with finding is not included.
Army Bates 678 - 681	4/10/2004	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces, who suspected him of being a terrorist. Wife said that husband was not a terrorist and didn't associate with terrorists. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 682 - 685	7/19/2004	Khirnabat, Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], a taxi driver, was shot and killed by US forces. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 686 - 689	12/14/2005	Shirgat, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi Policeman [Redacted] for damage to his car. [Redacted]'s car was shot near an election site when he failed to stop for US soldiers. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 690 - 693	6/16/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] rounded the corner before a check point at Yethrib police station. He was unable to stop in time, and the soldiers fired at the vehicle, killing him. [Redacted] left behind ten children. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 694 - 695	7/28/2005	Haweja Ak Kudes Village, Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of three Iraqis [Redacted] by sibling. While returning from his farm with two sisters and one brother, the claimant's car was shot by Coalition Forces. The two sisters were killed, the brother was injured, and the car was damaged. Finding: denied because of lack of evidence showing US involvement and "the death certificates indicate [his] sisters died due to head fractures, not gun shot wounds."
Army Bates 696 - 697	2/3/2005	Hay Aljehad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. A husband, wife, and two children were driving past a tank near Al Amerya bridge when US forces shot at the car, killing the wife. Army Claim sheet: "Looks like we fired 'warning shots' at vehicle and shot man's wife in head, killing her." Finding: not noted, but recommendation for approval and $2,000 US in compensation.
Army Bates 698 - 699	7/27/2005	Girnata primary school, Karbala, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. The father was handing out gifts and candy (or supplies) at a school. His son, a student at the school, ran inside the school to retrieve a toy, and was hit and killed by a truck when he came back outside. Finding: not included. Condolence payment: a "sympathy" payment was granted for $1,000 US.
Army Bates 700 - 702	2/20/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was caught in a firefight between US forces and Anti Iraqi Forces. Subsequently, the son was shot and killed. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 703 - 704	1/20/2005	Alwa Al Rashad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], who was 15 years old, was shot and killed while riding in a car with his uncle when a convoy fired on the car for no apparent reason. Army claims form: "Documents confirm story." Finding: granted; Compensation: $7,000 US.
Army Bates 705 - 706	1/8/2005	Al Dora, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], a police officer, was standing at a checkpoint at Al Dura when an IED exploded. In reaction, US soldiers started firing randomly, hitting and killing [Redacted]. [Redacted] had a wife and two children. Finding: granted; Compensation: $7,000 US.
Army Bates 707 - 708	2/28/2005	Al Dora, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted], 24 years old, was shot and killed when driving slowly towards a checkpoint. Army Claim Form: "Statements and pictures support story…recommend approval for $7,000." Finding: not included.
Army Bates 709 - 710	1/8/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces, who responded to an IED explosion by shooting randomly. [Redacted] left behind eight children. Finding: granted; Compensation: $7,000 US.
Army Bates 711 - 712	12/14/2004	Mahmodiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. It's unclear whether the claim is for the deceased person or only for his confiscated truck. US forces killed the deceased and confiscated his truck. At a later date, the truck couldn't be located. Army Memo: Willing to "accept $500 in exchange for waiving any and all claims against the U.S. This amount is fair because there is some evidence that the U.S. lost the vehicle and the case seems credible." Finding: granted; Compensation: $500 US. It's unclear whether the claim is for the deceased person or only for his confiscated truck.
Army Bates 713 - 715	7/27/2005	Al Ubeidy (Uleidy ), Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was crossing the street when a Coalition Forces convoy ran over him and killed him. Finding: granted; Compensation: $10,000 US.
Army Bates 716 - 721	3/12/2005	Al Wihda, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. Coalition Forces caused a massive traffic accident that resulted in the death of claimant's brother and the destruction of two of claimant's vehicles. Finding: negligence by US Army; Compensation: $23,000 US ($9,000 for Hino tanker, $4,000 for Ford, $10,000 for death of brother).
Army Bates 722 - 726	3/12/2005	Al Wihda, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by uncle. Coalition Forces caused a massive traffic accident that resulted in the death of [Redacted] and the destruction of claimant's vehicle. Finding: negligence on part of US Army; Compensation: $10,000 US.
Army Bates 727 - 728	6/21/2004	Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was killed during a firefight between Coalition Forces and Anti-Iraqi Forces. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 729 - 731	3/7/2005	Diyala Bridge, Diyala, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed in a vehicle accident with Coalition Forces. His truck was also destroyed. Finding: granted; Compensation: $10,000 US.
Army Bates 732 - 733	3/6/2005	Husamaldeen Mosque, Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed by terrorists while he was heading home after praying at the Husamaldeen mosque. Claim Form: "It is similar to the case of [Redacted] who also killed by terrorist and compensated from our office." Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 734 - 737	10/13/2004	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. The two brothers were riding in a car when an explosion injured the leg of one brother and killed the other. The injury prevented one brother from working for two months. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement and combat exemption.
Army Bates 738 - 740	1/19/2005	Algwas area, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted] and his friends were sitting outside their house when a passing US convoy shot and killed the son. The son was the sole provider for his family since his father had died and left seven other members behind. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 741		Unknown	Unknown. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Description of claim and claim form missing.
Army Bates 742 - 744	3/17/2005	Taji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was told to pull over by a US convoy. As he did so, shooting broke out, and the US forces fired at his vehicle, killing him. The car was also damaged. [Redacted] was the sole provider for his family. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 745 - 747	1/18/2005	Yosofia, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was ordered to stop his vehicle by a US convoy and was shot and killed by a US soldier. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 748 - 750	6/28/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was killed in an explosion near his home. Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 751 - 753	3/10/2005	Taji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot by Multi National Forces who approaches his vehicle from behind on a rainy day. [Redacted] was transported by helicopter to a hospital, but died ten days later. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 754 - 756	1/26/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by parent. The family was driving to their home in Falluja when a military squad started shooting randomly, hitting and killing the son and seriously wounding the eleven-year-old daughter, Marroh. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied without reason. Letter sent with a blank for the reason claim denied.
Army Bates 757 - 759	2/1/2005	A Byala, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Aman M. Naif by parent. Naif was shot and killed by Coalition Fire. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 760 - 761	4/21/2005	Unknown	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant's husband was killed and her brother was injured. The property was also damaged. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 762	2/18/2006	East of Baqubah, Iraq	Condolence payment for two Iraqis [Redacted]. A mother and her two children were riding in a taxi that ran a checkpoint. The mother was shot and killed; the four year old boy suffered a shrapnel wound to the head, and his sister was shot in the leg. Army Memo: "There is evidence to suggest that the warning cones and printed checkpoint signs had not yet been displayed in front of the checkpoint, which may be the reason why the driver of the Taxi did not believe he was required to stop." Condolence payment recommended for $7,500 US.
Army Bates 763 - 766	1/6/2005	East Radhwanya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was shot by Coalition Forces and killed. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 767 - 768	1/22/2005	Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces while he was driving his car early in the morning. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement. A note contained in the claim states "this is innocent 84th ENG fired warning shots. It accidentally ricocheted + hit the truck."
Army Bates 769 - 772	1/13/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by brother. The two brothers (ages 24 and 21) were shot by US forces. One died and one was injured. The car was also damaged. Claimant witnessed event and also received an apology from US soldiers. Army Memo: There is little evidence supporting claim. "There are no pictures of what happened. In addition, there [sic] a check of local records yielded no results." Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 773 - 776	7/15/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces while driving back to his house. [Redacted] was the sole provider for his large family. Finding: negligence on behalf of US forces; Compensation: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 777 - 780	7/26/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed while driving away from a fuel station. The driver's passenger was also shot and injured. After the incident, the patrol (3-133 rd F.A.) did not stop. The car was also damaged. Finding: negligence on part of US forces; Compensation: $4,300 US.
Army Bates 781 - 782	4/23/2005	Baghdad , Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] and his father were on their way to the Jamila markets by car when they were shot by Coalition Forces, killing the son and wounding the father. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 783 - 784	5/19/2005	Between An Nasiriyah and Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by a terrorist. His wife and seven children were left without a provider. Whoever filled out the claims form for claimant writes "[f]or humanity sake [sic], she is asking for help for her children who have noone [sic] to provide for them." Finding: denied because death was a result of Anti-Coalition Forces.
Army Bates 785 - 786	3/28/2005	Unknown	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was on his way to work, delivering fruits and vegetables when he was shot and killed at a US checkpoint. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 787 - 788	8/22/2005	Near Diyala Bridge, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces. Finding: denied based on combat exemption.
Army Bates 789 - 791	4/17/2005	Al Kanat St., Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] and his friends were driving when US Army vehicles passed their car and shot them, killing [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 792 - 796	11/23/2003	Mukashifa, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by cousin. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces while working on his farm. Claimant also filed claim on same day for [Redacted], listing his cause of death as a vehicle accident with a convoy. [Redacted]'s death certificate lists death was due to blood cancer. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 797 - 800	8/16/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] and his brother were stopped by Iraqi police as they tried to drive across the Al Alam bridge. US solider jumped up and began firing at the car, killing [Redacted]. Army Memo: "There is no report of this incident in division records." Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 801 - 803	1/21/2005	Taji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. [Redacted] was returning from the gas station when she was hit and killed by a US convoy. Finding: granted; Compensation: $5,000 US.
Army Bates 804 - 805	1/12/2005	Al Mushada, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces when he stopped his car at a gas station. Finding: not included.
Army Bates 806 - 807	4/22/2005	Shaab, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraiq [Redacted] by father, Mr. Waad. Mr. Waad's two sons were riding on a motorcycle near the checkpoint at Al Shaab. US Army vehicles passed and soldiers randomly shot and killed one son. Finding: not included.
Army Bates 808 - 811	7/16/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was riding in a taxi to Al Door. As he passed a medicine factory, US forces in the area were attacked by Anti-Iraqi Forces. The son was shot and killed in the crossfire. His wife may also have been injured. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 812 - 815	3/1/2005	Unknown	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was herding goats and sheep near FOB Speicher when Coalition Forces' fire hit and killed him. Soldiers apologized to claimant, took photos, and told him to file a claim. Claimants says that a soldier stated that "it was a mistake." Finding: denied due to lack of evidence. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 816 - 819	6/9/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted], a taxi driver, was shot and killed by Coalition Forces. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 820 - 823	6/26/2005	Al Dujayl, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was driving his brother's car as a taxi from Tikrit to Baghdad. When he approached a slow convoy, he passed in the opposite lane. When [Redacted] pulled in front of the convoy, they shot and killed him. Passenger in the taxi corroborated the story. Claim Form has the judgment "Good claim!" circled, but it isn't clear where it is the view of the claimant or the translator. Denied due to combat exemption. Condolence granted $2,500 US.
Army Bates 824 - 827	2/12/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was on his way to work at a medical supply company when he was shot and killed by a US sniper from the Spiral Minaret in Samarra. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exemption.
Army Bates 828 - 831	6/1/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted] was at his mother's water tank store when he was shot and killed by US forces. The store was also damaged. Claimant was unable to produce photos of the damage to the store because she said it was unsafe to return there. Army Memo: "There is no report of this incident in Division records." Finding: denied due to lack of credibility of claimant (for changing the location of where her son was shot) and for lack of evidence.
Army Bates 832 - 835	6/28/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] and his father were driving when a US convoy fired warning shots as they approached from behind. The shots caused the father to lose control of his car, which crashed. The son died in the crash, the claimant was injured, and the car was damaged. Army Memo: Use of warning shots to clear traffic is not authorized by the Rules of Engagement. Finding: wrongful act by the US forces; compensation: $10,000 US.
Army Bates 836 - 839	10/15/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted], a child, was inside the house when a US Bradley hit the house, causing its collapse. The child was crushed and died. Finding: official finding not included; Compensation: $2,400 US.
Army Bates 840 - 841	6/25/2005	Close to N1 FOB Rustamiyah, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was shot and killed by a US patrol while driving. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 842 - 843	5/17/2005	Salman Park, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces near a checkpoint. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 844 - 846	1/30/2005	Al Fadhil St., Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of 12 year old Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was playing football with his friends in the square when he was shot and killed by a US patrol. Finding: denied due to combat exemption (08/05) and lack of evidence of US involvement (4/05).
Army Bates 847		Unknown	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. The claim form, including a description of the incident, is missing. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 848 - 850	11/21/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted], his son, and his wife were all shot while they were leaving the gate during a raid. The father and son died; the wife was injured. Army Memo: An S-5 Officer verified the incident. Finding: granted; Compensation: $14,000 US.
Army Bates 851 - 853	11/21/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. The claimant's two children were killed and his wife and other child were injured by shots from a US convoy during a raid. Army Memo: An S-5 Officer verified the incident. Finding: granted; Compensation: $14,000 US.
Army Bates 854 - 856	11/21/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. The claimant's two children were killed and his wife and other child were injured by shots from a US convoy during a raid. Army Memo: An S-5 Officer verified the incident. Finding: granted; Compensation: $14,000 US. Appears to be the same claim as Army 851 - 853.
Army Bates 857 - 861	1/28/2006	Al Ishaqi, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted], a 12 year old, was shot and killed by US forces after they caught him and two others placing an IED on MSR Tampa. Claimant's son's name appeared in the SIGACTS. Finding: denied due to combat exception and "excessive AIF [Anti-Iraqi Forces] entanglement."
Army Bates 862 - 866	10/4/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. The two decedents were shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) as they drove through a lane cordoned off by CF at a checkpoint. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 867 - 873	2/3/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of 9 year old Iraqi, Ahmed [Redacted] by parent. Ahmed was outside playing by his gate when a stray bullet from a US soldier hit and killed him. The child was the family's only son. Finding: granted; Compensation: $4,000 US.
Army Bates 874 - 877	9/14/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] and the claimant's wife were sleeping outside on the roof when US forces shot and killed the son. Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 878 - 881	12/28/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by father/husband. The claimant's family was inside their house when US forces dropped a 500 pound bomb on it, destroying the house and killing the wife and child. US forces were engaging with insurgents from the house. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 882 - 885	1/26/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces who caught him setting up an IED. Finding: denied due to negligence on behalf of the decedent.
Army Bates 886 - 888	3/31/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] and his friend were fishing in the Tigris River. US forces arrived at the river; earlier they had spotted an RPG in a different boat. The US forces set of an illumination round and then opened fire, killing the son and injuring his friend. Army Memo: "The claimant and his son were huge supporters of democracy and up to this day held meetings and taught their friends about democracy." Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 889 - 892	5/27/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted], an ambulance driver. [Redacted] was on his way to the scene of an accident with an IED when he was shot and killed by a US soldier. Finding: negligent fire; Compensation: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 893 - 895	5/3/2005	Mahmodiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted], a mother and son. The mother and son were killed in their homes by US gunfire. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence, including death certificates.
Army Bates 896 - 898	1/8/2005	Al Yousifyah, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces when he drove towards two tanks. [Redacted] was unable to read and did not understand directions. Finding: denied without explanation.
Army Bates 899 - 901	1/23/2005	Algazera, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] and his friend were driving by an American unit when the unit began shooting. The car lost control and [Redacted] was killed in the crash. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 902 - 904	9/11/2005	Lutifiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. [Redacted] was shot and killed inside her house when US forces fired in response to an IED strike. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 905 - 906	6/6/2005	Karamah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by cousin. [Redacted] was shot and killed by a US convoy on Salah Al Deen highway. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 907 - 909	9/13/2005	Al Jihad, CP 542, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted], his wife, and his two children were riding in a car when a US convoy opened fire on them. The husband was killed, and the attack caused the car to crash. Finding: not included. Condolence payment: $4,500 US ($2,500 for husband's death; $2,00 for vehicle damage).
Army Bates 910 - 913	5/12/2005	Unknown	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was traveling from Iraq to Jordan by bus when a US convoy shot at the bus, killing his son (and possibly another woman). Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 914 - 917	11/11/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was driving when he pulled off the road to let a US convoy pass. As the last truck in the convoy drove by, a soldier shot [Redacted] in the face, killing him. Army Memo: SIGACTS revealed no activity at this time and location matching the incident. Finding: denied for lack of evidence. Claim notes as a partial reason for dismissal that "The claim is too old to verify Claimant's allegations," yet also that "This claim was filed in a timely manner."
Army Bates 918 - 921	1/16/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces when they fired on the tomato truck he was riding in at a checkpoint. Army Memo: The truck accelerated towards the checkpoint and a passenger shot at Coalition Forces (CF). Finding: denied because the incident was a result of CF engagement with Anti-Iraqi Forces.
Army Bates 922 - 925	9/11/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. A Bradley Fighting Vehicle changed to the wrong side of the road and hit [Redacted] head on. Two people were killed in the crash (separate filing for the second death). Two cars were destroyed. Army Memo: SIGACTS investigation revealed no incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 926 - 930	10/16/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was killed when Coalition Forces (CF) unsuccessfully attempted to stop his vehicle, and then shot him. [Redacted]'s vehicle matched a "BOLO" (Be on the Lookout) description. SIGACTS revealed a similar incident. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 931 - 935	1/16/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces when they fired on the tomato truck he was riding in at a checkpoint. Army Memo: The truck accelerated towards the checkpoint and a passenger shot at Coalition Forces (CF). Finding: denied because the incident was a result of CF engagement with Anti-Iraqi Forces.
Army Bates 936 - 938	3/13/2005	Al Dujayl, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was driving from Mosul to Baghdad when he stopped at a restaurant with his son. As US Convoy passed his car, they shot and killed [Redacted]. Army Memo: SIGACTS revealed no similar incident. Finding: denied based on lack of evidence.
Army Bates 939 - 942	5/1/2004	Al Dujayl, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. Coalition Forces dropped a bomb contained in a box in claimant's yard. As the son and cousin inspected the box, the bomb exploded, killing the son and injuring the cousin. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 943 - 946	7/27/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces while stopped at a checkpoint. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 947 - 951	5/22/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of three Iraqis [Redacted]. A husband, wife, and son drove towards a cordoned off area where US forces were securing an IED blast site. The husband was shot and killed, and the mother and son were injured. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 952 - 958	4/11/2005	Al Matasan Street, Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted], who was deaf, was shot and killed by US forces near the Samarra museum. Two eyewitnesses corroborated the story. Finding: denied for lack of evidence and combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $500 US.
Army Bates 959 - 963	9/20/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. According to the government [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) who were engaging with Anti-Iraqi Forces. According to the claimant the US Convoy took a wrong turn into a neighborhood they did not know and then began firing randomly. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 964 - 968	11/21/2005	Al Deloyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. A wedding celebration fired guns in celebration and Coalition Forces (CF) nearby returned fire, killing [Redacted], a passerby. Army Memo: SIGACTS revealed that CF were engaging with Anti-Iraqi Forces at the time. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 969 - 972	1/13/2005	Al Koufa or Nissan district in Baghdad, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for damage to her house. US forces followed two men on their way to a mosque, and shot and killed them. In the process, [Redacted]'s house was damaged. She's a widow with nine children for which she provides. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 973		Unknown	Form denying claim without reason.
Army Bates 974 - 976	2/27/2005	Taji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot and killed when two US convoys surrounded him and began firing. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied without reason.
Army Bates 977 - 979	2/2/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] way on his way to work with a friend when he was shot and killed by US forces. Finding: denied without reason.
Army Bates 980 - 983	4/16/2005	Highway Hill, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] and a colonel in the Iraqi Army got into a vehicular accident with US forces as they were driving towards Samarra. Their car overturned, killing both passengers. [Redacted] provided the sole source of income for his family. The car was also damaged. Finding: granted; Compensation: $7,000 US.
Army Bates 984 - 990	9/13/2005	Checkpoint 1, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. While on his way to work at the Law Department in the Ministries Council, [Redacted] was ordered to pull over to let a US convoy pass. As the last truck passed [Redacted]'s car, a US soldier fired at the vehicle, killing [Redacted]. [Redacted] was the sole provider for seven children. Finding: granted; compensation: $5,000 US (death).
Army Bates 991 - 996	2/3/2005	Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was leaving his job as a carpenter when fighting broke out between Coalition Forces and Anti-Iraqi Forces. [Redacted], along with eight or nine other civilians, was shot and killed. [Redacted] had four children. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 997 - 1003	1/15/2005	Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted], 29 years old, was shot and killed by a US sniper in a back street. Finding: granted; Compensation: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1004 - 1007	1/6/2005	July Bridge, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted], a journalist for an independent newspaper, was shot and killed by US forces as he crossed the bridge. [Redacted] was the father of four kids. Claimant had "documentation from CA confirming that U.S. troops were in the area at that time." The medical report also confirmed that a 5.56 mm round killed [Redacted]. Finding: sufficient evidence; Compensation: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1008 - 1011	1/28/2005	Hamady Shihab Square, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by sister. The two brothers were returning home with bags of groceries when they were shot and killed by US forces. They were mistaken for insurgents carrying bombs. Finding: sufficient evidence; Compensation: $5,000 US.
Army Bates 1012 - 1015	2/11/2005	Al Muthana air base, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Haider by wife. Haider and four colleagues from the Iraqi Police were crossing the road when a US Humvee hit Haider, severely injuring him. Finding: sufficient evidence; Compensation: $2,000 US.
Army Bates 1016	5/20/2005	Al Mahmodiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. As claimant and his family were driving, a bomb exploded and soldiers started shooting randomly. Claimant's wife was killed and his three children were injured. The car was also damaged. Finding: not included
Army Bates 1017 - 1019	2/24/2005	North Gate, Kadimiya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. The father and his nine year old son were riding in a mini-bus when a US convoy approached and fired a shot, killing the son. Soldiers arrived at the hospital and apologized to the father. The father noted the Humvee was numbered "32." Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1020 - 1024	1/3/2005	Al Ghazaliya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi, Sardar [Redacted] by parent. Sardar was on the roof of his house when he was shot and killed by US forces. American helicopters and Humvees surrounded the house. Finding: denied due to combat exception (Feb. 2005); denied again after resubmission for lack of evidence of US negligence (Mar. 2005).
Army Bates 1025 - 1027	1/8/2005	Al Yousifyah, Baghdad, Iraq	Condolence payment for Iraqi [Redacted]. US forces were engaged in a firefight with Anti-Iraqi Forces. [Redacted] was caught in the crossfire and killed. Granted: $2,500 US. It does not appear that a claim for payment was filed.
Army Bates 1028 - 1030	1/19/2005	Highway near Al Rasheed air base, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. The claimant's father and car were crushed by a US tank while they waited in a line for fuel. Finding: Coalition Forces were responsible; Compensation: $7,500 US.
Army Bates 1031 - 1035	1/30/2005	Ad Dulyiyah, Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqi children [Redacted] by parent. A family at home was caught in crossfire between Coalition Forces and Anti-Iraqi Forces. The daughter, who was baking bread, was shot and killed. Her brother was severely injured. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment: appears to be have been granted for $2,500 US. Army Memo states maximum condolence payment scale: $2,500 for death, $500 for property, $1,000 for injury, and a total of $4,000.
Army Bates 1036 - 1037	8/7/2005	Al Dora, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was killed when US forces' shots caused him to lose control of his vehicle. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1038 - 1042	4/21/2005	Al Khatib Secondary School, Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted], 8 years old, was shot and killed by Coalition Forces while she was playing outside a school. Two eyewitnesses corroborated that she was shot by a "random shot." SIGACTS revealed no incidents. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exclusion.
Army Bates 1043 - 1046	8/16/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by mother. The two brothers were driving a truck full of eggplants when a US helicopter fired on an oil pipeline near the road. The pipe exploded, engulfing the truck and killing the two brothers. The truck and eggplants were also destroyed. Army Memo: "It is highly unlikely that a helicopter would fire a rocket anywhere near an oil pipeline. On top of this, the story given by the claimant is incredible." Finding: denied for lack of evidence and combat exemption.
Army Bates 1047 - 1049	1/30/2005	Al Yousifyah, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces when he was caught in crossfire. Finding: not included. Condolence payment: granted $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1050 - 1052	3/18/2005	Al Dujayl, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. Driving from Balad to Al Dujail, [Redacted] was caught in the crossfire between Coalition Forces and Anti-Iraqi Forces. He was shot and killed when he pulled off the road. Army Memo: "There was no report of this event in division records...There is sufficient evidence to indicate that U.S. Forces killed the claimant's husband." Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1053 - 1055	5/27/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted], a taxi driver, was shot and killed when US Forces responded to an explosion near the post office. Army Memo: No report of incident in division records, but "some evidence" that this occurred. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1056 - 1057	5/25/2005	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces at a checkpoint when his brakes failed to work. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1058 - 1060	7/15/2005	Twella village, off of highway between Kikurk and Mosul, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] and his wife were driving as part of a wedding convoy when a US convoy approached from the opposite direction. [Redacted] slowed down but failed to leave enough room for the convoy, and the first vehicle swerved off the road. The convoy shot at the car, killing [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1061 - 1062	3/23/2005	Highway of Samarra to Ramadi, near Al Saglaweya Shire Town, Iraq	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis. The family was driving between Samarra and Saglaweya when they were attacked by air and ground fire from Coalition Forces, forcing their car off a bridge. Claimant was injured, his wife was injured, three of his kids were killed, and two of his daughters were badly injured or paralyzed. The car was also destroyed. Finding: not included. Finding for condolence payment: denied due to lack of corroborating evidence from US records. Army Condolence Letter states terms of payment: "Unfortunately, without independent confirmation of coalition forces' involvement from our records, I am unable to make condolence payments."
Army Bates 1063 - 1067	6/2/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. The parent and son were driving when a US convoy approached from the opposite direction. The convoy began firing, hitting and killing the son. Division records show that vehicles were firing "warning shots" at vehicles that passed. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1068 - 1071	3/6/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. The father and his three sons were driving from Suniya to Bayji. A US convoy approached from the opposite direction and shot at their car, killing one son. The US convoy kept driving without stopping. Division records didn't show any matching incidents. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1072 - 1075	3/11/2005	Eshaki, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was driving towards a security cordon when he was shot multiple times and killed by US forces. SIGACTS confirmed the incident. Statements alongside the claimants form, likely put there by the claim taker, say things like "good," "real," and "story detailed [illegible] truthful." Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1076 - 1079	7/28/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by relative. [Redacted], the brother of a head judge in Samarra, was shot and killed by Coalition Forces as he approached a blocking position in his car. SIGACTS confirmed the report, stating that [Redacted] ignored three previous warning shots. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1080 - 1083	8/6/2005	Al Matasam quarter, Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was standing outside of his house when he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces. Two witnesses corroborated the story. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence. Eyewitness testimony was rejected as not credible.
Army Bates 1084 - 1087	4/13/2005	Al Qadasia quarter, Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) near the Samarra public garage in the Al Katasia quarter of the city. About half an hour prior to the shooting, there was a firefight between CF and Anti-Iraqi Forces. Witnesses stated that [Redacted] was shot after the firefight had ended. SIGACTS revealed no matching incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1088 - 1092	12/18/2005	Ishaki, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by relative. [Redacted] was in his car at an intersection when a Coalition Forces convoy approached, shooting and killing [Redacted]. [Redacted] had seven children. SIGACTS revealed no incident similar. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exception.
Army Bates 1093 - 1096	9/15/2006	Ishaki, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was driving from Ishaki to Balad when he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces. Two eyewitnesses confirmed. SIGACTS revealed no similar incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence. Eyewitness testimony was rejected as not credible.
Army Bates 1097 - 1100	10/5/2006	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. Claimant's account and Army Memo vary significantly. Claimant's mother/Iraqi Police witness say that her son was driving on the Tikrit/Tuz highway when he was stopped by Coalition Forces (CF). CF searched the car, shot [Redacted], and planted a grenade in the car. Army Memo: SIGACTS describes [Redacted] as rapidly approaching a CF vehicle. CF fired a warning shot, killing the driver and causing his car to run off of the road. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1101 - 1104	6/20/2004	Ishaki or Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Hussein Jasim Ali by wife. Ali was trying to cross the road to catch a taxi when a Coalition Forces convoy drove by and shot and killed him. Two eyewitnesses corroborated story. SIGACTS revealed no matching incident. Army Memo: States that the claim was filed in a "timely manner" and that it was "too old" to verify. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and the claim being too old to verify.
Army Bates 1105 - 1109	8/11/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted] was walking down the street in the Saed Hameeda Tekyia area of Samarra when Coalition Forces shot and killed him. SIGACTS revealed that a Local National suspected of working with Anti-Iraqi Forces was shot at the same place. Then goes on to state that the "LN was wounded and sent to FOB Paliwoda for interrogation." Question: Did decedent therefore die during interrogation The death certificate is summarized and states that the cause of death is "bullets in head & chest." Finding: denied due to combat exemption, lack of evidence, and possible Anti-Iraqi Forces entanglement.
Army Bates 1110 - 1113	9/30/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. A wife, husband, and their children were driving before curfew when Coalition Forces shot and killed the wife. Finding: denied for lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1114 - 1117	2/13/2005	Mahmodiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was exiting a gas station when he was shot and killed by a passing US convoy. SIGACTS did not reveal a matching incident. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1118 - 1121	3/1/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted], a shepherd, was guiding sheep near the wall of FOB Speicher. A guard from a tower shot and killed him. Division records did not find a matching incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1122 - 1125	3/1/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. While driving, [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1126		Unknown	Claim denied based on combat exemption. No information on incident resulting in claim. Claim Form missing.
Army Bates 1127 - 1130	3/28/2005	Jerf Al Sakhr, Iraq	Condolence payment for Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot and killed as he crossed the concertina wire outside a Forward Operating Base. [Redacted] was carrying a "suspicious" satchel, which turned out to be full of books. Finding: no finding filed. Condolence payment: $500 US for "death."
Army Bates 1131 - 1133		Lutifiyah Patrol Base, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was killed by an "accidental" discharge of a US Marine machinegun. SIGACT corroborated claim. Finding: damage was caused by US forces in non-combat situation; Compensation: $5,000 US.
Army Bates 1134 - 1137	1/13/2006	Hawija, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by family member. The family was returning from their buffalo farm by vehicle. As they approached the groceries bazaar, Coalition Forces fired on them, killing one child, [Redacted], and injuring three other daughters. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1138 - 1140	1/13/2006	Hawija, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted]. The family was returning from their buffalo farm by vehicle. As they approached the groceries bazaar, Coalition Forces fired on them, killing one child, and injuring three other daughters, including [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $1,000 US. Notes that the family was mistakenly fired upon. See Army 001134 - 001137, 001141 - 001144, 001145 - 001148 for related claims.
Army Bates 1141 - 1144	1/13/2006	Hawija, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted]. The family was returning from their buffalo farm by vehicle. As they approached the groceries bazaar, Coalition Forces fired on them, killing one child, and injuring three other daughters, including [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $1,500 US. Notes that family was mistakenly fired upon. See Army 001138 - 001140, 001134 - 001137, 001145 - 001148 for related claims.
Army Bates 1145 - 1148	1/13/2006	Hawija, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted]. The family was returning from their buffalo farm by vehicle. As they approached the groceries bazaar, Coalition Forces fired on them, killing one child, and injuring three other daughters, including [Redacted], the driver. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $1,000 US. Notes that family was mistakenly fired upon. See Army 001134 - 001137, 001138 - 001140, 001141 - 001144 for related claims.
Army Bates 1149 - 1152	1/1/2006	Raheem Aina, Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was driving home when Coalition Forces shot and killed him. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $1,500 (property damage). But note, in making the condolence payment the following statement: "$1,500 [Redacted]'s vehicle was damaged by negligent fire of Coalition Forces." But then the statement goes on to say that the claimant dose not have a cognizable claim under the FCA because the occurrence was "incident to combat."
Army Bates 1153 - 1156	1/26/2006	Owja or Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. The son and mother were driving from Owja to Baghdad when a Coalition Forces convoy sideswiped his car, killing his mother. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1157 - 1160	8/12/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was returning home from work when he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1161 - 1164	10/11/2005	Yethrib, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted], by parent, Yassa Taha Faris. [Redacted] was shot and killed by a Coalition Forces convoy after he failed to head their warning shots to stop his car. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1165 - 1169	12/2/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was driving to Balad to sell his fruit. According to claimant, [Redacted] met a Coalition Forces convoy driving down the wrong side of the road. [Redacted] pulled over but was shot and killed. According to SIGACTS, a Local National's car was shot at after it left and then reentered the convoy at a high rate of speed. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1170 - 1174	8/29/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was shot and killed at his house during a US raid of the area. Soldier verified report. Finding: "The evidence suggests that this incident arose out of the negligence and/or wrongful acts of the United States Armed Forces. 1/15th IN verifies incident"; Compensation: $5,000 US.
Army Bates 1175 - 1179	11/15/2005	Mukashifa, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces as he waited inside a taxi about 600 meters from a checkpoint. The government's recitation of the facts and application are troubling: "The CF convoy who shot a warning shot because the car was parked alongside the road for too long. The bullet passed through the car and hit the claimant's son. The son bled to death before medical help arrived. The CF convoy did not render medical assistance and continued the convoy. . . . Here, CF were firing in self-defense in response to what they though was a possible AIF attack. As such, self defense constitutes combat activity and is non-compensable." Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1180 - 1182	12/17/2005	Yethrib, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. Coalition Forces (CF) had cordoned off an area. As [Redacted] approached the area and then turned around, CF fired on him, killing him. The car was also damaged. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,700 US ($2,500 for death, $200 for car damage).
Army Bates 1183 - 1186	11/7/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces near a checkpoint. SIGACTS confirmed that [Redacted] approached the cordon at a fast speed and was shot. Claimant alleged that [Redacted] "pulled over but Humvees fired at [Redacted]." Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1187 - 1193	6/22/2005	Al Karrada neighborhood, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant's son and grandson were driving in the Al Karrada neighborhood when a US convoy struck their vehicle, killing both passengers. The grandson was 6 years old, and the son had two other children. Finding: "sufficient evidence;" Compensation: $8,000 US ($3,000 for each death and $2,000 for car).
Army Bates 1194	1/12/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was shot and killed by crossfire between US forces and insurgents. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1195 - 1197	11/27/2005	Al Bijee, Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant, his cousin, and his cousin's wife were driving to visit their family in northern Iraq. As they passed a refinery in Al Bijee, Coalition Forces shot at their vehicle, injuring the claimant and the cousin's wife, and killing the cousin. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1198 - 1201	8/24/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) while driving. After [Redacted] failed to yield to CF, they shot him from behind. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1202 - 1205	8/8/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was a passenger in a vehicle traveling from Tikrit to Bayji. As Coalition Forces (CF) approached, [Redacted]'s car pulled off the road, and CF shot and killed [Redacted] as they passed. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exception.
Army Bates 1206 - 1207	8/5/2005	Al Rabee Street, Al Zafarania, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted], an old man, was shot and killed by Coalition Forces when he accidentally drove his car into a street that had been blockaded off. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1208 - 1209	9/28/2005	Al Madaeen, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by father. During a clash between US forces and Al Mahdi armed forces, claimant's house was shot, injuring one son, killing another (who was 13-years-old), and damaging their car. Finding: denied because loss was due to Anti-Iraqi forces.
Army Bates 1210 - 1212	9/9/2005	Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces while he was driving in Al Tahreer Square. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1213 - 1214	5/3/2005	Al Masthal quarter, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces involved in combat while driving. His vehicle was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1215 - 1217	5/3/2005	Checkpoint 9, Al Masthal quarter, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces as he approached a checkpoint. Army Memo: Claimant has filed three other claims for this incident and all three were denied on 11/25/05 due to combat exemption. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1218 - 1219	9/7/2005	Express Highway, Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot and injured when US forces shot him on the Express Highway. His car was also damaged. Fiding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1220 - 1224	3/14/2005	Antar Square, Adhamiya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant's husband and son were traveling on foot near Antar Square when they were shot and killed by Coalition Forces. Finding: denied due to combat exception and lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1225 - 1227	6/28/2005	Adhamiya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] and two friends were driving to work on Al Qanat Highway when a US helicopter overhead shot at their car, killing [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1228 - 1229	7/7/2005	New Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was killed by electric shot from electrical wires that the US military put around his "location" (house). Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1230 - 1232	3/24/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. A stray bullet from fighting between US forces and Anti-Iraqi forces entered claimant's house, killing his father and causing minor damage. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1233 - 1234	1/9/2005	Kadamiya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. According to the condolence payment form, [Redacted] was shot and killed in the crossfire between US forces and Anti-Iraqi forces as he waited in line at a gas station. According to the claim form, [Redacted] was killed after his vehicle was involved in a collision with US forces. Finding: denied (for vehicular death) due to lack of evidence of US involvement. Condolence payment granted (for small arms fire death): $1,000 US.
Army Bates 1235 - 1238	1/28/2005	Kadamiya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother, Ra'ied Jassim Hassan. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces in Adar Square when they responded to a suspected threat (which did not materialize). Claimant describes the occurrence, explaining that Coalition Forces started firing randomly because they suspected danger ahead. This random firing led to the death of claimant's brother. Finding: denied due to combat exception (denied for same reason on appeal).
Army Bates 1239 - 1240	1/7/2004	Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted]'s wife was waiting at her family house to be picked up by her husband. After 24 hours elapsed, she found out that her husband had been killed by Coalition Forces. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1241	3/4/2005	Al Masthal quarter, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Mohammed Makki. Makki was shot and killed by a US convoy. Finding: not included. Related claim: Army 1242.
Army Bates 1242	3/4/2005	Al Masthal quarter, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for injury and property damage. [Redacted] was shot in the leg and his car was damaged by a US convoy. Finding: not included.
Army Bates 1243 - 1244	1/1/2005	Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was hit by a US patrol as he was playing in the street. [Redacted] later died from his injuries. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1245 - 1248	5/5/2003	Mahmodiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted], who was 25 years old, was shot and killed by an oncoming patrol while he crossed the street. Army Memo: "Claimant (deceased's mother) has provided intel (including names) regarding AIF activity on numerous occasions but so far none of it has been actionable." Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1249 - 1251	3/7/2005	South Pluto , Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] died in a vehicle collision with Coalition Forces. His vehicle was also damaged. Finding: approved; Compensation: $10,000 US. Claim for reconsideration denied on 12/22/05.
Army Bates 1252 - 1253	8/7/2005	Shaab, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. According to the government, [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces engaged in combat. According to claimant, [Redacted} was randomly shot. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1254 - 1255	9/21/2005	New Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces while driving. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1256 - 1258	4/17/2005	Shaab, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Saif [Redacted] by father. Saif was shot and killed by US forces when he accidentally failed to stop at a checkpoint. Claim is for reconsideration and notes that new evidence is attached (yet no new evidence appears). Finding: denied after reconsideration due to lack of new evidence presented.
Army Bates 1259 - 1261	9/12/2005	Al Madaeen, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by his two wives. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces crossfire as they chased a terror suspect. [Redacted] left behind eleven children with his wives, and was their sole supporter. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1262 - 1265	2/28/2005	Taji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant's mother and son were traveling by taxi to Kadimiya when a Coalition Forces convoy traveling in the opposite direction fired shots at them, wounding the son and killing the mother. Finding: denied due to combat exception (denied for same reason on appeal).
Army Bates 1266		Unknown	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. The claim form, including a description of the incident, is missing. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1267 - 1268		Kadhimiya, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife on appeal. [Redacted] was killed by Coalition Forces. His car was also damaged. Finding: initially denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement; denied on appeal for the same reason.
Army Bates 1269 - 1271	5/30/2005	Adan Square, Hurriya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US patrol as he was parked on the side of the road in Adan Square. The car was also damaged. Claim is barely legible. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1272 - 1275	2/27/2005	Kadimiya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was driving behind several Coalition Forces (CF) vehicles when more CF vehicles approached from behind. The rear CF vehicles started firing on civilian cars, killing [Redacted] and injuring other Iraqis. [Redacted] left behind six children, the youngest of which was 5 months. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exemption. Condolence payment granted: $2,250 US ($1,500 for death; $750 property damage).
Army Bates 1276 - 1278	5/23/2005	Shulla, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was on his way to get gasoline when he was hit by an oncoming US tank in the wrong lane. [Redacted] left behind two young children, including a paralyzed daughter. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1279 - 1281	1/26/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces' gunfire. Finding: denied due to lack of proof of US involvement.
Army Bates 1282 - 1285	11/22/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was in a car with three other passengers when Coalition Forces' (CF) convoy hit their car from behind. [Redacted]'s head hit the windshield on impact, and he was killed. CF then stopped all vehicles to search them for explosives, leaving [Redacted] in his car. Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $1,750 US.
Army Bates 1286 - 1289	6/3/2005	Shulla, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] and his friends were traveling by car when Coalition Forces opened fire on their vehicle. [Redacted] was shot and killed. Finding: denied due to combat exception (denied on same grounds on appeal).
Army Bates 1290 - 1291	1/12/2005	Al Jadida, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was killed by Coalition Forces' fire. [Redacted] was left all night in the place where he was shot and killed before his family found out about the incident. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1292 - 1295	6/27/2005	Alyadmann, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed in a collision with Coalition Forces. [Redacted] was the only source of income for his family. His vehicle was also damaged. Finding: granted; Compensation: $12,000 US.
Army Bates 1296 - 1301	4/12/2005	Al Jabori, Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. Claimant's mother was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) as she stood outside of her home. The CF hit a traffic jam in front of [Redacted]'s home and started shooting to clear a path. A stray bullet struck [Redacted]. SIGACTS revealed that a US patrol was engaged in small arms fire with Anti-Iraqi Forces at that time. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement (denied due to combat exception on appeal). Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1302 - 1304	9/21/2005	Al Nasser, Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. A family was driving between Al Nasser and Aroba sector when suddenly a veiled person carrying a machine gun ran near their car. A stray bullet from Coalition Forces hit [Redacted], killing her. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US. Initial SIGACTS investigation did not show any matching activity, but later SIGACTS investigation accounted for incident. Army Memo of 11/4/05 denied claim based on lack of evidence of US involvement, but Condolence form from same date denies claim due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1305 - 1307	9/21/2005	Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces when he failed to stop for a checkpoint. His vehicle was also damaged, and his cell phone, golden ring, and watch were missing. Finding: denied due to lack of negligence on US part. Condolence payment granted: $5,000 US ($2,500 for death; $2,500 for destroyed vehicle).
Army Bates 1308 - 1310	11/16/2005	Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was driving across the bridge that leads to the Arroba sector when an explosion occurred. In response Coalition Forces nearby to start shooting randomly. [Redacted] was hit by a stray bullet and killed. His car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted:$4,065 US ($2,500 for death; $1,565 for car).
Army Bates 1311	1/27/2005	Hay Al Jezadir, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces' fire returned after an IED exploded. Finding: not included.
Army Bates 1312 - 1314	5/19/2005	Unknown	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. Coalition Forces shot and killed [Redacted] and injured children while they were inside their truck. The family's truck was also damaged. [Redacted] is described in claims form as "a hole digger!" Finding: denied because "[d]eceased was digging a hole, at night, in the middle of the road when shots were fired."
Army Bates 1315 - 1317	3/10/2005	Al Rashid, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was working alongside the road when US forces returned fire on an insurgent attack. [Redacted] was shot and killed. Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1318 - 1321	7/7/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant and his family were traveling from their orchard to the market with fruit. Coalition Forces fired artillery at their car, killing the son, injuring the wife and daughter, and completely destroying the car. "The car was thoroughly perforated with artillery fragmentation." SIGACTS revealed no similar activity. Army Memo: "CF regularly conduct artillery strikes on orchards such as Claimant's orchard." Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $5,200 US ($2,500 for death, $1,200 and $1,000 for injuries, $500 for car).
Army Bates 1322 - 1323	9/14/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed when he was engaged by Coalition Forces. His wife didn't know why he was engaged. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US negligence and because her husband was "shooting at US forces."
Army Bates 1324	9/29/2005	Khalis, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was hit by Coalition Forces' fire and killed. His vehicle was also damaged. Finding: not included.
Army Bates 1325 - 1327	11/26/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. While [Redacted] was pulled off on the side of the road, Coalition Forces shot and killed him. The car was also damaged. SIGACTS revealed no matching incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement (affirmed on appeal).
Army Bates 1328 - 1330	5/15/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot during a Coalition Forces raid. TF Badger's S-5 Officer verified the incident. Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $3,000 US.
Army Bates 1331 - 1333	3/19/2006	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. During a raid by Coalition Forces (CF) of claimant's home, his mother, father, and brother were killed by CF. Claimant provided witness statements, death certificates, photographs, and legal expert opinion. Claimant described his harm as "material and ethical harm as well as losing a family." The significant acts database, SIGACTS, revealed no similar incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exception. Claims form includes the note "CL [Claimant] bought this [form] in a store and filled it out at [illegible]."
Army Bates 1334 - 1337	1/2/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted], a six year old girl, was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) who shot into a crowd celebrating a wedding. The crowd fired celebratory shots, and CF responded by returning fire. SIGACTS revealed no similar incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1338 - 1341	2/25/2006	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] pulled off the side of the road to fix a flat tire when a Coalition Forces sniper who suspected [Redacted] of implanting an explosive shot and killed [Redacted]. According to SIGACTS, a sniper engaged two Iraqis and then searched their vehicle for explosives. A residue for class B explosives was found, and Army determined that "[i]t is likely that the decedent had contact with explosives that night." Finding: denied due to excessive Anti-Iraqi Forces entanglement and due to combat exception. Army Memo notes that status as an "enemy national" influences whether a claimant can bring a claim under the FCA.
Army Bates 1342 - 1345	2/2/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was attending a party near her house when she was shot and killed by Coalition Forces' gunfire. SIGACTS revealed no matching incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1346 - 1349	6/25/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. The Army's memo recounts the incident as follows: "Claimant alleges that a Coalition Forces convoy started shooting because traffic congestion was blocking the street. Claimant alleges son was riding his bike in the area and was shot in the head." Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1350 - 1354	12/14/2005	Shirgat, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was a passenger in a vehicle driving towards an election center. The car's driver attempted to bypass Coalition Forces (CF), who signaled for the car to stop. CF shot at the vehicle, killing [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1355 - 1358	10/4/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was returning home from Tikrit University in the passenger seat of a car. The driver, who had poor vision, failed to see a US convoy pulled over on the side of the road, and did not stop. Coalition Forces shot at the vehicle, killing [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1359 - 1362	7/27/2005	Baagooba Road, Baghdad, Iraq	Appealed claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was struck and killed by a Coalition Forces vehicle as he attempted to cross the road near Route Predator and Silver. Finding: negligence; Compensation: $10,000 US (appeal for more compensation denied).
Army Bates 1363 - 1370	9/3/2005	Al Deloyia, Salah Dein province, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted], 12 years old, was riding his bike to the family farm when he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces allegedly responding to Anti-Iraqi Forces. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1371 - 1373	1/23/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by crossfire between Coalition Forces and Anti-Iraqi Forces as he was standing in front of a hospital. Notably the claimant alleges that "convoy shot @ husband before the gun battle." Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1374 - 1379	11/2/2005	Al Deloyia, Salah Dein province, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Saed by parent. Saed was washing his car at an automatic car wash close to the scene of combat between Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF) and Coalition Forces (CF). Parent alleges that [Redacted] was ordered out of his car by CF and shot and killed. Witnesses corroborate claim. SIGACTS does not report that incident, but reports a firefight with AIF. Finding: denied due to combat exception and lack of sufficient evidence whether Saed was AIF. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1380 - 1384	9/28/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for property damage to her father's vehicle. [Redacted]'s father was shot and killed by Coalition Forces when he failed to stop at a checkpoint for an approaching convoy. The shot caused [Redacted]'s father to lose control of the car, which rolled over several times. Finding: denied due to combat exception. This claim for damage to the car is also filed by the son in law. See related claim in Army 1385 - 1389.
Army Bates 1385 - 1389	9/28/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for property damage to his father in law's vehicle. [Redacted]'s father in law was shot and killed by Coalition Forces when he failed to stop for an approaching convoy near a checkpoint. The shot caused [Redacted]'s father in law to lose control of the car, which rolled over several times. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1390 - 1393	3/3/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. Claimant was standing outside of his house when he heard a gunshot, which he assumed to be exchanged between US forces and Anti-Iraqi Forces. Then, the claimant's neighbor's house was hit with a missile, causing a large explosion. Claimant's wife and 8 month old son were inside. The son was killed by the explosion. No record of incident in Division records. Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1394 - 1395	11/22/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of (at least two) Iraqis [Redacted] by sibling. Claimant's brothers were killed by Coalition Forces (CF) as they drove near the intersection of roads leading to Al Alam and Abu Ajeel. SIGACTS showed that CF were engaging Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF) who had been shooting rockets. Finding: denied due to AIF entanglement.
Army Bates 1396 - 1398	3/13/2005	Mukashifa, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. (Either the deceased or claimant is named Jamin Ismael Hussein.) Claimant's father was driving from Samarra to Tikrit when a US convoy passed his vehicle, shooting and killing [Redacted]. The vehicle was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1399 - 1400	1/17/2005	North Side, FOB Danger, Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was attempting to buy fuel on the black market at a station near FOB Danger's North Gate, due to the fuel crisis. US forces shot and killed [Redacted] from an observation tower. Notes on the side of the claimant's form state "looks good, pending SIGACTs check." Finding: denied for lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1401		Unknown	Army Memo denying claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] who was killed by US forces in a vehicular accident. Also states that some documents included with the claim appear to be forgeries. Finding: denied due to lack of credible evidence that US forces caused incident.
Army Bates 1402 - 1405	2/23/2005	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Adil [Redacted] by parent. Adil was on his way to work when he was hit by US artillery fire and killed. Caught in crossfire. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1406 - 1409	3/22/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. US forces mistakenly raided [Redacted]'s home, killing him and causing damage to the house. Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $7,000 US ($6,000 for death, $1,000 for property).
Army Bates 1410 - 1412	2/11/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed at the Diyala Police Station. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement (denied upon reconsideration without reason included). Second page of reconsideration of claim (6/14/05) missing. Appears to be a duplicate of Army 1413 - 1415. Mentions "Green 1 Report."
Army Bates 1413 - 1415	2/11/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed at the Diyala Police Station. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement (denied upon reconsideration without reason included). Appears to be a duplicate of Army 1410 - 1412.
Army Bates 1416 - 1419	3/20/2005	Al Asarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces while driving. Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $5,000 US.
Army Bates 1420 - 1423	10/11/2005	Yethrib, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] was driving home when a Coalition Forces convoy approached from behind. [Redacted] did not yield to the convoy signals, and was shot and killed. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1424 - 1427	7/17/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. As Coalition Forces conducted a raid on a neighboring house, a bullet ricocheted, striking and killing [Redacted] next door. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1428 - 1432	3/23/2006	COB Speicher, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was driving from Baji to Tikrit when a US convoy approached in the wrong lane near a checkpoint. The convoy shot at [Redacted], killing him, and causing his car to roll. The car and the oil in the car were also damaged. Members of convoy claimed that [Redacted] did not respond to hand signals to stop his car, and so they shot at him. Finding: denied due to negligence on behalf of [Redacted]. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1433 - 1436	12/25/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqi children [Redacted] by parent. The children were playing in the street when Coalition Forces began firing in response to distant gunfire, shooting and killing claimant's son and daughter. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1437 - 1443	4/4/2005	Alsinak Bridge, Salihiya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was shot and killed when the last vehicle in a US convoy consisting fired 54 rounds into [Redacted]'s vehicle. The car was also damaged. Finding: sufficient evidence; Compensation: $4,500 US.
Army Bates 1444 - 1455	1/7/2005	Aljumhuriya Bridge, Checkpoint 1, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant, his son, and a cousin were driving towards Checkpoint 1. Before they reached Checkpoint 1, they were stopped at a prior checkpoint by US forces, who redirected their vehicle. At that time, a US convoy approached from the opposite direction, opening fire on the vehicle. [Redacted] was killed, claimant's son was injured, and the car was damaged. Finding: sufficient evidence; Compensation: $6,500 US.
Army Bates 1456 - 1459	1/22/2005	Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted], on his way to sell rugs at a store, was shot and killed by US forces. The body was just left there. The rugs and $10,000 cash in [Redacted]'s possession were not recovered. Finding: sufficient evidence; Compensation: $3,000 US. No statement about where [Redacted]'s alleged belongings went.
Army Bates 1460 - 1462	4/15/2005	Khandhari, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant and his wife and son were driving to the market when Multi-National Forces opened fire on them from the direction of Abu Ghraib prison. Claimant's wife and son were killed. In listing the "item[s]" of loss the claimant wrote that he sought $6,000 worth of "Blood money" for the loss of his wife and son. Finding: not included, but Army letter states that no evidence was found for US responsibility.
Army Bates 1463 - 1465	4/15/2005	Khandhari, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by child. [Redacted] were killed when Multi-National Forces opened fire on the market. Finding: not included, but Army letter states that no evidence was found for US responsibility.
Army Bates 1466 - 1468	3/28/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Multi-National Forces on patrol. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1469 - 1470	9/16/2005	Mahmodiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was watering his crops on his farm when US forces on patrol shot and killed him. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1471 - 1473	1/8/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant's husband was killed when his vehicle collided with a Multi-National Forces vehicle. Other family members were injured and the car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to lack of sufficient evidence ("Police report contains different names then [sic] the claim. Hospital reports are from different dates.")
Army Bates 1474 - 1476	4/17/2005	Radhwaniya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. Muti-National Forces fired at claimant's house, killing her husband and damaging the property. After the killing, they searched the house and apologized. Finding: denied for lack of US involvement.
Army Bates 1477 - 1482	5/14/2005	Radhwaniya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Multi-National Forces on patrol. His car was also damaged. Finding: initially denied due to "inaccurate" story and combat exception; finding of appeal not included. Condolence payment granted: $3,500 US (relying on a statement by a witness and a note from CPT [Redacted]).
Army Bates 1483 - 1486	9/13/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted], who was 10 years old, was sent to buy vegetables. As [Redacted] returned home, he was shot and killed by US forces. Claimant alleged that two other people were also killed, and their families were compensated $5,000 each. Army Memo: SIGACTS did not report any incident, and the unit involved did not report the incident or paying for any deaths. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1487 - 1488	9/7/2005	Al Rashid, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces while driving. Finding: denied due to lack of record of incident in US records.
Army Bates 1489 - 1492	9/23/2005	Al Yousifyah, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was hit by a US convoy and killed when his vehicle rolled over. The vehicle was also damaged. Army Memo: claimant's story is inconsistent and the description of the death is inconsistent. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1493 - 1495	8/18/2005	Al Dora Highway, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces as he attempted to pull his cargo truck to the side of the road. [Redacted] was from the Diwanyia region of Iraq, and may not have been familiar with US cordon practices. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,000 US.
Army Bates 1496 - 1498	1/19/2005	Al Jihad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant, a translator, and his father were on their way home when US forces shot at them. The father was killed, claimant was wounded, and the car was damaged. Finding: denied for lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1499 - 1501	6/11/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. Claimant, his son, and his wife were traveling from Tikrit to Baghdad when they encountered US forces at a checkpoint. Because they failed to slow down in time, US forces shot at the car, killing claimant's son. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1502 - 1506	3/12/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was returning by car from a visit to his sick mother when he was shot and killed by US forces. The car was also damaged. Finding: negligence by US forces, "There is even a note that corroborates a US apology made during a council meeting." Compensation: $5,000 US.
Army Bates 1507 - 1510	2/12/2005	Sakhar Village, Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim by Iraqi [Redacted] for property damage. Coalition Forces shot at claimant's vehicle from a convoy as it passed him on the road. Finding: denied due to action of claimant. The investigator notes that "[t]he evidence shows that on the date in question, the claimant did not stop at a checkpoint and U.S. Forces responded accordingly."
Army Bates 1511 - 1513	7/9/2005	Al Rashid, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. Claimant's 77 year old wife was driving her two nephews when she failed to stop at a US checkpoint and was shot and killed by US forces. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,000 US.
Army Bates 1514 - 1515	9/5/2005	Mahmodiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted], who was mentally ill, was shot and killed by US forces as he walked down the street. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1516 - 1518	7/9/2005	Al Yousifyah, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed by US forces after the vehicle he was riding in was engaged at a checkpoint. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $1,500 US.
Army Bates 1519 - 1520	7/9/2005	Unknown	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Two siblings encountered a US convoy and were shot. [Redacted] died from his wounds, and [Redacted] was injured. Their truck was also stolen. This claim may only be for the stolen truck. Finding: not included, but Army Memo notes that the claim has already been filed.
Army Bates 1521 - 1522	7/9/2005	Unknown	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Two siblings encountered a US convoy and were shot. [Redacted] died from his wounds, and [Redacted] was injured. Their truck was also stolen. This claim may only be for the stolen truck. Finding: not included, but Army Memo notes that the claim has already been filed. Appears to be a copy of Army 1521 - 1522.
Army Bates 1523 - 1526	5/20/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. A father and his 16 year old son, [Redacted], were driving to the market when US forces and Iraqi police started shooting at random. [Redacted] was hit and killed. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1527 - 1529	3/17/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted] was hauling tomatoes in his truck from Basara to Shargat. As he left a gas station, US forces shot and killed [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1530 - 1534	10/11/2005	Ahmed, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. As the two brothers attempted to re-enter a village on foot, Coalition Forces (CF) were conducting a raid. [Redacted] was shot and killed by CF. The brothers were not armed. SIGACTS reported the raid but did not report civilian deaths. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exception.
Army Bates 1535 - 1538	7/20/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Hussin Ali Jassim by wife. Jassim was shot and killed by Coalition Forces when they fired at his car. SIGACTS reported no matching incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exception. Army Memo sets extremely low standard for combat invocation: "Here, there is a presumption of combat activity when CF fire weapons."
Army Bates 1539 - 1542	1/21/2005	Al Falluja, Iraq	Claim on behalf of [Redacted] who was working with Iraqi Special Forces (ISF) when he was shot and killed. [Redacted] and the ISF had just entered Al Fallujah with Coalition Forces when he was shot. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1543 - 1546	10/2/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by father. As claimant's two sons, ages 10 and 12, were returning from the market with groceries, they encountered an area full of Coalition Forces. The two boys took off their white shirts and underwear, and waived them in the air to demonstrate their peaceful intentions. They continued to walk towards home with their white flags aloft and were shot in the stomach and killed. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence.
Army Bates 1547 - 1550	8/11/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. As [Redacted] and his wife drove past Coalition Forces standing outside of their vehicles at a checkpoint, the CF shot at the couple. [Redacted] was hit in the left side of her face, losing sight and undergoing reconstructive surgery before she died. Another passenger lost a finger. SIGACTS revealed that [Redacted]'s car did not stop at a checkpoint. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1551 - 1554	10/2/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant's mother and daughter were standing in front of their home, about 500 meters from a garage allegedly used to make IEDs, when they were shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF). SIGACTS reported that CF and Iraqi Ministry of Interior (MOI) officials were conducting raids, and that MOI were likely responsible for the deaths. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Army Memo notes that use of "illumination [sic] rounds serve a combat purpose, to achieve visibility over battlespace," in order to invoke a combat exception.
Army Bates 1555 - 1558	6/24/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. Claimant's mother was herding sheep to graze when she was shot with "a bullet to the heart" and killed by a Coalition Forces sniper. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1559 - 1562	10/2/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. Claimant's five year old son was shot and killed in crossfire between Anti-Iraqi Forces and Coalition Forces. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1563 - 1566	2/20/2006	Al Duluyia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces as he was picking fruit from a tree. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement. Condolence payment granted: $1,800 US.
Army Bates 1567 - 1570	10/1/2005	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. Claimant's son ran into the street and was shot and killed by crossfire between Coalition Forces and Anti-Iraqi Forces. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1571 - 1578	4/16/2005	Shaab, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was driving a borrowed car when a US convoy struck him, splitting the car in half and severing and killing [Redacted]. The US forces at the scene apologized but did not provide a claims card. Claimant made several vain attempts to retrieve a claims card. While the unit would not give a claims card, 4-64 AR (S-1 shop) was able to verify the incident. [Redacted] was sole supporter of elderly parents and four siblings. Finding: sufficient evidence submitted; Compensation: $11,000 US.
Army Bates 1579 - 1585	1/18/2005	Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was working at a parking garage when he was shot and killed by US sniper. [Redacted] supported seven children. Finding: sufficient evidence submitted; Compensation: $4,000 US.
Army Bates 1586 - 1592	2/6/2005	Al Talaee Square, Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant's father and brother were shot and killed by US forces on their way to work. Claimant was solely supported by father and brother. US forces apologized and gave claimant claim card. Finding: sufficient evidence submitted; Compensation: $9,000 US.
Army Bates 1593 - 1597	9/24/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. Several Iraqi workers were at a refinery when they heard Coalition Forces (CF) firing. Half an hour later, CF arrived at their workplace. One worker tried to push his car into a garage and was shot and wounded by CF. The other individuals were waiting in a separate car. CF fired at these individuals, killing all three. SIGACTS reported the deceased as Anti-Iraqi Forces, including an individual named Fawzi. Finding: denied due to combat activity and lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1598 - 1600	2/8/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant was driving from Baghdad to Mosul with her husband and son when they approached a US convoy from behind. The convoy shot at their car, injuring claimant, killing her husband, and damaging the vehicle. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1601 - 1604	7/9/2005	Shirgat, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqi children [Redacted] by parent. Claimant's two sons were crossing the road when they were hit and killed by Coalition Forces patrol. SIGACTS reported no matching incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1605 - 1608	8/7/2005	Al Shirgat, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by parent. Claimant's two children were crossing the road when a US patrol driving from Tikrit to Sharquat hit and killed them. Claimant alleged that the US patrol did not even stop. SIGACTS found no matching report. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1609 - 1612	8/29/2005	Al Baojed, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. Claimant's son left home to water the crops. When artillery shells started falling, the family left the house and found their son dead. SIGACTS reported no similar incident. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence and combat exception.
Army Bates 1613 - 1616	6/10/2005	Bayji, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Younis [Redacted] by wife. Claimant was driving with her husband and his two brothers from Bayji to Haditha. As they approached a US patrol pulled off on the side of the road, the soldiers opened fire, killing claimant's husband and one of his brothers. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1617 - 1621	2/11/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and injured while he was at the Diyala Police Station. After the incident, [Redacted] was killed by insurgent forces. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement (initial); denied due to combat exception (appeal). Refers to "Green 1 Report."
Army Bates 1622 - 1625	5/4/2005	Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. Claimant's father was driving alongside a US convoy when he was shot and killed. US forces mistook his car for a Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED). Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $6,000 US.
Army Bates 1626 - 1629	11/24/2005	Muqdadia, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. Claimant was driving a passenger in his car when a US convoy forced the vehicle off of the road. The car flipped into a water canal, killing [Redacted] and totaling the vehicle. Finding: negligence; Compensation: $4,000 US.
Army Bates 1630 - 1633	1/14/2005	Al Mudadiya, Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was killed when a Coalition Forces tank hit the bus he was riding in. Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $6,000 US. See related claim: Army 1634 - 1637.
Army Bates 1634 - 1637	1/14/2005	Al Mudadiya, Baqubah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted] was killed when a Coalition Forces tank hit the bus he was riding in. Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $6,000 US. See related claim: Army 1630 - 1633.
Army Bates 1638 - 1641	4/9/2005	Mufrak, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. Claimant and son were shopping when an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detonated, killing the son. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1642 - 1645	4/11/2005	Hay Moa'alamen, Falluja, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parents. Claimant, his wife, and his 18 month old baby were walking home when shots from an airplane hit the baby and wife. The wife was injured and the baby was killed. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1646 - 1647	5/30/2005	Mahmodiyah, Iraq	§ Appeal of claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. The incident is described as "[e]xhumation of claimant's son by NCIS." Unclear why NCIS sought exhumation. Unredacted portion of letter states that a condolence was previously paid on July 20, 2005. Finding: not reported. Related to Army 1648-1650.
Army Bates 1648 - 1650	5/30/2005	Mahmodiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. Claimant's son was exhumed by NCIS as part of a double murder investigation involving the Marines. Claimant was given a claims card and told to file it with FOB St. Michael for compensation regarding the exhumation. Notes that the family of the second victim has already been paid a condolence payment for same incident. Condolence payment granted: $700 US. Circumstances of incident unknown. See related claim: Army 1646 - 1647.
Army Bates 1651 - 1654	5/22/2005	Al Khalsa neighborhood, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted Mahmoud] by brother. Mahmoud and his brother were at a market when four humvees approached, shooting randomly. [Redacted] was shot and killed. Soldiers apologized and gave claimant a claim card. Soldiers may have been shooting in reaction to celebratory shots fired by a wedding party. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1655 - 1656	1/8/2005	Al Yousifya, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. Claimant's father was killed by crossfire between US forces and Anti-Iraqi Forces. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1657 - 1659	2/12/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. Claimant's husband and friend were on their way to work when Multi-National Forces shot at them, killing [Redacted]. Finding: denied due to combat exemption.
Army Bates 1660 - 1662	4/17/2005	Falluja, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by child. [Redacted], who was 54 years old, was killed during a bombardment. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1663 - 1667	2/11/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. [Redacted] was shot and killed on "Corporation Road" by Coalition Forces. SIGACTS reported no similar activity. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1668 - 1671	1/7/2005	Al Dujayl, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was driving from Ad Khalis to Ad Jowmeah when he approached a Coalition Forces (CF) convoy. CF shot and killed [Redacted]. SIGACTS reported no similar activity. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1672 - 1676	11/12/2005	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. The claimant was taking his wife to the hospital when they approached a Coalition Forces (CF) convoy and pulled off the road. CF shot and killed the wife. The wife may have been pregnant. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1677 - 1680	9/3/2005	Bayji-Tikrit Highway, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. The two brothers were driving from Bayji to Tikrit when they approached a Coalition Forces (CF) checkpoint. The driver lost control of the car, and CF shot and killed [Redacted]. Claimant was also severely injured in the shooting, necessitating several surgeries. The vehicle was damaged as well. Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1681 - 1684	1/10/2006	Samarra, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. Claimant's father was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) who had blocked a street to investigate a possible Improvised Explosive Device (IED). SIGACTS reported that a SUV tried to go around the blocked traffic, and when CF fired at the vehicle, it became engulfed in flames. Several women and children were seem attempting to exit the vehicle (claim not made on their behalf here). Finding: denied due to combat exception. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1685 - 1687	4/22/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by parent. [Redacted] was killed when Multi-National Forces began firing in response to the explosion of an Improvised Explosion Device. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1688 - 1690	4/18/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was driving from Bayji to Tikrit when a US convoy passed him in the opposite direction. The convoy shot at [Redacted], hitting him in the abdomen and killing him. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1691 - 1694	2/4/2005	Balad or Alsuod, Yathrib, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by brother. Claimant's brother and an Iraqi policeman were standing near each other at a gas station while the policeman directed traffic. A passing US convoy fired shots at the two, killing both men. SIGACTS verified incident. The unit involved in the incident did not report it; it was later reported by 1-4 CAV, who initiated an Article 15-6 investigation. Finding: negligence by US forces; Compensation: $5,000 US. Notes that an Article 15-6 investigation has been opened to look into the incident.
Army Bates 1695 - 1697	2/11/2006	Hawija or Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Ahmed [Redacted]. Ahmed, a mill worker, was working inside the mill when a Coalition Forces convoy passed nearby and began firing. Ahmed was hit and killed. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1698 - 1701	7/19/2005	East of Rutba, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. [Redacted], a driver between Baghdad and Jordan, was shot and killed by Coalition Forces that he met on the road. [Redacted] was the main provider for his mother and two single sisters. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1702 - 1704	6/29/2005	Debis Suburb, Kikurk, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. Claimant and his father were driving from Debis to Kikurk to work at their restaurant. As they approached a Coalition Forces (CF) ambush, CF shot at their car, killing [Redacted]. According to the Army Memo, a "goodwill" payment of $1,365 was made to [Redacted]'s wife on 8/29/05. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1705 - 1707	3/7/2005	Al Salman, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by husband. Claimant and his wife were driving towards Wasit Province when they came upon a group of terrorists stealing cars. A US convoy began firing at the terrorists and a stray bullet hit [Redacted], killing her. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1708 - 1711	1/27/2005	Al Ramadi, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was driving a bus full of passengers to Syria when he found US convoys both in front of and behind his vehicle. One of the convoys starting shooting, hitting [Redacted] and killing him. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1712 - 1714b	1/19/05 or 1/20/05	Balad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted], while on duty as a security guard at a school, encountered US forces when he approached the school to investigate noise. The US forces, who had been ambushed by Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF), shot [Redacted], killing him. The US forces also reported that [Redacted] was listed as AIF. Finding: denied due to combat exception and [Redacted]'s position as AIF.
Army Bates 1715 - 1718	4/9/2005	Tikrit, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by mother. Claimant's son, a shepherd, was leading sheep through north Tikrit when he came upon an Unexploded Ordnance (UXO). [Redacted] picked up the UXO, which exploded in his hands, killing him. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1719 - 1722	5/15/2005	Diyala Bridge, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi Mohammed [Redacted]. Claimant rented a house to Mohammed near Diayala Bridge. One day, US troops gathered a large supply of ammunition in front of the house and detonated it without warning, killing Mohammed and destroying the house. Claimant says that the soldiers apologized. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1723 - 1724	1/30/2005	Al Yousifyah, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was killed in the crossfire between US Marines and a Point of Origin. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1725 - 1730	2/6/2005	Al Rahmaniya quarter, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted] by sister. Claimant's two brothers were eating lunch in front of the tire shop where they worked when a US patrol drove by and shot and killed them. Claimant was dependent on her two brothers because she is divorced. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1731 - 1736	7/31/2005	Alawi, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of two Iraqis [Redacted]. Claimant was driving with his wife and son when he became sandwiched between two US convoys. The convoys hit his car, causing an accident. His wife and son were killed (apparently in the accident). Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.
Army Bates 1737 - 1739	1/2/2005	Al Adel District, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted], a student at the College of Science for Girls, was shot and killed by crossfire between Anti-Iraqi Forces and Coalition Forces. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1740 - 1741	5/15/2005	Route Irish, VIC 38 SMB 3503 8365, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted], a taxi driver, was carrying two passengers when he was shot and killed by crossfire between Coalition Forces and insurgents. His taxi was also damaged. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $3,500 US ($2,500 for death; $1,00 for damage to car).
Army Bates 1742 - 1743	5/22/2005	Vicinity of Baghdad, MB 37098 87082	Condolence payment granted to Iraqi [Redacted] after a Local National vehicle was engaged by US forces, who believed it to be an explosive device. Condolence payment granted: $150 US (for damage to water heater). See related claims: Army 1744 - 1751.
Army Bates 1744 - 1745	5/22/2005	Vicinity of Baghdad, MB 37098 87082	Condolence payment granted Iraqi [Redacted] after a Local National vehicle was engaged by US forces, who believed it to be an explosive device. Condolence payment granted: $700 US (damage to vehicle). See related claims: Army 1742 - 1743, 1746 - 1751.
Army Bates 1746 - 1747	5/22/2005	Vicinity of Baghdad, MB 37098 87082	Condolence payment granted to Iraqi [Redacted] after a Local National vehicle was engaged by US forces, who believed it to be an explosive device. Condolence payment granted: $400 US (damage to vehicle). See related claims: Army 1742 - 1745, 1748 - 1751.
Army Bates 1748 - 1749	5/22/2005	Vicinity of Baghdad, MB 37098 87082	Condolence payment granted to Iraqi Aldhahi Jamal after a Local National vehicle was engaged by US forces, who believed it to be an explosive device. Condolence payment granted: $900 US (damage to vehicle). See related claims: Army 1742 - 1747, 1750 - 1751.
Army Bates 1750	5/22/2005	Vicinity of Baghdad, MB 37098 87082	Condolence payment granted to Iraqi [Redacted] after a Local National vehicle was engaged by US forces, who believed it to be an explosive device. Condolence payment granted: $300 US (damage to vehicle). See related claims: Army 1742 - 1749, 1751.
Army Bates 1751	5/22/2005	Vicinity of Baghdad, MB 37098 87082	Condolence payment on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted]. [Redacted]'s car was engaged by US troops, who believed it to be carrying an explosive device. [Redacted] died in the incident. Condolence payment granted: $5,000 US ($2,500 for death; $2,500 for vehicle and contents). See related claims: Army 1742 - 1750.
Army Bates 1752 - 1753	1/28/2005	Route Cannucks, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by son. [Redacted] was driving between Route Redwings and Route Flyers East when he was shot and killed by Coalition Forces after failing to respond to their hand signals. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1754 - 1755	1/1/2005	MB 160 917	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by nephew. [Redacted] was shot and killed by Coalition Forces (CF) as he drove down Route Hurricanes. [Redacted] failed to respond to CF hand signals. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1756 - 1758	2/7/2005	Mahmodiyah, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. [Redacted] was driving on ASR Jackson when he was killed by Coalition Forces responding to a nearby explosion. Finding: not included. Condolence payment granted: $2,500 US.
Army Bates 1759 - 1762	5/15/2005	Grid 38SMB MB304604 (Zone North Babil province), Iraq	Condolence payment on behalf of several Iraqis [Redacted]. A car carrying two adults and a child approached FOB St. Joseph at a high speed. After the car failed to slow down, US forces shot it, killing the three passengers. Condolence payment granted: $7,500 US ($2,500 each death).
Army Bates 1763 - 1765	1/27/2005	Rahmadi highway, Anbar province, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by father. As [Redacted], a taxi driver, drove passengers from Baghdad to Al Ka'im, US forces fired on the taxi, killing [Redacted]. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1766 - 1768	2/27/2005	Al Kadmiyia, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by sibling. [Redacted] was driving behind a US patrol when another patrol approached from behind and shot and killed him. [Redacted] left behind six kids and a wife. Finding: denied due to combat exception.
Army Bates 1769 - 1771	4/10/2005	Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq	Claim on behalf of Iraqi [Redacted] by wife. [Redacted] was shot and killed while driving in Al Resala. The car was also damaged. Finding: denied due to lack of evidence of US involvement.