Interestingly, besides the real crimes already widely-publicized (and being prosecuted), they’re nothing more than filler for an anti-American agenda. Jack Lewis writes:

Other than a handful of real crimes, already widely publicized, the ACLU’s “10,000 pages” are nothing more than their attempt to portray US Troops as wanton criminals, the exact same thing Liberals did during the Vietnam War. There is no caution needed with this story, since it is nothing more than the usual ACLU lies, decorated with a few, miniscule sprinkles of truth to make the lies appear different. The real crime is the treasonous behavior of the ACLU in attacking our troops while completely ignoring the atrocities committed by the enemy.

…But upon closer examination what the ACLU is calling “crimes” turns out to be more of the wild, anti-American lies typical of ACLU loonies. Here are a few of the “atrocities” the ACLU dimwits listed… details at link.

That’s really no surprise. Apparently the American Civil Liberties Union is more concerned with the right of terrorists than those of Americans. That’s been the ACLU’s basic policy: Protect Real Criminals First, Americans Last.

More: Jack Lewis details some of the incidents the ACLU considers crimes:

 On January 14th, 2005, a vehicle approached a US Military convoy. The driver of the vehicle refused to move from the path of the convoy even after repeated warnings. A civilian contractor providing security for the convoy then opened fire on the vehicle injuring several occupants. One round, however, richoceted and killed a bystander, Faysal Kamel Hamsa, who was standing on the side of the road. The three occupants of the vehicle, a man, a woman, and another of unidentified age, were only injured. The army ruled it a justifiable response.

And rightly so. A car is coming at you in Iraq, it refuses to stop despite repeated orders, you open fire. A bullet accidentally ricochets, and that’s a “crime”?

On February 21st, 2005, an unidentified member of the US miltary lost control of their vehicle and struck an oncoming vehicle which resulted in the death of a 6-month-old child, Summa Soman Meero. The Military ruled it negligent homicide. The ACLU consider it the murder of an Iraqi citizen by US troops.

It was an accident, after losing control of a vehicle in a combat zone. The driver wasn’t drunk and didn’t intentionally swerve. Don’t confuse the ACLU, though.

On January 25th, 2005, Abdulla Fawzi was admitted to the 86th Combat Support Hospital from wounds suffering in after opening fire on US troops. On January 30th, Fawzi died from his wounds. The US Military ruled this a combat death. The ACLU consider it the murder of an Iraqi citizen by US troops.

Hear that? Any insurgent you shoot, and subsequently dies, though he was attacking you, was murdered by you – in a war zone. Keeping in mind that we spent time, money, and resources giving him the best medical attention possible after the shooting.

On January 31, 2005 a riot broke out at Theater Internment Facility at Camp Bucca, Iraq. After two hours the riot began to escalate, and deadly force was used to quell the rioting prisoners. Three rioting prisoners were killed. The military ruled the killings justifiable. The ACLU classify it as the intentional murder of Iraqi Civilians by US Troops.

Absolutely ridiculous. While the ACLU lists real crimes, you already know about those. Why? Because we’re prosecuting them. Jack also makes a very important overall observation of the ACLU’s logic:

The problem is the 10,000 pages are courts-martial summaries, transcripts and military investigative reports, not a list. Anyone who’s ever had to deal with the government must know their insane obsession over reams and reams of paper work. The 10,000 pages only involve 22 actual cases. So while we’ve been in Iraq for 4 and a half years, the 150,000 to 160,000 troops only committed 22 crimes? What kind of moron calls 22 killings in 4 1/2 years from 150,000+ people DURING A WAR a “pattern”?

Jack, please. Any facts or logic would disrupt their agenda.