The Wikileaks collection

[Fuchs]

Totally inapt. This isn't a backyard outing, it's a wartime engagement in which the convoy in question had already been fired upon.

Thanks, that's what I waited for.

This is the core of the problem. Any attitude like "we are soldiers in a war zone, thus we are above the law and our lives are more worth than civilian lives, we can kill civilians for the smallest of reasons" is simply wrong.
It may have become institutional culture in some places, but that doesn't change the fact that it's just wrong. It merely casts a damning light on the institution.
Soldiers are not above the law, they cannot re-define terms, they are not allowed to shoot civilians trying to evac wounded.


In addition to that, you seem to purposefully ignore the Geneva Convention quoted earlier in this thread.

GC III was ratified by the U.S. and Iraq and forbids the attack on the van without doubt. It needs no red-white paint job at all.

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(...)

You guys should really have a milieu change and get out of the "war and soldiers are special" group think. Murder is murder, crime is crime and the van scene was beyond doubt a war crime.
The only thing that's so special about war in this regard is that a murder has been turned into a war crime. Killing unarmed people who merely want to move a wounded man into a hospital with aimed fire is a crime, no matter war or peace.



The whole affair will simply add to the reputation, national security and foreign policy problems of the U.S..
Pro war crime excuses on an internationally accessible forum only add to the unappreciated effect. Every excuse of the attack on unarmed medevac effort by civilians simply tells the world: "This is what we do and we think it's right. Expect more."

This extreme unreadiness to correct own faults is a recurrent theme in U.S . policy and the GWOT. Take the Guantanamo example. First this extralegal extradition (much of it outright illegal, such as abduction of people in Europe) and then the unreadiness to correct it by accepting these abducted persons either in a domestic prison for criminals or in a POW camp.


Guess what? This kind of #### is the reason why you have so many troubles with foreigners in the first place (and it certainly sabotaged the military mission in both Iraq & AFG).

[Polarbear1605]

To Cecil Turner: Hear, Hear Sir!
To Fuchs:

our lives are more worth than civilian lives

"Ours" meaning US Soldiers and Marines, YES! if the choice is America parents and wives welcoming their sons and daughters home at the airports after a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan and watching Iraqi parents and wives cry, I will always vote and work for seeing happy americans. Like I said before:

I have a hard time listening to anyone you says the US military does not go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties

[stanleywinthrop]

If you (a generic "you" aimed at no one particular) feel that this incident should be prosecuted - I would not prosecute as to any of it, including the van segment - then you prosecute under 18 USC 2441 (War Cirmes), which spells out its extraterritorial jurisdiction:



This is treated as though it can be incorporated by reference into the UCMJ.

Regards

Mike

JMM brings up the other piece of the puzzle under which war crimes can be tried. As it stands an active duty member who commits a war crime can be tried under the UCMJ or in federal court under 2441. Additionally after he seperates from active duty, he can be tried under 3261.

The first portion of the engagement is not chargeable under 2441, however. See 18 USC 2441(3). It can be likely argued that the journalists and other unarmed persons were killed as a result of "collateral damage." However as 3261 contains no collateral damage exception, and anyone charged under it faces traditional non-combat definitions of murder, manslaughter etc.

For example Jose Nazario was accused of killing an insurgent who had surrendured or was in the act of surrendering. This is a classic war crime under the geneva conventions and therefore 2441. However he was charged under 3261 and faced manslaughter charges. This is likely because it is much easier to prosecute and prove manslaughter than war crimes. As long as they have a choice, most prosecutors will choose 3261.

[Rex Brynen]

"Ours" meaning US Soldiers and Marines, YES! if the choice is America parents and wives welcoming their sons and daughters home at the airports after a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan and watching Iraqi parents and wives cry, I will always vote and work for seeing happy americans.

While I fundamentally disagree with Fuchs on what the helicopter footage shows, it is worth remembering that coalition forces are now in Iraq and Afghanistan with the permission of the local government, in part for the purpose of securing the local population. Any attitude which suggests that protecting host nation nationals is secondary to preserving the lives of coalition troops deployed there runs counter, in my view, to the very purpose of the mission.

[Cecil Turner]

Thanks, that's what I waited for.

Soldiers are not above the law, they cannot re-define terms, they are not allowed to shoot civilians trying to evac wounded.

You seem to think there is some universal definition of self-defense that applies equally in a war zone during a firefight or in a civilian situation. There isn't. The insurgents were not civilians, and they weren't entitled to maneuver in peace until they got into a favorable firing position.

In addition to that, you seem to purposefully ignore the Geneva Convention quoted earlier in this thread.

GC III was ratified by the U.S. and Iraq and forbids the attack on the van without doubt. It needs no red-white paint job at all.

No, you ignored my response.

Fuchs went to the trouble of finding the treaty, but then failed to read the pertinent notes section, which includes in part: "An escape, or an attempt at escape, by a prisoner or any other person considered to be ' hors de combat, ' justifies the use of arms for the purpose of stopping him."

[Wargames Mark]

I don't think the video tells the whole story. I don't know what to make of it yet, because of precisely that. However, I am extremely leery of the agenda of the persons who leaked this video. I think that whoever leaked it should be slammed hard.

As Joe-Citizen-Taxpayer, I'm all for having aggressive Soldiers that have to reined in. I'll take those kinds of Soldiers over ones that have to be pushed forward any day of the week.

Do I want guys going around taking out zip-codes? No, of course not. I'm not a COINista, but I get the "accidental guerrilla" thing. I'm also a human being. I don't eat babies. Same goes for the Army. This was investigated previously. Could there have been problems with that investigation? Yes, there could have been, but we don't yet know that there were. Covering up a violation of the Law of War carries heavy price and conspiracies require multiple members. I tend not to expect them.

As an example of the difference between investigating versus speculating, after TWA Flight 800 went down over the Atlantic, I remember a press conference at which James Kalstrom of the FBI was speaking and he said something along the lines of "We're not the Federal Bureau of Speculation, we're the Federal Bureau of Investigation." I think he was being asked to guess by members of the press when he said that. It stuck in my head as a really good point. I think it can be applied to lots of other things, stories like this among them.

Similarly, there just isn't a complete enough picture of this situation available to make a reliable assessment of what happened and why it happened.

However, I know for damn sure that this video isn't supposed to be making the rounds on the Internet. THAT also needs to be investigated.

[Ken White]

While I fundamentally disagree with Fuchs on what the helicopter footage shows...

Not that. We're in total agreement on that aspect.

This:

...Any attitude which suggests that protecting host nation nationals is secondary to preserving the lives of coalition troops deployed there runs counter, in my view, to the very purpose of the mission.

I strongly agree with that and would hope that in a combat situation I'd remember it always. I'm fortunate in being able to say that so far, I've done that. I was lucky and everyone cannot say that.

That's due to the fact that in similar circumstances but other places, I've several times seen Soldiers and Marines from several nations as well as the US, mostly good people who meant well, allow their fondness for their friends and allies as opposed to concern for real or potential antagonists to cause a certain loss of objectivity or rearrangement of priorities in favor of the former and with some disregard of mission parameters. Under some circumstances, even those who should be enforcing the mission goals and discipline in general have got caught up in the excitement...

People are pesky critters, they just won't behave as they're supposed to -- or as we wish...

[Fuchs]

No, you ignored my response.

I ignored it because it's irrelevant in this case. The wounded person to be recovered by the civilians with the van was not attempting anything but possibly breathing.

Furthermore, the recovering people (with the van) were fired at at the same time and they were protected persons according to GC III Article 3.
To recover a wounded person is not = "taking part in active hostilities".
Besides, they were unarmed and thus at the very least equal to combatants who laid down their weapons, another category of protected persons according to GC III Article 3, an international treaty with the force of law in Iraq and the U.S. which you insist to ignore.

[Cecil Turner]

I ignored it because it's irrelevant in this case. The wounded person to be recovered by the civilians with the van was not attempting anything but possibly breathing.

How about "escaping"? And your persistence in assuming the people in the van are civilians is hardly convincing. The speed with which they arrived on the scene, despite generally deserted streets, and their actions in taking a combatant away from a firefight with US ground forces in close proximity strongly suggests they were fellow combatants. (And hence a legitimate target.)

If the goal was medical attention for the wounded, the best thing they could've done was stay put. But of course they'd have been captured.

[patmc]

Just watched the video after reading the other posts and some of the linked sites.

From my viewing, I think there are legitimate questions about both the video and the events shown. WikiLeaks has a slant and an agenda and the material is presented as such. Cameras and journalists are identified, but rifles and RPG are not. The full back story of the TIC and AO are not presented fully. As pointed out elsewhere, the majority of civilians are inside, away from the action, likely because they knew something was going on. This area of Baghdad in 2007 was not a nice place and groups of civilians with weapons were usually not picking up garbage.

The two journalists unfortunately seemed to have embedded with insurgents. They don't appear to be wearing hunting vests or safety vests (or something more appropriate) to identify as non-combatants, they're in civilian attire with cameras. It is easy to point out they are just cameras after the fact, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were viewed as suspicious. I remember from reading "Thunder Run" that several journalists were mistakenly identified as spotters or scouts for the enemy during OIF I and were targeted in the Palestine Hotel (?). The unit was receiving fire and saw someone with a lens that looked like optics or a range finder and they engaged. In retrospect, it is easy to say they were journalists, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were engaged. Someone pointed out that spotters were treated as combatants in Ramadi and targeted as such. During my tour in OIF IV, we conducted convoy security and a indicator of enemy action was cameramen. Under our understanding of the ROE, it was conceivable a cameraman was a legitimate target under specific circumstances (ie: filming the site of an IED ambush at the moment of ambush). Thankfully, we never tested that one.

US forces see several armed men amongst a larger group of men, around the corner from a US patrol and assume they are hostile. Has anyone discovered if the armed men were not in fact insurgents? If they were not, they should have tried to reasonably identify themselves as not-hostile. If you walk around an active combat area with weapons, you are increasing your chances of being engaged. The group of men moved to the corner down from the US and started observing the Americans. The pilots thought they saw a RPG being aimed and they engaged. The photo found in the camera confirms how close they were to the US patrol. If it had in fact been a RPG and it killed American Soldiers, were the pilots overly cautious and negligent in their mission of overwatching? Not easy questions or answers. I think they acted in good faith in engaging the first target.

The van, I'm still not definite either way. If your unit engaged the enemy in a firefight and a van pulled up to take away bodies or wounded, would you engage? What if your unit fought a battle, then put some scouts or overwatch to kill the follow ons, would that van be legitimate? It was very easy to point out the children inside after the fact, but under the circumstances, it is understandable why they engaged. They requested permission and received it.

What should also be pointed out, once the infantry arrived on scene and realized there were wounded children, they ran them off for medical aid. They didn't put more rounds in them or leave them to die. If higher then diverted them to an Iraqi hospital, there may be other reasons not presented. The running over the body appeared to be an accident. The commentary from the aircrews, a little over the top, but I was expecting worse. Anyone who has been under fire has heard worse and it didn't mean anyone was callous or inhuman.

The Army withheld the video for obvious reasons, watched without context or background, it does appear overly aggressive, and as demonstrated, those with an agenda could highlight portions to their liking. Wikileaks asks others to leak secret information. My INFOSEC is rusty, but isn't requesting or encouraging the leaking of classified information a crime?

The video is not as bad as I expected, but again, it is unfortunate that journalists, children, and possibly innocent civilians may have been killed. The intent was not coldblooded, unprovoked murder. Operations in civilian areas are worse in every way, because of the unknowns and increased chance for incidents like this.

In early 2006, I was leading a convoy that received sniper fire in a village outside Balad. I spotted the sniper on a rooftop and my gunners aimed at him, but I saw people moving inside the building behind him, so I told my Soldiers to hold their fire. We moved on a few minutes later and received small arms fire in the village. My gunners returned controlled fire at their targets. It still bothers me whether I should have given the fire order to kill the sniper. He may have killed Americans the next day. I don't know. The pilots were in the same boat. If they just watched and a RPG destroyed a humvee, they'd have to live with that. War is terrible and it's easy to distort incidents based on one's politics or background. Wikileaks went one way, the Army the opposite, the reality was probably somewhere in between.

A few missions, we received air coverage from some Kiowas. They scouted the route ahead of us or covered us while we were halted. One time we received fire and they called me to say I was shot at. I thanked them for the update. I asked if they got the shooter, they said, no, he ran away. Now, had they spotted a group of men forming up and watching the route ahead of me, I think I would have been supportive of them engaging a target. I think our technology and communication allow a level of checks that are much better than other militaries, but it also allows instant action. A lot can happen in a split second and that is why leaders have to make the best decisions they can. The Army could use this video for Discussions or Professional Development, and let Soldiers decide what the right action would be. Like many incidents, I don't think this one is clear cut either way.

[Entropy]

Fuchs,

Whether you are right or not ultimately boils down to a judgment call on what constitutes a combatant when combatants are visually indistinguishable from civilians. For this incident, such calls are not always cut-and-dry in the time allowed to make a decision. Your judgments have the benefit of hindsight, the benefit of not having any skin in the game, the benefit of time, the benefit of reviewing the video multiple times in multiple formats (as well as annotation by wikileaks) at your own leisure, the benefit of viewing the video on a large screen on a stable platform among other factors. The people who actually made the decisions had none of those benefits that you enjoyed. As Ken says, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you might want to consider those factors in your analysis before determining those involved are criminals beyond a any shadow of a doubt. Just a suggestion.

For the council, Iraq is not my theater of expertise and my memory is suspect, but I seem to remember that some of the armed insurgent groups used vans similar to what's shown in the video to transport/medevac fighters. Can anyone confirm/deny?

[Schmedlap]

Anybody who thinks that they can judge whether this was justified by watching the video is too ignorant to even engage with.

The discussion that this video should prompt would ideally focus on the reaction of the DoD to its release, the manner in which it was investigated, and the procedures that were used on this day for granting authorization to engage and/or PID the target.

In order...

Has the DoD been nearly silent on this, or have they just been drowned out by other chatter?

Was the 15-6 on this just another finger drill or was it done seriously to gather as much information as possible and draw as clear of a picture as possible just in case something like this video leak were to occur? My Soldiers always interpreted 15-6 investigations as witch hunts. It took a long time to convince them that we do the investigations in case there are any future questions... like this situation we are seeing unfold now.

Was there any examination of the procedures by which the AWT got authorization to fire and/or was delegated that authority? If so, did any procedures change thereafter?

[Steve the Planner]

Entropy:

In March 2008, I went on a drive from Tikrit down to Baghdad, in part, to look at VBED damage to bridges. Round holes, square holes, big holes, small holes. Easy to tell what did the damage---the vehicle carcass (or what was left of it) was usually close by. There was nothing that was not used.

Crossing so many AO's on that trip, the threat briefing alone took an hour---what vehicles/weapons/threats had been reported in each of some 20 locations. Nothing so serious/chilling as the 101st Chaplain giving the war prayer at the end of a meaty threat briefing. Damned scary stuff.

The problem, as many have pointed out, is the context, and not just of the event. Not that if a crime was committed, prosecution isn't warranted)

On a movement in an MRAP, sometimes the crew would be well-rested, happy, and joking all the way. Other times, the crew had been out on patrol all night, sometimes having been hit (or someone in their unit), and those were the folks popping caps at every intersection, buffaloing down the wrong side of the road (like that Tale of Two Convoys).

I have a button that says "Will Fight For Peace." Whether fighting for war, stability or peace, the stuff is dangerous, necessary (we hope) and, sometimes, just awful.

Pity the person who thinks they can say: Give us a clean war, make us proud.

War is brutal, scary, and violent. And bad stuff can happen.

[Entropy]

Steve,

All well said and I don't think I can put it any better than Dayuan:

From the perspective of a civilian who's been around a little bit of it: anyone who thinks you can send young men into combat and get politically correct dialogue, accurate and dispassionate interpretation of observed circumstances, and calm, rational, effective decision making all the time is living in the land of fantasy. War is hell; that hasn't changed and I don't expect that it will. We may feel it necessary to punish those who remind us that war is hell and who fail to conform to the illusion of a precise, clean, surgical war in which every action can stand up to hindsight... but there's probably just a bit of hypocrisy in that need.

And just to be clear my "combat" experience, or lack thereof, consists of getting mortared on a fob, deploying to many "combat" zones without incident and riding on a helo that took a few (missed) potshots. In other words, my experience ain't much, but I've been around enough to know that second-guessing decisions made in combat usually isn't a good idea unless one has incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing.

[Steve the Planner]

Entropy:

Last month, I was at a local school board meeting in Maryland. Afterwards, one of the former board members was chatting about the fun he has going out on a track to race his Audi. Turned out it was the same track I took "Crash and Bang" (anti-terrorist driving), which he had heard about.

He asked me about the most exciting driving I every did. I told him it was just as a passenger in a Blackhawk at night over Sadr City with the flares (countermeasures) popping. Hard to convey that kind of experience, but it stays in my mind with that video.

I would recommend that anyone who doesn't understand that video should watch Blackhawk Down, then try to put themselves in the pilot's headspace.

[motorfirebox]

In addition to that, you seem to purposefully ignore the Geneva Convention quoted earlier in this thread.

GC III was ratified by the U.S. and Iraq and forbids the attack on the van without doubt. It needs no red-white paint job at all.

Hilariously, when you quoted GCIII, you actually bolded the part that invalidates this argument. GCIII, Art 3: "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character..." The action in Iraq is most definitely of an international character, so Article 3 does not apply. Therefore, we must look to GCI, Art 39-40, which clearly state that medical personnel must mark themselves as such in order to receive special protection under the Conventions. The van, nor the personnel, were not marked, ergo they had no special protection under the Conventions.

[Fuchs]

@ Entropy:
You mentioned mostly extenuating circumstances that don't influence the question of "guilty or not?".

@motorfirebox:
Actually, it's a civil war with foreign participation. That's not an international conflict.

"They can involve third States or multinational forces fighting side by side with the government. The situations that come to mind include, for example, the Darfur region in Sudan, Colombia, Eastern DRC or today’s Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. The Geneva Conventions cover all of these situations. Indeed, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions deals with any armed conflict not of an international character. That is to say that any armed conflict that it is not an inter-State conflict falls within the scope of common Article 3 of the Conventions."
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...atement-120809

Point me at a single printed GC commentary or at a single neutral (non-U.S.) scholar on IL who agrees with you that article 3 of GC III and IV is not applicable in this case.

- - - - -

Medical personnel is obliged to mark itself as such in order to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. This does not rule out that civilians can spontaneously recover wounded and still be protected.

[Cecil Turner]

Medical personnel is obliged to mark itself as such in order to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. This does not rule out that civilians can spontaneously recover wounded and still be protected.

Yes, but if fellow combatants recover their wounded, they are legitimate targets. That is precisely what the witness statements in the investigation claimed here, and the most reasonable interpretation of what was going on.

The actions of the photo team may have been misinterpreted, but there is simply no innocent explanation for the two RPGs found on the scene.

[Firn]

Just watched the video after reading the other posts and some of the linked sites.

From my viewing, I think there are legitimate questions about both the video and the events shown. WikiLeaks has a slant and an agenda and the material is presented as such. Cameras and journalists are identified, but rifles and RPG are not. The full back story of the TIC and AO are not presented fully. As pointed out elsewhere, the majority of civilians are inside, away from the action, likely because they knew something was going on. This area of Baghdad in 2007 was not a nice place and groups of civilians with weapons were usually not picking up garbage.

The two journalists unfortunately seemed to have embedded with insurgents. They don't appear to be wearing hunting vests or safety vests (or something more appropriate) to identify as non-combatants, they're in civilian attire with cameras. It is easy to point out they are just cameras after the fact, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were viewed as suspicious. I remember from reading "Thunder Run" that several journalists were mistakenly identified as spotters or scouts for the enemy during OIF I and were targeted in the Palestine Hotel (?). The unit was receiving fire and saw someone with a lens that looked like optics or a range finder and they engaged. In retrospect, it is easy to say they were journalists, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were engaged. Someone pointed out that spotters were treated as combatants in Ramadi and targeted as such. During my tour in OIF IV, we conducted convoy security and a indicator of enemy action was cameramen. Under our understanding of the ROE, it was conceivable a cameraman was a legitimate target under specific circumstances (ie: filming the site of an IED ambush at the moment of ambush). Thankfully, we never tested that one.

US forces see several armed men amongst a larger group of men, around the corner from a US patrol and assume they are hostile. Has anyone discovered if the armed men were not in fact insurgents? If they were not, they should have tried to reasonably identify themselves as not-hostile. If you walk around an active combat area with weapons, you are increasing your chances of being engaged. The group of men moved to the corner down from the US and started observing the Americans. The pilots thought they saw a RPG being aimed and they engaged. The photo found in the camera confirms how close they were to the US patrol. If it had in fact been a RPG and it killed American Soldiers, were the pilots overly cautious and negligent in their mission of overwatching? Not easy questions or answers. I think they acted in good faith in engaging the first target.

The van, I'm still not definite either way. If your unit engaged the enemy in a firefight and a van pulled up to take away bodies or wounded, would you engage? What if your unit fought a battle, then put some scouts or overwatch to kill the follow ons, would that van be legitimate? It was very easy to point out the children inside after the fact, but under the circumstances, it is understandable why they engaged. They requested permission and received it.

What should also be pointed out, once the infantry arrived on scene and realized there were wounded children, they ran them off for medical aid. They didn't put more rounds in them or leave them to die. If higher then diverted them to an Iraqi hospital, there may be other reasons not presented. The running over the body appeared to be an accident. The commentary from the aircrews, a little over the top, but I was expecting worse. Anyone who has been under fire has heard worse and it didn't mean anyone was callous or inhuman.

The Army withheld the video for obvious reasons, watched without context or background, it does appear overly aggressive, and as demonstrated, those with an agenda could highlight portions to their liking. Wikileaks asks others to leak secret information. My INFOSEC is rusty, but isn't requesting or encouraging the leaking of classified information a crime?

The video is not as bad as I expected, but again, it is unfortunate that journalists, children, and possibly innocent civilians may have been killed. The intent was not coldblooded, unprovoked murder. Operations in civilian areas are worse in every way, because of the unknowns and increased chance for incidents like this.

In early 2006, I was leading a convoy that received sniper fire in a village outside Balad. I spotted the sniper on a rooftop and my gunners aimed at him, but I saw people moving inside the building behind him, so I told my Soldiers to hold their fire. We moved on a few minutes later and received small arms fire in the village. My gunners returned controlled fire at their targets. It still bothers me whether I should have given the fire order to kill the sniper. He may have killed Americans the next day. I don't know. The pilots were in the same boat. If they just watched and a RPG destroyed a humvee, they'd have to live with that. War is terrible and it's easy to distort incidents based on one's politics or background. Wikileaks went one way, the Army the opposite, the reality was probably somewhere in between.

A few missions, we received air coverage from some Kiowas. They scouted the route ahead of us or covered us while we were halted. One time we received fire and they called me to say I was shot at. I thanked them for the update. I asked if they got the shooter, they said, no, he ran away. Now, had they spotted a group of men forming up and watching the route ahead of me, I think I would have been supportive of them engaging a target. I think our technology and communication allow a level of checks that are much better than other militaries, but it also allows instant action. A lot can happen in a split second and that is why leaders have to make the best decisions they can. The Army could use this video for Discussions or Professional Development, and let Soldiers decide what the right action would be. Like many incidents, I don't think this one is clear cut either way.

I think this sums it up pretty well. Life is a string of choices made under uncertainty and with limited knowledge. In war the fog can be denser, the timespan shorter and the outcome bloodier and with no rewind either.


Firn

[Entropy]

@ Entropy:
You mentioned mostly extenuating circumstances that don't influence the question of "guilty or not?".

Well, that is your opinion, but in general circumstance matter greatly whether you are talking about war or criminal acts.