There are well established rules for so doing. This is a doctrine known as "proximate cause," which does allow a tortfeasor, in some circumstances to assert that the superceding wrongdoing of another tortfeasor as a defense.
However, for reasons set forth below, the American tortfeasors proximate cause argument fails.
According to the legal authority, William J. Prosser, in his classic textbook, "The Law of Torts (4th ed.) at pp. 173-175:
"There is normally much less reason to anticipate acts on the part of others which are malicious and intentionally damaging than those which are merely negligent; and this is all the more true where, as is usually the case, such acts are criminal. Under all ordinary circumstances the absence of any reason to expect the contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed upon the assumption that others will obey the criminal law.....
"There are, however, other circumstances other situations in which either a special responsibility resulting upon the defendant for protection of the plaintiff or an especial temptation and opportunity for criminal conduct misconduct, brought about by the defendant, will call upon him to take precautions against it."
In the present case, the proximate cause defense fails for the following reasons:
. The United States should have foreseen the looting and, indeed, was specifically warned of the risk.
.The United States held a position of responsibility to maintain order in Baghdad, which it failed to fulfill.
. By engaging in warfare, the United States increased the risk of looting-type activities, thereby incurring increased responsibility for such consequences.
It also is well settled in law that the happenstance that more than one party is a fault for a wrongdoing absolves none of them individually from full measure of accountability for all harm that he proximately has caused.
Accordingly, the Untied States must be held to full measure of blame. That Iraqis or others also may be at blame is irrelevant.
Duncan C. Kinder
duncan@neoclassicists.net