'Incorporeity': Increase Your Wartime Vocabulary
posted: 8:13 AM, July 6, 2007 by Harkavy
http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/2007/07/incorporeity_in.phpThis morning's L.A. Times report that the U.S. and its allies are killing more Afghan civilians than the Taliban are could be just the tip of the coffin.
In Iraq, documents that the ACLU pried from the War Department indicate that the U.S. often rejects claims — even defying judges' rulings — that its troops have killed innocent civilians. And one of those rejected claims shows that a seldom-used word — "incorporeity" — is creeping into the wartime language.
Judges are granting "incorporeity damages" for civilian deaths, as the document below shows, but U.S. officials often rejected such claims. In the case below, an Iraqi claims that his son was killed by troops as he approached a checkpoint on his way to market. A judge valued the son at $7,500 — $5,000 for "killed my son" and $2,500 for "incorporeity damages" — but U.S. officials said his behavior was "threatening" and refused to pay.
Heretofore not used to describe the death of Iraq civilians, "incorporeity" comes from "incorporeal," according to my OED, which I guess you could say backs up the U.S. position: The first OED definition of "incorporeal":
Having no bodily or material structure; not composed of matter; immaterial.
The second definition gets right to it:
Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of immaterial beings.
Defense Department document, page 7 of 12
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/foia/pdf/Army0092_0103.pdf