Here is why we need Wikileaks — because when our soldiers carry out Collateral Murder, we should know about it. Good journalism should be exposing this stuff for us.
This is a video shot from an American helicopter gunship in Iraq. It shows real human beings being shot to death. I wish I could unwatch seeing it now, so be advised before you click on that play button…it is horrific.
A couple of Iraqi journalists working for Reuters are slaughtered in the above clip, gunned down from a distance by American troops who claim their cameras are weapons, that they’re walking around with AK-47s and RPGs…which I simply don’t see anywhere in the clip. I see a small group of civilians casually walking down a city street.
Perhaps the killers were merely mistaken, as happens in war. Perhaps they had better views of weaponry than can be seen in this video. But that doesn’t explain what happened next, when a van pulls up to help a wounded man and they open fire again, fully aware of what was going on below them, and fire several bursts into the people and into the van.
Maybe they could see weapons more clearly than I can. But then how did they fail to notice two small faces peering out of the passenger side window of the van? They shot journalists and children, all the while laughing and congratulating themselves on the ‘nice’ pile of bodies they had produced. And when they see soldiers on the ground rushing injured children to aid, they say, “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”
I am ashamed. We are the storm troopers, the murderous invaders, the butchers of children, the laughing barbarians. We aren’t in Iraq to help those people, our troops are there to oppress them…when we aren’t gunning them down outright.
Oh, and go ahead, turn on your TV news. The top stories on CNN are the iPad, Jessica Alba planning to adopt a baby, and Tiger Woods. Doesn’t that fill you with confidence?
(via John Cole)
stuv, that’s a Mollyific beat-down.
It freed a lot of money for more productive uses…
Of course. I meant it’s my only point of criticism of those actions of his that are mentioned in the article you linked to.
That’s a big part of what he got his Nobel Peace Prize for. It has got quite a bit of news coverage over here ever since his election, if not earlier (I don’t remember).
Someone’s got a pretty high opinion of themselves.
Regardless of my opinion of myself, I’m referring to opinions that have been expressed by others.
You sure the reputation isn’t for being obnoxious?
False dichotomy.
zeroang3l,
I was not planning to wade into your and TM’s shit flinging contest but I couldn’t let this statement pass without comment:
The only person who has sent any significant amount of invective your way is Truth Machine. If you don’t like his style of argument, may I suggest you ignore him and, if like, killfile him?
There’s been plenty of mature discussion on this thread alone, never mind this blog as a whole, and to make such a blanket assertion just makes you look butthurt and petty.
Wow.
Follow that link I gave – trolling is a bannable offense. We’ll see if PZ will forgive you, but I seriously doubt he will!
In addition to not knowing the list of bannable offenses, you seem not to know what OM means.
Sorry for the length of this and for being late to the party. I don’t post often, but this is somewhat personal so…
The video, esp. the short version, is horrifying. The deadly precision with which the Apache crew dispatched those on the ground, their apparently cavalier attitude with the occasional tasteless commentary (including with respect to the children involved) colors our perception of the event such that it seems obvious that our personnel are evil; That for the purpose of keeping the troops “in line” they deserve to be executed (see #231). It’s tempting to conclude that a heinous and horrific crime was committed; That the Apache crew’s targeting of innocent persons was on purpose, thus violating of the rules of engagement, the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), and the Geneva conventions – anything that helps disassociate from the U.S. forces involved.
Initially, I too gave in to that temptation and saw what most here seem to have seen. And yes, I disagreed with our invasion of Iraq and voted against Bush – twice. But having watched both versions at collateralmurder.com, and having 18 years combined service in both the Army on active duty and since then the Air National Guard, I’ve rejected my initial conclusions.
Too many, I think, have focused on the Apache itself and whether the helicopter was under threat from the individuals on the ground. This is – believe it or not – irrelevant under LOAC. Listening to the radio traffic leading up to and following the event it’s evident that Crazyhorse 18 (the Apache flight; henceforth CH18) was called in as support for Bushmaster and Hotel 26 (the ground elements nearby; henceforth BM and H26 respectively) who had apparently been under fire in the moments prior to CH18s arrival. Listen at 11:33, 12:03, and esp. starting at 15:14 for talk of the ground forces being fired upon w/small arms and a clear indication that CH18 was called in for support by H26 in response to that engagement.
Later in the video (toward the end), more small arms fire was reported 200-300m SW of the original engagement (starting at about 30:31), followed by an unexplained cut in the video. At 31:13 the video comes back, and we hear more about the RPG round (first mentioned at 19:18 under a man’s body), and zoom in on another armed man who apparently enters the “same building” (the same building as what? what did we miss in the cut portion of the video?) as 5 other armed men had. The building is reported to look abandoned or under construction, and since CH18 was almost out of 30mm rounds (50 rnds left reported at 25:38) they offered to engage with Hellfire missiles. They do so (after being told to PID and concluding PID of the men not killed in the earlier engagement) and the building is destroyed, presumably eliminating the 6 reportedly armed men inside.
So in neither case was the shooting “indiscriminate.” Rather, the shootings were a direct response to reports of friendly forces being under fire on the ground. The Rules of Engagement allow for the sort of action seen, because PID consists of “reasonable certainty” that the target is a military target. Due to the location and proximity to friendly forces, along with the presence of weaponry in the hands of men of military age, it is well within the realm of possibility that “reasonable certainty” was satisified. Furthermore, the on-scene commander (OSC) is authorized to use whatever weapon systems are available to eliminate a threat, including – specifically, no less – the use of 20-30mm cannon rounds when Joint Close Air Support (JCAS) for TIC/Self-Defense is employed (see para. B.1(a)(iii)).
Incidentally, while I’m not sure who here understands the gravity, the fact that the ROE is an SECRET//REL document is important. Knowing our ROE, hostile forces can then manipulate and exploit them, leading (potentially) to greater loss of life and inhibiting the ability of our military forces to operate, including when performing missions involving humanitarian aid. The individual who leaked this document did no one – including the Iraqi public – any favors, and is not merely an innocent whistleblower, but is instead a criminal.
Many have looked at this footage and claimed to be able to clearly identify camera equipment. I’m sorry, but without the convenient labeling in the short version, it’s not easy to see what is being carried and/or brandished by those on the ground. The camera cases hanging from the men’s shoulders could be mistaken for slung rifles, and at least one individual has a longer object that could easily be an automatic rifle (and indeed may have been – apparently one or two automatic rifles were, in fact, recovered, along with an RPG round). As for the individual at the corner of the building, how people can tell from a fuzzy silhouette that it’s a camera with one of those big, telephoto lenses on it I don’t know. Unless, of course, it’s part of the benefits of hindsight.
Consider also the fact that our view of this footage (from the relative comfort of our desktops – stiff chairs notwithstanding) is probably by far easier to parse than it would’ve been while flying in a helicopter. I think others have mentioned this. The footage looks nice and stable – and it is, by and large, which helps to better identify targets – but the monitor itself (a small, 6″x6″ affair) is inside the aircraft where vibration and human perception play a role in interpreting the data on the screen. Combine what you see on the screen with the understanding that CH18 wasn’t looking at it from behind a desk in some university and was called in to support ground troops taking fire, and things become a little less black & white.
As for the wounded man, it’s indicative of their training that they showed restraint and did not fire. In spite of their “hope” that the man would pick up a weapon (speech, however reprehensible, is not a crime), clearly they were waiting for friendly ground forces to arrive, which, by the way, would’ve resulted in medical treatment for him. Note also that at 12:12 we see a woman wearing a burqa and a small child walking up the street away from the engagement area. They are neither molested nor commented on, which is strange given the allegedly “indiscriminate” nature of the shootings.
With respect to the van shooting, that too does not appear to be a violation of LOAC or ROE, and in spite of some enterprising commenters here, it is not in violation of the Geneva conventions either. For that, the van and its passengers would have to have been clearly marked or identified as medical. See below.
Those quoting the Geneva conventions got the convention (Convention I) and the interpretation of Article 18 wrong. That particular article was expounded upon in the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, and states specifically that it refers to organizing relief activities. According to the ICRC, para. 2 of Art. 18 (the one being highlighted by commenters) “merely authorizes the civilian population to offer its services on its own initiative, and allows the authorities the possibility of declining such an offer.” In other words, civilians and relief agencies have to offer their services to the occupying power. There is no evidence that the men in the van made any such offer in a way that permitted an official decline of said offer.
The relevant Convention is actually Convention IV relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, in which several Articles, including 18, 20, 21 and 56, apply. These articles specify that occupying authorities will grant recognition (and protection) to hospital personnel and transport vehicles provided they are clearly marked as such IAW Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, also 12 August 1949 (i.e., w/Red Cross, Red Crescent, etc.).
And so, unfortunately, even under the Geneva conventions the van was a valid target. Nor was it a crime under LOAC (for the same reasons), or a violation of the ROE under the circumstances. Nor was there dishonesty on the part of CH18 when calling in for permission to fire on the van. They reported a van with approximately 4 – 5 passengers picking up wounded and possibly weapons, which is exactly what is seen on the video, and BM gave permission to engage on those facts alone. I expect they were concerned (at least in part) that the wounded ‘person of interest’ might have intelligence value and did not want him to be taken away by fellow ‘insurgents.’ I don’t really know, but that doesn’t change the fact that the van was a valid target.
I’d go so far as to say that, regardless of the van driver’s intentions, he sadly and needlessly put himself and his passengers at extreme risk by venturing into the engagement area. What he should have done was contact Iraqi civilian authorities or called for an ambulance. Had the wounded man been picked up by American forces, he would’ve received medical aid, and in any case the SOFA stipulates that he be returned to Iraqi authority within 24 hours.
As for the kids, PZ please. It is not the least bit clear from the video (the one without the labels edited in) that there are children in that van. Those, including you, who say otherwise are full of shit. “[T]wo small faces peering out of the passenger side window” indeed. You write as if the pilots knew that there were journalists and children present, and not only killed both anyway, but did so gleefully and with joy in their hearts.
The sad fact is that many of those who wish harm on the U.S. or its citizens & soldiers do, in fact, teach their children to be combatants from a very young age. And, they seemingly have no qualms about placing their loved ones (including children) and friends in the line of fire for the sake of their cause. There are some other videos on the net that I wish I could unwatch too, including one in which Afghan children participate in a beheading of an adult who is deemed a traitor (yes, the knife is wielded by a 12-y.o. child), and who can forget the images of Palestinian (or was it Iraqi?) youth dressed as suicide bombers? I even seem to recall some admiration for this being expressed by the thoroughly reprehensible Becky Fischer in the movie, “Jesus Camp.”
Some have criticized the handling of the children, who were at first noticed at 13:16 by Copperhead 16 (henceforth C16), then clearly identified at 17:11 as casualties. Note that the initial reaction of CH18 is mild regret, and it takes a full minute for them to comment about bringing kids to a battle. This seems to me to be more of a coping mechanism – a transferrence of guilt, you could say – than a glib dismissal of the kids but I’m not a psychologist.
More radio traffic about the kids being evacuated to Ar Rustamiyah, and they’re loaded into a Bradley (by 23:30) for transport. At 27:35, however, C16 calls BM7 and advises that Iraqi Police (IP) will link up and take the kids to a nearby hospital. Some people (not at this site, I don’t think) seem to take exception to this on the basis that American medical care would’ve been better, but fail to consider the proximity of the hospital and the possibility that the Iraqis may have specifically requested/demanded to take over the care of the children. According to the SOFA, Iraq reserves primary jurisdiction over all personnel within its borders, so it’s certainly possible. What is clear from this, at any rate, is that the Iraqi Police and American forces were in contact during the operation in which this incident occurred.
Another interesting fact, seemingly overlooked, is that when discussing why CH18 was called in for support (starting at 15:14), CH18 clarified that the individuals engaged had been at ground level, not rooftop level, which does seem at odds with what originally might’ve occurred. It’s possible that this piece of information had gotten lost in translation when CH18 was originally called for support, or perhaps a few of those men had indeed been on a rooftop engaging U.S. forces prior to the video starting. We don’t really know. Either way, CH18 was upfront with all elements involved about the engagement, and this seemed acceptable to investigators.
What I’m saying is that I don’t believe the soldiers involved were trying to hide anything. It seems fairly clear that, rightly or wrongly, all U.S. elements involved believed the men it engaged to be combatants, and took measures not only to avoid civilian casualties but cared for those it identified as quickly as possible. Some have complained that the victims were just walking casually down the road, and didn’t look like they were soldiers or hostile. Well, unfortunately insurgents don’t wear uniforms, and I hear that the t-shirts they ordered (printed with “Insurgent,” front & back) have been delayed several times. The carrying of weapons, combined with the reports of small arms fire in that area and in close proximity to U.S. forces, along with with the behavior of at least one of the men, seems to have been enough to appear as hostile intent.
To those who speculate about the nature of the training these men received and how it enabled them to become murderers, I respond that in nearly two decades I have never been taught to target civilians. Quite the opposite, in fact. I also have never received training on indiscriminate murder. I have, however, received training in how to identify hostile forces, and yes, how to kill them. I have also received extensive and repeated training in the rules of engagement for various environments, and in LOAC (the latter is taught annually here in the states, and is repeated when deploying). I have never been taught to be an automaton, blindly following orders, but instead have been taught to obey lawful orders to the best of my ability – and disobey illegal (i.e., immoral) orders.
To those who’ve tried to say religion had something to do with this incident, I say you’re just completely off your nut. Whether some military leaders are Christian or not, military operations are simply not conducted with a religious objective in mind. And despite proselytization and the vestiges of religion in military ceremony, 16% – 24% of military members (in the Army, it’s 24%) have “no religious preference.” That is, they are the “Nones” that have been on the rise in recent years. Although this says nothing about their sympathies, you’ll note that this percentage is higher than that of the general population.
Just think – the chance that the soldiers in the video feel as most of us do about religion is higher than the chance your neighbor does.
The bottom line is that in spite of the civilian casualties, it doesn’t appear to me that any “war crime” was committed. In hindsight, yes, it’s easy to second guess the soldiers involved, and it’s also very, very easy to find fault with their commentary. As everyone here knows, however, speech is not a crime, no matter how reprehensible. If anything, I just wish we knew the full circumstances. It seems to me as if some things were left out on purpose (there were a couple unexplained cuts, and I wonder why the video comes in when it does and not before; might there be a full video that includes the original call for support?).
(NOTE: The transcript gives slightly different times than noted. I think they based the transcription times on the original video, while I did it including the WikiLeaks added preface. I’d suggest reading the transcript along with watching the video.)
~ braces for flames ~
TM: thank you.
Oh, and for the record: TM does have a stellar reputation of keeping everybody honest. Along with the notoriety of doing so with the gentleness of a Brillo pad dipped in hydrochloric acid, of course. That seems to be entirely too much for certain people, haughty implications of limitless bravery aside.
Right. Off to take a pain-killer to soften the throb of my aching eyes… “pretty crummy” made them roll so savagely I gone and did hurted them, especially after the junior this, junior that. What in holy hell makes the colossal clown think that anyone cares an infinitesimal whit? Did he mean to get to Facebook, faceplanted on his keyboard after tripping over his war memorabilia and wound up here?
Well, since it was pretty obviously wrongly, you’re moving this into the realm of staggering incompetence. Somehow, that frightens me even more.
“merely authorizes the civilian population to offer its services on its own initiative, and allows the authorities the possibility of declining such an offer.”
That’s clearly not what the words say or mean:
In any case, regardless of what interpretation is put on some document, any person with a functioning moral compass recognizes the action against that van as criminal and murderous.
TM – I recommend going to the source. That was extracted from the treaties and supplemental information at the International Committee of the Red Cross on the relevant article: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/COM/475-760024?OpenDocument
stuv,
Perfect!
I’d go so far as to say that, regardless of the van driver’s intentions, he sadly and needlessly put himself and his passengers at extreme risk by venturing into the engagement area.
Yes, it’s obviously his fault for being a brave rescuer of wounded men that he was murderously shot and killed.
You seem intent on digging a very deep hole for yourself.
Oh, and TM thanks for questioning my moral compass. I was just wondering, “Hey, why hasn’t anyone questioned my moral compass today?”
@ stuv – Your witty and relevant response has certainly put me in my place.
@ 935
Sounds to me as though our young lad here doesn’t realise that many, if not most, of the commenters on Pharyngula are adults. What that means is that they have a shitload more experience and knowledge of the world than the odd pipsqueak play-acting at being grown up.
TM – Not saying he deserved what he got. What I’m saying is that there are some risks just not worth taking, and some choices that are better than others.
From the perspective of the forces involved, it was not at all clear that the individual was a good samaritan. We only know that after the fact.
I recommend going to the source.
The source is the Geneva Conventions. As for your reference, you seem unable to comprehend it:
From the perspective of the forces involved, it was not at all clear that the individual was a good samaritan
Oh, well then, if it wasn’t clear, then just assume that he’s hostile and shoot him. You know, your kind of evil bullshitting has been addressed already above when done by others. You just keep digging, and your quote mine of that Red Cross document is indicative of the lengths you will go to. It also, however, clearly refutes your position — the Geneva Conventions were violated.
@ 1015
Shoot ’em all and led god sort them out?
Not saying he deserved what he got. What I’m saying is that there are some risks just not worth taking, and some choices that are better than others.
But that’s not the issue before us, is it, asshole?
Fuck scum like you.
TM thanks for questioning my moral compass.
I didn’t question it, I made an assertion about it.
It’s possible I’m wrong, of course, but I think you should’ve started at the top with the historical information. Read the whole thing and it seems clear that the article in question was written with organizing relief actions in mind rather than spontaneous acts of good samaritans.
And it seems odd to allow spontaneous, momentary action on the part of civilians while stipulating that protection will be extended only to clearly marked medical personnel in Convention IV.
Jeffrey Samuelson,
It’s getting rather late where I live so I don’t unfortunately have time to respond to your comment #1006 in the detail it deserves, so I’m just going to pick up on one point (the thing that bothered me TM has already picked up on, so I will not comment further).
Why do you equate legality with morality?
I meant to write “the thing that bothered me most…”
Carry on…
Hmmm…
“Quote mine.” Nope. Read the whole thing, including both Conventions, and provided a link. You can read it and decide for yourself (which you have).
The problem before us is that under those circumstances, it’s the judgment of the soldiers that’s in question. That’s the question before any court that’s convened, whether International or not.
I would agree that, in hindsight, it looks pretty damn ugly. War is ugly even when it’s done right (can it be done right?), and even worse when it’s done wrong. But some people (you, perhaps?) seem so consumed by their own hatred for the war that any excuse for condemning its participants will do.
@ TCRID:
I don’t, necessarily. Morality doesn’t need to have anything to do with legality. But that’s is the general sense by which soldiers are taught to recognize an illegal order. In other words, if it’s immoral, it’s probably illegal, and you should disobey it.
“Quote mine.” Nope.
Bullshit.
That’s a flat-out lie. What the ICRC says is that the “this article does not go as far as the Conventions” — the bit you quoted describes the supplental protocol, not the paragraph from Convention I quoted by John Morales.
But some people (you, perhaps?) seem so consumed by their own hatred for the war that any excuse for condemning its participants will do.
That ad hominem is quite revealing.
The problem before us is that under those circumstances, it’s the judgment of the soldiers that’s in question. That’s the question before any court that’s convened, whether International or not.
Ah yes, so if the Nazis merely weren’t certain that the Jews were not vermin and the cause of the world’s ills, that’s enough to acquit them.
@ desertfroglet
Not at all.
a) God doesn’t exist.
b) Combat zones are not usually places one has the time to reflect on possibilities. Decisions are made – some of them regrettable – and acted upon. A harsh truth, to be sure, but a truth nevertheless.
I’m not blaming the victim either. None of the innocents involved deserved to be shot, and taken in a vacuum that is indeed heinous in and of itself. But this did not occur in a vacuum. It was part of a larger series of connected events in which our soldiers were engaged.
All I’m saying is that I think the “fog of war” applies.
Interesting considering I gave you the frakking link, moron. Your assertion is baseless, and you’re the one proceeding without checking the context of the Conventions (I & IV) in question. Not my problem if you have difficulty with research, is it?
And BTW, supplemental protocols exist for the purpose of clarification of the existing articles. As in, how they are to be administered. That’s what protocols do, you know. A set of rules of operation, and all that, you know.
Pot, kettle, black.
Nice attempt at reductio, but epic fail, TM. Apples & oranges.
You’re talking about a carefully crafted program of racial elimination vs. a situation in which moments framed the decisions that were made.
But I do want to compliment you on a fine example of Godwin’s Law on your part.
j.samuelson:
tm linked to the applicable ROE @687.
Care to answer the question I posed to another commenter (who avoided it): under what section of those was the action taken warranted?
Indeed. The “larger series” involves the invasion and ongoing occupation of a country that posed no military threat to the US.
I was deadly serious. Care to address the actual point rather than being evasive, condescending and asinine?
– It’s not a war, it’s an occupation.
– An illegal one, at that.
All of which is besides the point, actually. They shot civilians that were plainly not a threat to anyone at the time from an armored helicopter. Either they realized this or they did not. If they did, they committed a war crime. If they did not, they are monumentally incompetent. Are you going to argue for the latter?
I can’t say with certainty, but I won’t dodge your question either.
From reading the ROE, it looks to me that 3.A.2(c)(i), along with 3.B.1(a) and its subparagraphs may apply. CH18 was called in for support to those grid coordinates by H26 in response to SAF, and with the presence of weaponry and what appeared to be an individual kneeling with a large, somewhat cylindrical head (RPG? No, it turns out) and pointing it in the direction of friendly forces, it would seem that conduct, TIC, and possibly pursuit were the bases for attack.
PID (3.A.2(d)) could apply, it would seem, but also note that PID is the responsibility of the OSC, and I can’t speak to whether PID was maintained during the initial engagement. During the second part of the engagement (i.e., the missile fire), it seems clear that the OSC didn’t have PID, but allowed CH18 to establish it. Since there was a cut in the video just prior, it’s impossible for me to say whether PID was obtained or not.
Naturally, that’s all speculative, but maybe it suggests answers your question?
Indeed. I was, of course, mainly referring to the events of that day – the ones that led specifically to the events in the video and within the video itself – but yes, the “larger series” of connected events includes all that too.
Sorry. I didn’t realize you had a point in that two sentence ad hominem of yours, other than to call me “staggeringly incompetent” in the face of an “obvious” truth, and to confess your mysterious fear of me (or my attitude).
Conceded. I’m not going to mince words.
See the beginning of #1006, specifically the third paragraph down beginning with “Initially…”
Which is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, a completed investigation, and a redacted video watched while sipping beverages and pondering the horrible state the world is in these days. Not so easy when looking at a 6″x6″ screen in a moving helicopter and having been called in for support after ground units have taken fire from that same area.
I would argue you’ve presented a false dichotomy in which the pilots are either stupid or criminal, and are leaving out cognitive and perceptive flaws exiting in our species that can easily be exacerbated by difficult circumstances. This possibility seems to be lost on a few people who think that watching a video from WikiLeaks from the safety of their home or office is equivalent to being there.
So to answer your question, no, I’m not going to argue for the latter.
your reading comprehension is shit. he wasn’t talking about you, idiot.
Jeffrey, I appreciate your response, and will have a look when I get a chance (been otherwise occupied).
That’s odd. He quoted me in that same post:
His quote is from #1006 (me), in the 21st (egads!) paragraph.
Whose reading comprehension is shit again?
I suppose that theoretically, my allusion of incompetence could be interpreted as being directed towards you, Jeffrey. However, you then go on to say
Which makes it obvious that you knew damned well I was not talking about you, and were hell-bent on being offended.
Stay classy.
Anyway, you have a theoretical point about the initial firing (although you’re going to have to explain to me the need to mow down an unarmed man running from the scene). What’s your interpretation of shooting at people grabbing the wounded?
John – Thanks. I do want to reiterate that I’m speculating on the ROE, and think it’s definitely possible that I’m wrong, and that others might reach a different conclusion.
Take them for what they’re worth, which may not be much. I’m more familiar with LOAC, which is more broadly applicable.
Off to bed. Have fun ripping me & my arguments to shreds. :)
Ok, one more…
@ stu
In #1032, you made the following assertion in response to me (you quoted the last sentence of #1028 – or at least that appears to be where you got the quote):
That’s what I was responding to with “…false dichotomy…” If you were talking to someone else, I apologize. It’s late and I may be reading too quickly.
I’m not “hell bent” on being offended at all. Some here seem to be, though. Since posting I’ve been referred to as incompetent, lacking in functional morals, an asshole, scum, idiot, lacking in reading comprehension, dishonest, evasive, condescending, and asinine. But then, I probably deserve all of that. I did post an obscenely long defense of the “fog of war,” after all.
@ stu —
Forgot:
See #1006, para. 11-17 for the complete argument on that.
In a nutshell I think it’s extremely unfortunate and sad, but that under the circumstances was probably permitted under LOAC, the ROE, and (yes) the Geneva conventions. For it not to be, the van would have had to have been marked as carrying medical or relief personnel (i.e., an ambulance).
I know this is where people disagree with me most strongly, and I respect that but I’m not saying it was right. I’m saying it was probably legal.
Now really off to bed.
OK, just checked again, and have taken the liberty of transcribing the relevant sections.
—ROE extracts begin—
3.A.2(c)(i)
Hostile forces are those who because of either their status or conduct are actively engaged in hostilities. Status based hostile forces include members of designated terrorist organizations, outlined below. Conduct based hostile forces include those engaging in hostile acts or demonstrating hostile intent.
3.B.1(a)
Troops in Contact (TIC) / Self-Defense. When troops are in contact or are acting in self-defense, the on-scene commander (OSC) may employ any available weapon system, organic and non-organic, except as otherwise provided in these ROE.
PID (3.A.2(d))
Positive Identification. Positive Identification (PID) of all targets is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the individual or object of attack is a military objective in accordance with these ROE.
—ROE extracts end —
(see also my #720 regarding EOF).
—
Jeffrey, you seriously consider the targeted individuals were “demonstrating hostile intent” such that PID (ie. “reasonable certainty”) was established?
But before that, that individual (and indeed the group) was shown ambling along an open space (you can hear “That’s a weapon” in the chatter during that phase, with the video showing a rather short cylindrical item strapped over the shoulder (at around the 3:20 mark on the embedded video); at just past the 4 minute mark, the kneeling individual is clearly seen casually picking up the “RPG” as if it were, well, rather short and lightweight). This is rather clear to me, and I’m looking at a 3×3″ window on my browser.
I fail to see justification under either pursuit, self-defense or even PID of hostile intent (and no, I don’t consider “vague suspicion” the equivalent of “reasonable certainty”). Similarly, I find no justification for classifying the group as hostile forces based on their conduct to that point, and certainly their status was otherwise unknown.
I do hope another investigation is undertaken.
fucking moron. yes, he was talking to you, but not about you. he was talking about the subject matter of this conversation, i.e. the soldiers in the helicopter.
it’s not always about you. please get your ego removed, it’s interfering with your brain processes.
Jeffrey,
Of course it’s not easy, it’s actually impossible to say with reasonable certainty whether these were enemy comabatants or innocent civilians.
That’s the key cocnlusion you seem to be completely missing:
If you ask soldiers to positively identify their targets before shooting but it’s clear that they can’t possibly positively identify, why do you put them in a helicopter to take down insurgents in a civilian populated area from such a far away distance?
This IS criminal. And there is no way to defend the actions of the American military. Defending them is disgusting.
No, you have not.
See above.
If that’s the argument you want to have, fine. But your defense on the grounds of the “fog of war” pretty much implied otherwise.
Discussing the legality of actions in an illegal war is somewhat moot anyway, I think. Fuck, we tortured people we knew were innocent… shredding a few innocent civilians with 30mm gunfire should not surprise anyone.
@ Jadehawk (#1043) and stuv (#1038):
I stand corrected. My apologies for expecting – and seeing – ad hominem. Definitely time to quit & go to bed.
@ negentropyeater
PID is the responsibility of the on-scene commander (OSC), which in this case was the troops on the ground. In a response to John (#1033), I admitted that I cannot say that PID was maintained, but that it was possible that multiple elements of ROE were involved. PID is not the only ROE that applies.
As for why use a helicopter, that’s addressed by the ROE in which JCAS (Joint Close Air Support), including the use of 20-30mm cannon, is authorized. I wasn’t attempting to argue that this is the smartest thing to do. I’m arguing that this is what’s there, and that what they did was probably legal.
Again, all I’m saying is that I think that the “fog of war” applies to those men in the video; That they are human beings like the rest of us, exposed to impossible circumstances none of us would wish on our worst enemies. If that’s disgusting, then so be it.
@ John
It’s worth noting again that CH18 was called in to respond to small arms fire (SAF) from that neighborhood and directed at U.S. ground forces. As I said, I can’t say for sure that PID was maintained by the OSC, but I think it’s possible that an investigator might conclude that depending on the statements of those involved combined with the video.
Conceded that even on a 3″x3″ screen on your laptop or PC it’s possible to interpret the video that way. However, the size wasn’t finally the point either. None of us is under any kind of equivalent to the stress of flying a helicopter in a combat zone, with reports of threats to friendly forces being reported, and with a mission to assist those friendly forces by eliminating those threats. Moreover, the pilots didn’t have an opportunity to analyze the video in-depth prior to making a decision.
Jeffrey,
It was not at all clear that the individual was a hostile, either.
(1) PID conditions were not met and (2) EOF was required, by my reading of the ROE.
Negentropyeater @#1044:
>If you ask soldiers to positively identify their targets before shooting but it’s clear that they can’t possibly positively identify, why do you put them in a helicopter to take down insurgents in a civilian populated area from such a far away distance?
Because, as I mentioned upthread, the people who decide to do “police actions” are people with no concept of what it is like to be a policeman or a soldier.
It’s taken me about a thousand posts to remember that scene from Pratchett’s Jingo, where Vimes manages to not completely tear somebody’s head off for suggesting that Watch experience makes him a “military man”. It’s the same, only in reverse.
Can’t find a cop? Use a soldier! Can’t find riot cops? Send in the National Guard. Apologise for the Kent Ridge incident later.
Soldiers are soldiers. From the point of view of a soldier, engaging someone that he thinks is an enemy from well outside his opponent’s range is a perfectly valid idea, and he’s right, because that’s how you win a war.
The trouble begins when you simultaneously ask him to be sure that the target is an enemy, because that is a mental workload that interferes with his efficiency as a soldier.
We, looking at this video, are making judgements because our instinct is to assume that the soldier has the capacity to decide whether the target is a valid threat to himself (or, as some have suggested, their buddies down the road. In passing, I wish to point out that if they believed that their actions were in support of their buddies, then they showed good tactical sense.)
I mentioned some time back in another thread that you can’t talk about ethics and morals in the absence of the knowledge required to make the ethical and moral decision. If we assume that the soldiers have that knowledge, then this is evil.
What if they lack that knowledge? Then this is merely a big basket of fuckupery, precisely because it could be seen as evil.
Personally I’ll have to say what offends me about this video.
It is not that the soldiers are killing civilians.
It is that this killing is occurring because of an unproffessional conduct of this war in the first place.
Jeffrey,
And on the basis of what evidence does the OSC on the ground perform the PID? Based on what the Apache crew tells him?
The OSC on the ground had absolutely no way to positively identify the target. He shouldn’t have given the order to engage.
If it’s his responsibility fine. Then he is the one who committed an illegal act.
I personally don’t care who is to blame. The helicopter crew or the OSC for failing to PID, or the military command who puts soldiers in such impossible situations of shooting down insurgents from a helicopter from a far away distance in a civilian populated area, or the POTUS who puts military command in an illegal war, or the American people for letting the POTUS wage an illegal war. Pick your preferred choice.
But this was a criminal disgusting incident, and there is no way to justify this or defend it.
As a former soldier, you should be arguing that this is the most stupid disgusting and criminal thing to do.
There’s not an ounce of legality in any of this. The OSC failed to positively identify the target and yet gave the order to engage : illegal according to the US military’s own ROE
Shooting the van : same thing illegal + war crime according to the geneva conventions
Context: illegal war contravening UN resolutions
Notkieran,
what offends me the most?
That so many people are willing to defend this. Oh they can make very sophisticated nice sounding intellectual arguments, but in the end, what it boils down to is this :
they are just a bunch of brown people, it doesn’t matter if you kill them all.
I wrote a much longer response but my browser died before submitting it. I’ll just say
Interesting considering I gave you the frakking link, moron. Your assertion is baseless
so you’re too stupid to even know what quote mining is. Giving the link doesn’t change the fact that omitting “However, this article does not go as far as the Conventions, as it” and starting with “merely” completely inverts the meaning of of the section you cite. Again, your claim that “Those quoting the Geneva conventions got the convention (Convention I) and the interpretation of Article 18 wrong. That particular article was expounded upon in the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, and states specifically that it refers to organizing relief activities” is a flat-out lie; that document is not about the interpretation of Article 18 of Convention I, but about the supplementary protocol that “does not go as far” as Convention I.
You’re doing lawyering to try to get around the obvious moral implications of that video, obvious to any intellectually honest person who watches it, and on top of that your lawyering is incompetent. You are stupid, dishonest, and vile, and you cannot win this debate here, all you can do is dig yourself deeper into your hole.
Notkieran, agreed, those soldiers were between a rock and a hard place.
As I quoted above, “Armies break things and kill people.”
To use combat troops for disaster relief, peacekeeping or policing is to use the wrong tool — most especially when they can’t possibly reliably distinguish between combatants and civilians; clearly, type I and II errors will regularly occur — and (again, clearly) a type I must be preferable from their perspective.
(I feel I must add that I think the soldiers’ combat skills seem exemplary, and their equipment awesome. What they did, they seemed to do very well.)
Quoting again: “Senior officers and Defense Ministry officials testified that their American counterparts actually believed that the troops would be welcomed with flowers and parades and, as a result, didn’t even bother planning for the possibility of an insurgency.”
I, too, consider that the ultimate blame lies with the political echelon. Where the proximate blame lies is less clear to me.
It was not at all clear that the individual was a hostile, either.
What is clear from the video is that he did not engage in any hostile action, and the crew of the Apache never asserted that he did: “we have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons. Let me engage.” Going to a scene, with the mere possibility of picking up weapons is not grounds for engaging under the ROE. There was never any PID by anyone. To try to counter that with something as lameass as “From the perspective of the forces involved, it was not at all clear that the individual was a good samaritan” is just incredibly vile.
Notkieran, agreed, those soldiers were between a rock and a hard place.
I don’t agree at all. The soldiers could have chosen to follow the ROE, the Geneva Conventions, etc., and not shoot at unarmed wounded and unarmed rescuers who never picked up any weapons (which the soldiers had repeatedly said beforehand could not be seen) and never displayed any hostility. The video makes clear that they wanted to stop the van from driving away with the wounded man and were upset that might happen; that’s why they asked for permission to engage and that’s why they did; it had nothing to do with protecting themselves or ground troops from hostility.
tm @1054, thanks for the correction.
I should’ve made it clear that I meant to refer only to the initial, um, “engagement” and not to subsequent events (including the Hellfire attack on the building, with its utter disregard for civilians).
Well the OSC command officer on the ground who gave permission to engage without positive identification. He shouldn’t have. If he wanted to be reasonably certain that these were hostile enemy combatants, he should have asked the helicopter crew to get close enough so as to verify their presumption with reasonable certainty. If that was too risky for the helicopter, then don’t get closer but don’t shoot. You can’t just use a helicopter and think you can shoot from any distance without the satisfactory level of certainty that what you are targetting is positively identified. That’s for the first shooting.
As to the van, there was absolutely no reason to give permission to engage.
It would be an interesting sociological experiment to show Americans subjects two versions of this video:
1) The original and tell the subjects these were American soldiers in Iraq.
2) Keep the text the same but have the voices be in Russian. Tell the subjects these are Russian soldiers in Chechnya.
Then ask each group whether the soldiers’ actions were morally justified and if not how atrocious the actions were. I’m pretty sure I know how the results will go.
On the initial attack, the soldiers again had options. They apparently believed that the man with the camera at corner of the building was holding an RPG and was about to fire (although they reported that there was shooting, but its not clear that they were claiming that the shooting had actually occurred yet), and under those circumstances the request to engage was legitimate. But then they swung around the building and the screen showed men, mostly empty-handed, milling about; since the gunner did not have a line of sight to the corner of the building where there was a man with an RPG about to fire (they believed), there was plenty of time to examine and evaluate the target, and to see what is clear in the image, that the man in the center is holding a camera with a telephoto lens, and the gunner might have even realized that this was the same man who had been at the corner of the building. But they had already obtained permission to engage, and another soldier was insistently saying “shoot already”. It is understandable that the gunner did so … but it would be far less so with different sort of training and a different sort of regard for the targets — viewed as “insurgents” whom both the soldiers and the folks back home have been trained to think of in dehumanizing simplistic terms, much like “terrorist”. Had this been a police action, to come across a group of men like that, largely unarmed, targeted from a safe distance with plenty of time to evaluate the situation despite having already received permission to engage, this would have been a “bad shoot”.
negentropyeater @1056, I cannot dispute that the proximate responsibility lies with the OSC, but the responsibility and the blame are not the same thing. The OSC was relying on the information supplied (and presumably only had an audio, not an audiovisual feed), and that is why I say that it’s not clear to me.
That the gunship crew made an error of judgement is not in dispute (by me), but whether it’s blameworthy I cannot determine based on the information at hand.
(Again, I refer only to the initial incident, not to subsequent events.
I’ll add that I’m trying to be charitable (hard as it is) but honest, here.)
John,
I don’t think blaming anybody serves any useful purpose. I’m interested in making sure whoever is held responsible for these crimes gets punished accordingly AND making sure this doesn’t happen again, ie that the US military stops using weapons when they are incapable of telling the difference between a combating enemy and an innocent civilian. That includes for example their current drones programme in Afghanistan that is killing countless more innocent civilians.
@ TM —
Quote mining = quoting out of context. You accused me of lying, and yet I gave you the whole damn context, start to finish, from which you got your own damn quote.
Jebus.
It is a protocol, and expounds upon the meaning and application of the Article. In any case, Convention I is not what applies to protecting the civilian populace, but Convention IV. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the ICRC.
Not trying to get around anything. There are definitely moral implications, but unlike you I’m not trying to confer superhuman abilities on our troops to be able to overcome their very human flaws under these circumstances.
John is probably right that another investigation would be worthwhile.
Quite possibly. Yours is certainly no better, I must say.
Win? I’m not trying to win. I’m trying to suggest that human beings make human judgments, and under those circumstances the kind of judgment wished for isn’t typically available.
Know what you sound like? A creationist. You’ve got your idea, and you’re sticking to it no matter what. TM has spoken truth and all must agree or be vile, dishonest and stupid.
And you know this definitively because you were there, I presume?
That article didn’t mention Obama’s shameless, irresponsible fearmongering about Iran’s nuclear program (most recently, saying that “all evidence indicates” Iran is pursuing the capacity to develop nuclear weapons). Nuclear arms reduction is a mixed blessing if it comes with a push for conflict and harmful sanctions against Iran.
Jeffrey,
please explain what you think PID, ie “reasonable certainty that the individual object of attack is actively engaged in hostilities”, means?
How do you understand “reasonable certainty” in this context?
negentropyeater @1060,
1. I disagree. For example, a parent is held responsible for their child’s actions and a pet owner for their pet’s¹; the responsibility is with the parent, but the proximate blame for the action is the child’s or the pet’s, not the parent’s or owner’s.
2. I vehemently agree.
With responsibility comes accountability.
3. This is where the distinction is crucial.
Merely reassigning responsibility does nothing to correct the proximate agent’s potential for future problematic actions; surely without some corrective action being taken to address the cause, similar circumstances involving the same agents are likely to lead to similar outcomes.
3a. That said, it seems to me that the relevant process (specifically, the ROE and other military protocols) relies on subjective judgements² (which necessarily are based on incomplete data) and therefore cannot guarantee acceptable outcomes.
3b. Hence, it’s pretty clear to me that, regardless of intent, similar errors are inevitable so long as the occupation continues.
3c. Therefore, it will happen again so long as the occupation continues.
In short, I think it impossible to ensure that this sort of event will not reoccur, short of ceasing military action. Alas, there is too much political investment (not to mention national pride) in this for such an outcome to be realistic — but I praise you and the others who advocate for human decency over “RealPolitik”.
—
@1063: I note PID allows for subjective judgement, to wit “demonstrating hostile intent”.
(I would hope raising one’s fist in anger doesn’t meet that criterion! :|)
—
¹ Definitionally, responsible parents and pet owners are supposed to supervise their charges.
² “Reasonable certainty”, “Hostile intent”. Sheesh.
Was the OSC more informed regarding the status of the targeted persons (when providing fire authorisation) than we viewers of the audiovisual record from the choppers?
I doubt it.
“all evidence indicates” Iraq is pursuing a WMD programme
Reality : no WMD found
“all evidence indicates” the guy peering on the side of the wall is pointing an RPG towards American infantry
Reality : RPG was a photo camera
“all evidence indicates ” XXX =
“we’ve obtained evidence that seems to indicate that” XXX “but in reality that’s most probably complete bollocks as we have such a piss poor track record at judging the validity of the evidence we obtain”.
Pursuing the capacity to develop nukes is not the same as pursuing the possession of nukes. It leaves open the possibility that Iran is pursuing the Japan option of nuclear latency (Juan Cole believes it is), but apparently this isn’t acceptable to Israel or the US presumably as it makes bombing them in the future harder.
It’s worth pointing out that Khamenei (i.e. the guy ultimately in charge of Iran) has issued fatwas declaring nuclear weapons un-Islamic.
And as I said, I don’t think blaming the child or the pet serves any useful purpose.
Both statements are true, that’s why we should at least make sure that the kind of military weapons when they are incapable of distinguishing a military target from an innocent civilian stop being used for killing people.
Why can’t they simply use helicopters or drones in recognition missions only and refrain from shooting people from such far away distances based on completely unclear camera pictures?
They want something that minimizes risks for them, and it doesn’t matter if this means killing countless innocent civilians in the process. This must stop.
Yes, I should have pointed out the weasel wording there. Taken literally the claim is maybe not so objectionable, but it would offer no justification for sanctions, either.
Windy,
Does this strike you as being akin the the approach that the Bush administration took of frequently dropping the words ‘Saddam’ and ‘Al-Qaeda’ in the same sentence without ever explicitly linking them?
@1070: Maybe it’s more subtle, but it does seem to be in the same family of claims.
I just wanted to put up the link to Juan Cole, as mentioned at 1067.
@ negentropyeater (#1063) —
I think “reasonable certainty” in the context of an engagement with alleged insurgents is less stringent than we’d like it to be. Unfortunately, since alleged insurgents don’t wear uniforms and have a habit of pretending to be civilians (among other things) for the purposes of deception, soldiers are forced to draw conclusions on less evidence than would be available when engaged with the forces of a hostile government.
One of the inherent dangers of fighting in an environment like that is that things aren’t always what they seem. Some insurgents have been rather indiscriminate themselves, blowing themselves up, placing IEDs where the civilian population suffers the consequences, used civilians as shields, and have exploited protected buildings (such as mosques & hospitals) for the purposes of conducting their own operations. Circumstances in which insurgents often commit perfidy don’t lend themselves to definitive, indisputable ID of those insurgents, which would be ideal.
But then, what we’re really talking about is that van, right? I agree that it’s highly questionable, but as has been said before the van shooting did not occur in a vacuum, having been immediately preceded by the shooting of the men on the corner. The van entered the area having unknown intent at that time, and appeared to be attempting to retrieve wounded personnel and (possibly) weapons. Unfortunately, that could’ve meant something other than the altruistic desire to give aid for its own sake, and the timeframe was less than a minute in which to make a decision. A longer delay could have led to engaging the van in an even more populated area, or it could’ve led to the wounded man’s quick delivery to a hospital, with the latter being more likely in retrospect. I submit that in a circumstance like that in which a quick decision is required, and the chance of letting an alleged insurgent go seems unacceptable, the pilots chose what seemed to them the most appropriate course of action at the time.
I do not say this was the best (or only) decision to make. I simply maintain that the pilots – and the OSC – were mere humans doing what many humans do under extremely difficult circumstances, and that given the situation it was probably (but not definitively) legal.
In short, “reasonable certainty” would almost by necessity be reduced to a subjective judgment as John suggests.
@ TM (#1051)
In re: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949, I’d recommend reading the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) and the ICRC Commentary on those protocols, which were adopted and in force as of 1978.
On reviewing these materials, both our (legal) views are partially vindicated, which IMHO simply implies the legal conundrum. Neither of us is really qualified (unless, perhaps, you’re a lawyer with the requisite expertise; I am not) to definitively say one way or another, so as of now I’m going to stop arguing about it.
I expect you’ll disagree, of course.
@ negentropyeater (#1063) —
I think “reasonable certainty” in the context of an engagement with alleged insurgents is less stringent than we’d like it to be. Unfortunately, since alleged insurgents don’t wear uniforms and have a habit of pretending to be civilians (among other things) for the purposes of deception, soldiers are forced to draw conclusions on less evidence than would be available when engaged with the forces of a hostile government.
One of the inherent dangers of fighting in an environment like that is that things aren’t always what they seem. Some insurgents have been rather indiscriminate themselves, blowing themselves up, placing IEDs where the civilian population suffers the consequences, used civilians as shields, and have exploited protected buildings (such as mosques & hospitals) for the purposes of conducting their own operations. Circumstances in which insurgents often commit perfidy don’t lend themselves to definitive, indisputable ID of those insurgents, which would be ideal.
But then, what we’re really talking about is that van, right? I agree that it’s highly questionable, but as has been said before the van shooting did not occur in a vacuum, having been immediately preceded by the shooting of the men on the corner. The van entered the area having unknown intent at that time, and appeared to be attempting to retrieve wounded personnel and (possibly) weapons. Unfortunately, that could’ve meant something other than the altruistic desire to give aid for its own sake, and the timeframe was less than a minute in which to make a decision. A longer delay could have led to engaging the van in an even more populated area, or it could’ve led to the wounded man’s quick delivery to a hospital, with the latter being more likely in retrospect. I submit that in a circumstance like that in which a quick decision is required, and the chance of letting an alleged insurgent go seems unacceptable, the pilots chose what seemed to them the most appropriate course of action at the time.
I do not say this was the best (or only) decision to make. I simply maintain that the pilots – and the OSC – were mere humans doing what many humans do under extremely difficult circumstances, and that given the situation it was probably (but not definitively) legal.
In short, “reasonable certainty” would almost by necessity be reduced to a subjective judgment as John suggests.
@ TM (#1051)
In re: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949, I’d recommend reading the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) and the ICRC Commentary on those protocols, which were adopted and in force as of 1978.
On reviewing these materials, both our (legal) views are partially vindicated, which IMHO simply implies the legal conundrum. Neither of us is really qualified (unless, perhaps, you’re a lawyer with the requisite expertise; I am not) to definitively say one way or another, so as of now I’m going to stop arguing about it.
I expect you’ll disagree, of course.
Crap. Sorry for the double post.
On-topic, in as much as it serves to reinforce the notion of some elements within the military being jingoistic and oblivious:
US forces fight Taliban with heavy metal
Cultural sensitivity for the win. Fortunately, this sentiment is not all-pervasive:
Chimp in #1004:
A fair criticism that I accept, thank you.
As far as stuv:
I am not going to get worked up over that, but I will say I resent being called a homophobe. I support gay rights in all forms and I hope that one day sexual preference is treated in the same fashion as preference for hair or eye color.
Furthermore, I have on more than one occasion, spoke out against racism (specifically against Koreans) on this blog so I do not “pollute” every thread.
Anyhow, we will see if I am banned. Busy day ahead, see you guys later.
I submit that in a circumstance like that in which a quick decision is required, the chance of letting an alleged insurgent go seems unacceptable, the pilots chose what seemed to them the most appropriate course of action at the time.
Wow.
Just wow.
I don’t care what any manuals or directives or protocols say. Anyone who could think it’s fine to kill based on “alleged” not “confirmed”, even in war, is a monster.
@ negentropyeater (#1050)
I know you directed this at Nokterian, but just to be clear – are you saying that anyone who defends the actions of the soldiers in this video are racist merely by virtue of offering any defense at all?
@ John (#1065)
Of course not. In fact, isn’t what you’re saying here an acknowledgement that hindsight bias is in full effect? Not only do we have the video available (including a version with convenient labeling), but we have the report, the opinions of the media, pictures, the opportunity to review those materials repeatedly, and much more.
What I was referring to with that rather clumsy query to TM was that not having been there (and additionally not having been a part of the investigation) it’s impossible to be a fair witness – even having watched video evidence – and that statements such as “There was never any PID by anyone” are ignorant, particularly when uttered by someone with zero relevant experience or training on which to base such a statement.
To compare this to an alleged civilian crime in which video evidence is available to the public, it’s a virtual certainty that during jury selection members of the general public who have seen the video evidence or who have been exposed to excessive media reporting on the crime will be rejected out-of-hand. It’s common practice to do just that, in fact. The reason? Those candidates are assumed to already be biased one way or another and thus incapable of rendering a fair judgment. The same principle applies here, I think.
You have just encapsulated the whole fucking problem.
There is are some simple rules when fighting an insurgency. The first is do not kill civilians. The second is do not kill civilians. The third is do not kill civilians. It has to be repeated as so many people do not seem to comprehend it. You are are good example. You cannot comprehend that it is better to let an insurgent flee than risk killing civilians.
I left this thread long ago and I can not believe that we are still trying to make different people understand the same fucking basic, simple points that have already been made.
zeroangel, you are out of arguments and have ultimately degraded from simply moronic to downright troll. Just leave this thread already.
jeffrey.samuelson… I can’t can’t believe you’ve actually read the entirety of this thread… your points have been addressed many, many times. And if you really need to start digging into technicalities and interpretations of ROE and the Geneva Convention to desperately find some manner of justification for actions that any intellectually honest person can see are abhorrent and murderous just by watching this video, then yes, you really do need some serious calibration on your moral compass.
The Apache pilots were operating from such a distance and were witnessing behavior that no reasonable person would ever deem would put them in any measure of danger, imminent or otherwise, by any reasonable definition.
The only way you can hope to justify it is to make assumptions about possible ancillary activities that just maybe give them the slightest inkling of excuse to engage… and that’s frankly no better then looking for a reason to kill.
If you want to continue to try and dig for loopholes that might allow for the legality of the actions, that’s fine… it’s your morality you have to live with.
I think this thread has served its purpose as the arguments seem to be getting recycled due to failure of the arguers bothering to take the time to read the whole thread (which, at over 1000 posts, is certainly understandable.)
It’s really not fair to call them monsters. They likely suffer from a combination of psychological and cognitive defects/biases that keep them from being able to properly assess the value of human life. They deserve pity, not namecalling. They’re still human beings, not monsters.
/Walton
Paul #1082
Heh… you’re such an asshole. And I mean that in the best possible way. ;^)
Look who’s back!
What’s the matter, did you hop Junior up on NyQuill so you could dip your oar once more?
Very well. You said some seriously unenlightened things about gay people earlier, but homophobe might have been a bit strong. I retract and apologize.
Are you serious? You want a merit badge for not being racist?
You know, the subject incident looks pretty friggin clear to me. What should our military do when confronted with plain evidence like that?
Maybe something like this. Is it really so difficult?
You know, the subject incident looks pretty friggin clear to me. What should our military do when confronted with plain evidence like that?
Maybe something like this. Is it really so difficult?
Someone should really do that.
Then they can’t shoot.
It really is that simple.
Unfortunately the are too many people, some of them posting here, who think that the normal rules of war apply in an insurgency.
Or an occupation.
Blcokqutoe fail in comment 1087 – the long unquoted paragraph should have been quoted.
The part I bolded is so surreal I overlooked it the first time around.
Other than that, I’m out of words.
They do need therapy, though, assuming that a therapy exists.
LOL!
Seriously. Letting “an alleged insurgent go seems unacceptable”. They feel justified shooting civilians because someone they applied the “insurgent” label to with absolutely no evidence or corroboration might get away with them. Completely ignoring the violation of the Geneva Conventions, that sort of thinking is ridiculous (or dare I say, monstrous?).
Shirley you don’t think I disagree?
Unacceptable? When that insurgent is out of action from being wounded, and “letting him go” consists of allowing the local inhabitants to evacuate him, not only is it “acceptable”, it’s mandatory.
You can’t shoot the wounded to keep them from being evacuated. That’s a war crime, as plain as day. Have you read the text I posted from the first Geneva convention?
“Could have.” “Unknown intent.” I refuse to believe that in this case, where there was no imminent danger posed by the people in the van nor by any of the people cut into pieces by the Apache to any U.S. personnel, that the correct decision was not to err on the side of not pumping bullets into peoples’ bodies. I will go further and say even if these men were Iraqi resistance fighters, it would still be immoral to murder the wounded and those who would get them to where they could receive medical attention – unless you believe it’s okay to blow up ambulances in combat zones.
Using the logic I’m seeing here, anyone out of doors in the combat zone – which, let’s face it, at the time was ALL of central and northern Iraq – can be gunned down, simply for “looking suspicious”. The van was essentially an improvised, unmarked ambulance. And unless you believe that they were going to stuff that wounded guy’s body with cartoon-like sticks of dynamite and try to catapult him toward the approaching U.S. soldiers, you’ve just massacred a non-combatant and his rescuers.
That was not “the most appropriate course of action at the time” – to anyone with a decent moral compass.
@ Matt
The only world in which civilians are not killed is one in which there is no war. Tragic decisions are not always criminal.
I comprehend it just fine. What you’re not getting is that the risk to civilians is not reduced by letting an insurgent go, but is instead exacerbated by their continued presence. Insurgents aren’t necessarily freedom fighters with the best interests of their countrymen at heart, as evidenced by their intentional targeting of Iraqi police and civilians as well as U.S. and coalition forces.
The presence of our troops also raises tensions, but I’m not arguing in favor of a continued occupation.
@ Celtic
An intellectually honest person admits that hindsight always permits much more latitude in judgment than that available to those in a combat environment.
The Apache need not have been threatened (see #1006) to fire on those believed to be insurgents. It was called in by a ground unit for Joint Close Air Support in response to small arms fire, a fact made clear during radio communications.
Can’t disagree with that.
@ David
Thus they eat bullets & RPGs, and come home missing limbs because of IEDs, and the violence continues anyway until (and probably after) they leave. Or perceiving no other alternative they fight and suffer some of the same anyway, and the violence continues until (and probably after) they leave. Nasty – and no less complicated – choices all around.
Sorry you found the remark so surreal, but like I said to Matt the risk to civilians is not reduced by letting an insurgent go, but is instead exacerbated by their continued presence. Insurgents aren’t necessarily freedom fighters with the best interests of their countrymen at heart, as evidenced by their intentional targeting of Iraqi police and civilians as well as U.S. and coalition forces.
@ DaveL
Gosh. Really? I never knew that!
Have you read the text from the Fourth Convention that stipulates that rescue/relief/medical personnel must use distinctive markings to be afforded protection? Have you read the materials provided by the ICRC that clarifies International Humanitarian Law with respect to the First Convention article that commenters have cited here? The relevant materials are linked to in (#1073/1074).
But then I said I was going to stop arguing that point, didn’t I?
@ Bobber
I don’t. See below in re: “improvised, unmarked ambulance.”
Once again – the Apache was called in as Close Air Support of ground troops who were taking small arms fire from insurgents at (or near) that location. The presence of weapons in that group of men, and the unfortunately misinterpreted behavior of at least one of the men, led to this tragedy. And the van is part of that entire chain of unfortunate events.
Again, this was a fact not known to the Apache pilots at the time.
Never said it was the best (or even a good) choice. I said it was a choice that was made under pressure – a choice that the Apache pilots deemed as the most appropriate course of action at the time – and might even be construed as legal depending on how a court interprets the LOAC and Geneva Conventions.
And maybe LOAC shouldn’t apply to an insurgency, but I’m guessing one of the alternatives (a free-for-all) would be even less desirable.
***
No worries. I’m completely done. Apparently I keep adding insult to injury, and communicating very poorly, so I’ll go away now.
The only world in which no war crimes are committed is one in which there is no war.
The only world in which no theft is committed is one in which there is nothing to steal.
That does not make any crime any less of a crime, moron.
That could hold for insurgents that have been identified as such.
The risks in shooting someone who might in principle be an insurgent are that you’re shooting someone innocent and make the entire population hate you.
You are in all seriousness telling us “we had to destroy the village in order to save it“.
Look, you just can’t kill people on suspicion. I suppose you haven’t read comment 491?
Failure to use distinctive markings must be punished by death.
Jeffrey,
Yes. Anyone who defends the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians by American soldiers believes deep down that the lives of these innocent Iraqi civilians is worth far less than that of American soldiers.
How would those people who are defending this react if the situation were reverse, ie an Iraqi Apache over an American township? Imagine all those killed were American civilians.
Unless the image on the Apache screen is sufficiently precise to clearly distinguish a camera from an RPG (either through better technology or a shorter distance), ie is capable of positively identifying a military target, do not shoot at unknown targets from the helicopter.
It’s quite simple, really.
Well, it could be due to jingoism rather than racism. We would first have to find out if they would defend it as strongly if the civilians were British or Swedish.
Have you read the text from the Fourth Convention that stipulates that rescue/relief/medical personnel must use distinctive markings to be afforded protection?
No, you sick fucking cretin, it does no such thing. Do you suppose that, for instance, when GCIV says
They shall, furthermore, endeavour to arrange for all children under twelve to be identified by the wearing of identity discs, or by some other means.
that means that children without such identification are fair game for target practice?
And WTF do you think
The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect.
means, and how it applies to the wounded man that they shot to death when others attempted to rescue him?
How about
As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken to search for the killed and wounded, to assist the shipwrecked and other persons exposed to grave danger, and to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment.
Isn’t shooting and killing someone ill-treatment?
Here’s what the GCIV says about the use of markings of vehicles:
Are you really so stupid as to think that means that locals spontaneously collecting the wounded are not protected?
What’s remarkable is that you put so much effort into defending the clearly indefensible but all your efforts show is that not only are you morally bankrupt but you’re a fucking idiot.
I have, and they do not contradict the First Convention in any way. The first convention says that military authorities “shall allow” inhabitants to collect and care for the wounded. The document you cite says they “may offer” to, but in nowise states that military authorities may prevent them from doing so. It certainly does not make any exception to the protection offered to civilians in cases where they collect the wounded without permission, nor does it anywhere allow that the wounded may be targeted to prevent their evacuation.
I comprehend it just fine. What you’re not getting is that the risk to civilians is not reduced by letting an insurgent go, but is instead exacerbated by their continued presence. Insurgents aren’t necessarily freedom fighters with the best interests of their countrymen at heart, as evidenced by their intentional targeting of Iraqi police and civilians as well as U.S. and coalition forces.
Fuck but you are stupid and vile. Even if we were weighing the risk to civilians from shooting unarmed people who might be “insurgents” against the risk to civilians of letting them go with possible risk to civilians, letting them go wins. But that’s not even the issue here — it is that it is immoral, and against the law, to shoot at unarmed wounded and rescuers, even if they might be “insurgents”, just as it is immoral and illegal for the police to mow down gang members just because their mere existence poses a risk to the citizenry. But that is clearly your mentality — by labeling someone an “insurgent” they are fair game (unless they have a Red Cross sticker on their forehead).
I have, and they do not contradict the First Convention in any way.
In addition, I have repeatedy pointed out that Jeffrey is lying — I don’t know what else it can be when I have so clearly demonstrated that his quote mine does not mean what he claims it means. It does not clarify the law with respect to the First Convention, it says
That is, the article of Protocol II does not go as far as Convention I. The text then continues with Jeffrey’s quote mine:
Obviously, that quote does not clarify the meaning of First Convention, it notes now Protocol II differs from it.
Any wounded soldier, where his own forces are on the advance, would likely be collected by his comrades and eventually return to battle to cause more death and destruction. That doesn’t mean it’s permissible under the Geneva Conventions to kill him to prevent that eventuality.
They sure as hell don’t allow you to kill an wounded individual who may or may not be a combatant to prevent him from being collected by other individuals who may or may not become combatants at some point in the future.
And you of course know the answer to that question…
A Brit or a Swede is worth about the same as an American. But a brown bearded muslim who looks like a terrorist? Please, don’t be ridiculous. They killed 3,000 innocent Americans that day. We can kill at least 300,000 of them brownies before we’re even.
Well, it could be due to jingoism rather than racism
I think it’s primarily nationalistic tribalism, certainly in regard to the people defending it here. They are virtually incapable of applying the same standards to people who are and are not members of their tribe.
A Brit or a Swede is worth about the same as an American. But a brown bearded muslim who looks like a terrorist?
What about Krauts during WWII? I don’t think it’s simply racism. Any group can be dehumanized; race just makes it easier.
.
And I wouldn’t discount religion out, either… remember, these are all dirty muslims, anyhow… right? Not good, moral, choir-singing, jesus-loving, genuflecting, church-going heroic christians like the guys in the apache surely were…
I submit that in a circumstance like that in which a quick decision is required, the chance of letting an alleged insurgent go seems unacceptable
That sure does seem to sum up this sicko’s outlook.
But that was fair game.
It takes race to colonize a nation and have no regard for the number of civilians one kills in the process.
I agree… that statement alone is so unconscionable… so fucking inhuman, I’m really not interested in having any further discussion with someone of that ilk…
I don’t know that the first sentence is always true. I think in many cases, as long as it’s not Americans dying then the people who vehemently defend the actions of the soldiers would not care. Non-Us whiteys may be worth than a dark-skinned person to some, but not necessarily all.
In regards to the second sentence, I think CE brought up a good point about religion. The reality may be a combination of all three: race, religion, and nationality. Which puts dark-skinned Muslim foreigners firmly in the “fucked” category.
P.S.
And yet he directly contradicts himself:
He then adds his misreading of the Fourth Convention as if somehow, even though you can’t shoot the wounded to keep them from being evacuated, you can shoot them if the evacuating vehicle doesn’t have ambulance markings. Jeffrey repeatedly displays an inability to grasp the simplest fundamentals of logic. As I asked earlier, is it just a coincidence that so many of those who justify this action are so obviously stupid?
I agree… that statement alone is so unconscionable… so fucking inhuman, I’m really not interested in having any further discussion with someone of that ilk…
It also sums up the outlook of those soldiers. As I noted above,
Really… like we’ve been pointing out, it’s a despicable display of lawyering to defend the indefensible.
“Oh, hey… look… those guys are wounded… they’re crawling towards a crowd of people who look to be trying help them. There’s a van there… it looks like it might be there to help get the wounded out, but it’s not marked, and I can’t be sure what it is… and since I can’t risk letting them get away… BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP.”
That’s his defense. It’s sick.
Even Dr. Evil would find that evil.
Unfortunately not.
I don’t know if there exists the negative of humane?
so fucking inhumane
But that was fair game.
You’re treading on very dangerous territory yourself. Germans were dehumanized, which allowed people to disregard principles of humanity that they profess to in re individual Germans.
Ah, truth machine, if only they were as well trained in their own history as they are in this faux naïve self justification, in all its tedious and sickening predictability.
Were the matter not so serious, it would amuse me that at least some of the British generals – 1774 – 1814, say – felt exactly the same about their ancestors. But that notion will be lost on them.
I almost used Germans in my example earlier with Brits and Swedes, but I’ve seen enough US television to know that shooting Germans is entertainment.
were only Germans dehumanized?
I don’t care what any manuals or directives or protocols say. Anyone who could think it’s fine to kill based on “alleged” not “confirmed”, even in war, is a monster.
But “alleged” is only half of the monstrosity. It would still be monstrous to kill a confirmed insurgent who is wounded and unarmed just to prevent him from being evacuated.
were only Germans dehumanized?
No, nor did I say that or imply it. I’m really not getting your point, but I think I’ve stated mine well enough, so let’s move on.
I almost used Germans in my example earlier with Brits and Swedes, but I’ve seen enough US television to know that shooting Germans is entertainment.
But that undermines the claim that just looking like Americans (insofar as not being brown and sporting a scraggly beard) is enough.
You obviously don’t watch enough American television, TM. Kill them whenever you can, and unarmed is better than armed. Oh, and never forget to double tap.
Anything less is supporting the terrorists.
so fucking inhumane
BTW, we saw the same sickness from toffeecime earlier:
See, it’s not murder to shoot unarmed wounded people — if it stops an insurgent from “escaping” (which of course is what someone is doing by being picked up off the ground by others).
I concur with Truth Machine. De-humanization of the enemy is not dependent upon race. Race merely adds another dimension to the de-humanizing.
What were Germans in WWI and II? “Huns.” What historical imagery comes to mind?
Look at propaganda of the times – Germans were depicted as the shadowy and monstrous tools of Hitler, to be feared and destroyed.
Which is not to say that the propaganda against the Japanese wasn’t vile. As I said, it included the dimension of race, and the difference in culture was also exploited so that the Japanese were like German Monsters, ver. 2.0.
I like what KOPD said above:
Any one of the categories listed would offer sufficient rationalization for an act of barbarity, and the point is that the further removed the target is from the familiar (race, religion, culture), the easier it is to say to oneself “He’s not like me, therefore he’s not worthy of the same respect.” Also, there must be factored a soldier’s training, as well as the potential for desensitization from repeated combat deployments, where a kind of PTSD lies just underneath the surface.
Which serves to reinforce the fact that this entire situation was fucked up from its inception. No consolation in that knowledge for the Iraqis, of course, who despite some attempts at excuses to the contrary, are undeniably the victims of an atrocity.
My claim was that looking like an (white) American is not always enough, but also BEING an American is required. In some cases, anyway. But Germans seem to be a special case (probably Russians as well) and I should have gone ahead and said something, but it was a fleeting thought. I should have amended that to be “looking like an American is sometimes enough, sometimes it takes looking like an American while also not being German or Russian is enough, and for some it takes actually being American.”
I guess maybe there needs to be a fourth distinction besides race, religion, and nationality – historical state relations. This is all purely anecdotal, but it seems that even some Americans who would have a problem with seeing harm come to British or Swedish or French civilians would be indifferent, or at least less bothered, when it is people from a country the US has had uneasy relations with in the last 100 years. Even if they are the right race and the right religion, if they’re a Caucasian from the wrong country then it’s still okay to marginalize them. Especially if it’s Star Trek and time travel is involved so you can go back in time and kill real German soldiers during WWII – then it’s portrayed as not only okay, but fun!
Or maybe I’m seeing something that isn’t really there. I’m fairly confident that I’m not quite articulating it in the best way.
Note that people like Jeffrey or toffeecime never apply their reasoning the other way around. They would never assert, for instance, that a suicide bomber walking into a U.S. military hospital is not committing murder because they are preventing those soldiers from recovering and then killing more civilians. They recognize that argument to be insane. But their counterparts do make such arguments to persuade suicide bombers to act or to justify the planting of IED’s, etc. “What? Counterparts? You’re equating people like Jeffrey and toffeecime to those evil monsters who are our enemies?” Well, yes.
it seems that even some Americans who would have a problem with seeing harm come to British or Swedish or French civilians would be indifferent, or at least less bothered, when it is people from a country the US has had uneasy relations with in the last 100 years
There was plenty of “fuck the French” during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and you still find such hostility among freepers etc. The French dared to defy American interests, thus becoming the enemy.
maybe I’m seeing something that isn’t really there
I think it’s definitely there.
Re: French
You’re absolutely right.
So maybe a shorter version is to say that race and religion aside, some people find folks from certain countries to be “less equal.” In extreme cases those certain countries are all but their own.
This shit hurts my brain.
“So maybe a shorter version is to say that race and religion aside, some people find folks from certain countries to be “less equal.” In extreme cases those certain countries are all but their own.”
I especially find it funny when people hate people for things that not even all of their ancestors did before they were born.
My point was that I see a difference between a war type WWII which is between parties using similar military equipement and forces (what I called fair game but wasn’t the correct expression), and a colonizing war like Iraq with completely disproportionate forces and equipement.
I find it even more disgusting to see that Americans who watch this video have so little regard for the innocent killing of Iraqi civilians who are being colonized by Americans and have ridiculous means of resistance than if they had watched a similar video if wikileaks had existed in 1939-1945. That’s why I said I think it takes race to colonize a nation and show so little regard to the number of innocent civilians one kills in the process.
All wars are dehumanizing and horific events, but I find the polite approval of the population of a colonizing power for its war crimes the most disgusting of all.
some people find folks from certain countries to be “less equal.”
But consider how “liberals” are seen as “hating America” because they oppose torture, invasion, etc. (But tea partiers who talk about taking up arms and revolting, or in Texas seceding, are patriots.)
This shit hurts my brain.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
My point was that I see a difference between a war type WWII which is between parties using similar military equipement and forces (what I called fair game but wasn’t the correct expression), and a colonizing war like Iraq with completely disproportionate forces and equipement.
Sure there are differences, but to truly understand what drives “anyone who defends the actions of the soldiers in this video” (Jeffrey’s comment that started this line of discussion) you have to consider the similarities.
it takes race to colonize a nation and show so little regard to the number of innocent civilians one kills in the process
As I said, race makes dehumanization easier — but it’s not the whole story; in Cambodia, it was enough to wear glasses.
I find the polite approval of the population of a colonizing power for its war crimes the most disgusting of all
It seems that a large fraction of the U.S. population does not approve, although it’s hard to judge how large at this point. Certainly in the case of VietNam, awareness of war crimes played a major role in turning popular opinion against the war (although popular opinion never did turn to the reality that it was an aggressive and illegal invasion).
You know, I’m really sad and angry since this video broke out. I’ve been looking at various places on the internet to get an idea of the reactions of Americans (from New York Times to Salon to abc to Fox News via here and youtube and other more specialised blogs) and I’m appalled at what I’ve read.
I’d say a majority of commenters are defending the soldiers. Maybe two thirds.
Probably the same people as the 59% of Americans who favor military action against Iran if negotiations over their nuclear program fail.
P.S.
a war type WWII which is between parties using similar military equipement and forces
There were many aspects of that war that did not take that form, e.g., the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombing of Dresden, and the German invasion of Poland, and of course the German treatment of Jews and other civilian populations.
P.P.S.
On the topic of Germans and Jews and race, they are of the same race; the distinction made by the Nazis was totally artificial. Hitler himself may have been part Jewish.
—
Maybe two thirds.
I haven’t looked as carefully as you have. That is indeed appalling. But we have seen here the thought processes — or rather contortions — that get people there.
I don’t think we’ve shown that they’re contortions. Some people here have been contorting, obviously. But the average American? They’re not discussing whether the events violate the Geneva Conventions, unless someone brings it up (and your average American isn’t really likely to do so, or even know that shooting unarmed wounded “alleged insurgents” is a violation of them). At best from what I’ve seen, you get a “wow, that’s terrible, but what were those civilians doing driving into a firefight?”
Granted, I do live in a rather right-of-center (by American standards) area, so take my personal anecdotes with a grain of salt.
“wow, that’s terrible, but what were those civilians doing driving into a firefight?”
Regarding the question of whether this was a war crime, I see that as a contortion of logic. As Cerburus said,
I stopped reading around 700 posts ago. Are there really folks debating whether or not this constitutes a war crime?
It’s a crime against humanity. Let’s not lose sight of what really matters.
At least there was a public reaction, in the vast majority of equally appalling cases like the shooting of civilians in Afghanistan linked by LaTomate in #427, there doesn’t seem to be much interest at all outside of a few blogs and some quickly buried news stories.
Here is an update to that story:
Special Forces Apologize For Afghan Civilian Deaths With Sheep
“Presenting sheep is such a powerful form of requesting forgiveness that the father is now obligated not to take revenge, even though he has told reporters he wanted to become a suicide bomber.”
Of course this is a better outcome for the family than to be declared “insurgents” themselves and die or be imprisoned, but how sickening is this? When it came out that some of the dead were women, NATO claimed they were victims of a honor killing by their own family. Only after they were caught lying, they suddenly learned what the article calls “a lesson in the importance of cultural sensitivity”.
this reminds me very much of the sort of genocide apologia where the mass-slaughter of children is being justified by saying that otherwise they’d grow up to become soldiers for the enemy. :-/
Glenn Greenwald interviews a former soldier from the same infantry unit we see in the video:
Some relevant quotes:
The Chimp’s Raging Id, thanks for the link.
(The transcript is here)
This stood out, for me:
(my addition in brackets, for clarity)
Josh Steiber, the former soldier who is the subject of the interview linked to by Chimp & John Morales, also wrote about the video on his blog a couple days ago:
No emphasis needed. The rest is worth reading too – including the comments.
More relevant evidence & information can be found at the Centcom Information Portal, including the investigation reports, and esp. the sworn statements & interviews of the pilots & gunners from the two Apaches involved taken starting the day after the incident.
(For John Morales: As you’ll see, their reference to the ROE is Troops in Contact (TIC), so it was primarily para. 3.B.1(a) that they used as their initial justification upon being called for support by ground forces)
Those who read the sworn statements will also see additional information concerning children & noncombatants who caused the gunships to refrain from firing on other insurgents (after the van was destroyed, and before the missile fire), and a reference to a red SUV that was followed but not fired upon due to the absence of PID (also after the van was destroyed, and before the missile fire).
The reason these events are not seen in the video is that the “full” 38-minute version posted by WikiLeaks is not the full version after all. From 20-30 minutes were edited out of the original footage during which the pilots & gunners did not act as the crazed murderers they appear to be early on, and behave instead in a strangely humane manner given their earlier exploits. WikiLeaks maintains that the 38-minute version is all they have, so it’s possible that their source edited the original footage, thereby depriving all of us of the full context.
In spite of the moronic and ineffectual defense I offered previously, I hope you’ll find this information and these materials as helpful as I did.
See… that’s how people die.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2010/04/09/stieber/index.html
its the nature of the machine, rather than, you know, the helicopter pilots just waking up one morning and like, alright, we’re going to go out and kill some random people
False dichotomy.
I had declined a couple of days earlier to follow a command that I didn’t feel right in following so, so I was not allowed to go on this mission, or else I would have been in that video
Kudos to Mr. Stieber. One can refuse to commit war crimes even if everyone around you is doing so, but it does take courage. It’s wrong to put people in that position, and it’s wrong for those in that position to take the easy (and murderous) way out.
Josh Steiber, the former soldier who is the subject of the interview linked to by Chimp & John Morales, also wrote about the video on his blog a couple days ago:
No emphasis needed. The rest is worth reading too – including the comments.
More evidence & information can be found at the Centcom Information Portal (link available through the article cited below or upon request; initially this post went into moderation, which I believe was caused by too many links), including the investigation reports, and esp. the sworn statements & interviews of the pilots & gunners from the two Apaches involved taken starting the day after the incident.
(For John Morales: If you read the pilots’ statements, their reference to the ROE is Troops in Contact (TIC), so it was primarily para. 3.B.1(a) that they used as their initial justification upon being called for support by ground forces)
Finally, it turns out the “full” 38-minute version posted by WikiLeaks is not the full version after all. From 20-30 minutes were edited out of the original footage during which the pilots & gunners do not act as the crazed murderers they appear to be early on, and behave instead in a strangely humane & professional manner. WikiLeaks maintains that the 38-minute version is all they have, so it’s possible that their source edited the original footage, thereby depriving all of us of the full context.
In spite of the moronic and ineffectual defense I offered previously, I hope you’ll find this information and these materials as helpful as I did.
I urge you to be slow to judge those who are trapped in these machines and ask yourself if you did or didn’t do anything to create this trap
The same false dichotomy.
during which the pilots & gunners do not act as the crazed murderers they appear to be early on, and behave instead in a strangely humane & professional manner
Ah yes, not always being a murderer absolves one of murdering.
From 20-30 minutes were edited out of the original footage during which the pilots & gunners do not act as the crazed murderers they appear to be early on, and behave instead in a strangely humane & professional manner.
Did you even read your source? We do not know how they acted — we only have their own reports of how they acted. And your source also says:
In fact this full version was edited—apparently to make the pilots look worse than they already did. (As if that was necessary.)
The parenthetical is spot on; the rest is pure speculation.
Also, this comment there reiterates my previous point:
Man, this is like debating whether some pervert raped and killed four children or five. Or if he gave them a lollipop first. What I saw on the tape was evil personified.
behave instead in a strangely humane & professional manner
You really are sick, Samuelson. The guy says he saw a child and some non-combatants “so decided to hold off on the engagment” — how very noble.
TM —
Take the material for whatever you think it’s worth. If that amounts to nothing in your estimation, well, that’s your business. I posted it simply because I didn’t recall seeing any of it mentioned before (and hadn’t been aware of Josh Steiber’s insights until yesterday).
In fact, I wasn’t going to post anything at all – remember, I said I was done due to my continuous fuckupery – but since John had asked a question that hadn’t been definitively answered yet, I thought he might appreciate getting one. It just made sense to include the rest too.
Cheers.
Take the material for whatever you think it’s worth. If that amounts to nothing in your estimation, well, that’s your business.
Hey, moron, I expressed my opinion on aspects of the material, and on your claims about it. That’s what we do around here. It’s useful to know about that material, and I appreciate your posting it, but that’s not the end of the matter.
According to Wikileaks (via Gawker) the “firing on troops” event to which the Apache was responding, and which has been used to justify this act of brutality, happened nearly a half an hour before the events in the video. No one was hit, and the shooters were unidentified.
So I invite anyone still using the “it was a split-second, life-or-death, us-or-them decision!” defense to kindly shut the fuck up.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/#more-23793
This is an interview with a soldier who was fighting a few blocks over, and ended up pulling the kids out of the van to save them.
As it turns out, there WERE armed people. It sounds like the first set of shots were justified. The rest of the shooting was the result of faulty assumptions and being trigger happy.
Anyway. The interview gives some perspective on the mentality of the soldiers. It’s incredibly depressing in its own way.
As it turns out, there WERE armed people
We know that — weapons can be seen in the video.
It sounds like the first set of shots were justified
Um, watch the video; regardless of what it “sounds like” from an interview, the Apache came around the building and shot at unthreatening men before they took the time to assess the situation — and they had plenty of time to do so. That isn’t justified by some of them carrying rifles; it’s murder.