Wikileaks Releases Video of Journalist Killings

linguizic writes "Today Wikileaks released a video of the US military firing large caliber weapons into a crowd that included a photojournalist and a driver for Reuters, and at a van containing two children who were involved in a rescue. Wikileaks maintains that this video was covered up by the US military when Reuters asked for an official investigation. This is the same video that has supposedly made the editors of Wikileaks a target of the State Department and/or the CIA, as was discussed a couple weeks ago." Needless to say, this video is probably not work safe (language and violence), and not for the faint of heart.

Comments

Video

[sopssa]

A short version with some initial analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
Full version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

If you read the comments from Army and US in the video before it was now released to public, they're just really blatant lies. They also did not release the video when Reuters requested it by Freedom of Information Act. Like the earlier news note, they followed, photographed, filmed and detained a Wikileaks editor about this video, not knowing what will they uncover. There's definitely more dirty secrets they don't want anyone to know.

In the video you see the people weren't attacking anyone, weren't targeting anyone (hell, all they had was cameras!) and that they were just civilians walking on the street. The military clearly had no idea what they were doing. Now theres plans to employ remotely controlled UAC's too? Make it a video game so that you don't need to care about the people you are murdering. These are people with families, with kids, with a whole lot of their own life, dreams and childhood. Then some idiot with large caliber weapons comes and shoots them without even a blink of an eye or thinking what he is doing. In top of that the truth is held from the public and the families of those who were killed, and US Army admits no mistake. I have no respect for these people - they're scum.

Re:Video

[KBKarma]

WikiLeaks commented that there was a possibility that at least one person had a weapon. What really got me was that they used a GUNSHIP on HUMAN TARGETS. Would have been much better if the Military had come out and said "Yeah, we fucked up bad." when it was first hinted at. But covering it up just makes it so SO much worse.

Re:Video

[FriendlyLurker]

Wikileaks also recently released CIA "Red Cell" files on how they will manipulate public opinion to keep countries around the world supporting the Afghanistan war this summer, a time when casualties are expected to rise and they say "public apathy will no longer be enough" to guarantee support for the war.

Re:Video

[lorenlal]

But covering it up just makes it so SO much worse.

Covering it up is only worse if someone finds out about it. See previous treatment of Wikileaks. All this means is that someone in the command structure will be ordered to fall on the sword.

Re:Video

[lamppost]

I could follow the actions of the gunship operators up to a certain point YOU knew they had cameras, they did not. However, the targets in question did not seem hostile nor did the threat of an RPG seem very real. The firing on the van though, without question, was a mistake. They were clearly evacuating a wounded man, something I thought was pretty much a universal no-no for engagement.

This is what happens in war, this is what happens when you put kids in situations where there lives are in danger and you've taught them to kill. Rather than this specific instance (which has happened in every war ever on every side) I think the real story should be about the cover-up, and the actual purpose of the war itself.

Re:Video

[FriendlyLurker]

These are people with families, with kids

Worse, the video shows two children clearly visible in the front seat of a van being shot up by the gunship after their parents stopped to help the wounded from the first attack. The soldier commentary says something like "serves them right" for stopping.
Never fear, there is a new "Cybersecurity" act now to allow the president to block disturbing leaks and wikileaks from challenging incompetence and corruption in the future. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Video

[Firethorn]

Disclaimer: I'm at work, and they have video stuff blocked, so I have not seen the video

What really got me was that they used a GUNSHIP on HUMAN TARGETS.

And what's wrong with this? The usage of 'gunships' on human targets is valid by the laws of war. There's normally nothing special on how you kill people during war.

Where I WILL get upset is the targeting of non-combatants, whether by gunship, missile, or even humble assault rifle. I understand that there can and will be collateral damage if you need to use something with explosives to take out a target, but sometimes this is necessary.

Re:Video

[KBKarma]

Yeah. Might not even be anyone related to the incident. Though it'll most likely be someone near Lt. Col. Bleichwehl, as he's the one that's connected to this case.

Re:Video

[bkr1_2k]

At the rank of Lt. Colonel, he's likely to be the one commanded to fall on his sword, unless he's got some heavier clout than his rank would indicate. Lt. Colonel isn't that much of a heavy hitter, when it comes to situations like this.

Re:Video

[Khyber]

"The usage of 'gunships' on human targets is valid by the laws of war.'

Excuse me, 30mm is NOT allowed for human targets just like WP isn't supposed to be used. Using anti-aircraft/anti-vehicle weaponry against non-armored human targets goes against the Geneva Convention.

Oh, yea, we didn't sign that, did we?

Re:Video

[Bakkster]

And what's wrong with this? The usage of 'gunships' on human targets is valid by the laws of war. There's normally nothing special on how you kill people during war.

Where I WILL get upset is the targeting of non-combatants, whether by gunship, missile, or even humble assault rifle. I understand that there can and will be collateral damage if you need to use something with explosives to take out a target, but sometimes this is necessary.

I have not seen the video either, but it was mentioned there may have been one person in a crowd of non-compatants with a gun. The near guarantee of collateral damage due to using a gunship is exactly the reason not to use it. That goes far beyond acceptable use in a crowded group of civilians.

Re:Video

[Jeffrey Baker]

"What's wrong with this" is they had mounted infantry 100m away. The gunship crew could have just called in the coordinates and had the eyeballs check it out. They might have seen that the "AK-47" was a tripod and the "RPG" was a camera lens.

And there was no excuse for blowing away the minivan trying to carry off the wounded survivor.

Re:Video

[HungryHobo]

Short version: there's a few people wandering about, on the street.In the video none of them are obviously carrying anything big, though you can hear the soldiers calling in that the people were carrying AK47's and an RPG.
They shoot and kill/wound them all.

Fast forward a little with a few people bleeding to death on the ground some poor sod driving by in a minivan stopsto help and a kid and I think parents try to carry one of the injured/dead people into the car.
Over the radio you hear the soldiers calling in that more insurgents are picking up all the weapons and rescuing the wounded and they request permission to fire.
Then they shoot and kill them all.

what followed was a coverup and attempts to strongarm wikileaks into not releasing the video.

Re:Video

[RsG]

I could follow the actions of the gunship operators up to a certain point YOU knew they had cameras, they did not. However, the targets in question did not seem hostile nor did the threat of an RPG seem very real. The firing on the van though, without question, was a mistake. They were clearly evacuating a wounded man, something I thought was pretty much a universal no-no for engagement.

Second on that. Firing on people you mistake for the enemy (and who look armed, might even have been armed) is understandable. Firing on a civilian vehicle trying to rescue the wounded is not. A better solution, given that they did have ground assets in the area at the time (as evidenced by the arrival of a group of IFVs shortly after the engagement) would have been to let the ground forces intercept the van. They have the option of stopping it without killing the people inside.

Moreover, if you watch the video, it's pretty obvious that the people who get out of the van aren't armed. At the stage where the van is evacing the wounded reporter, the gunships crew has no reason to assume they pose any threat, to them or the IFVs and infantry about to arrive. What was the point in opening fire?

This is precisely the sort of scenario you want to avoid. If you have a situation like that, you need eyes on the ground. The air crew couldn't see the kids in their downrange; a ground of infantry stopping the vehicle surely would have.

Re:Video

[vlm]

rescuing the wounded

Then they shoot and kill them all.

I haven't seen the video. You sure about that?

I have been out of the Army for well over a decade, and I still remember that wounded folks and medics are not to be targeted by the Geneva Convention.

I checked wikipedia and my memory was correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#The_conventions_and_their_agreements

Re:Video

[HungryHobo]

We're seeing a low quality low resolution video and yet we can see that.
Those guys had the full color full resolution experience in person with binoculars.

It's not asking much to actually look where you're pointing a gun before you pull the trigger especially when nobody, absolutely nobody is firing back.

Re:Video

[Lunix Nutcase]

I've always wondered what keeps the Geneva Convention enforced.

Because you don't want the other side doing the things banned by the convention to your own soldiers and civilians?

Re:Video

[Hyppy]

LTC Bleichwehl is just a spokesperson in a Public Affairs Office. I highly doubt he'd be the fall guy.

Re:Video

[mikael_j]

Can you please point out the exact moment (time) in either short or full version of the video when children are clearly seen...

A few seconds before they fire on the van, while the guys in the chopper are swearing about how they want permission to fire.

Please keep in mind that what the soldiers in the helicopter see isn't a 360p youtube video (this is obvious from comments they make about details which aren't visible in the youtube video due to the low resolution).

...and when the soldier says "serves them right"?

Towards the end of the short video when mention of the kids come up one of the chopper guys says it serves them right for bringing their kids to a battle.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the tax losses of 60-80 years of a soldier's life?

It's sad to see someone's life being viewed as little more than a government's paycheck.

Re:Video

[weirdcrashingnoises]

You don't, but maybe some does. And if not then I will. And don't you that I won't.

Re:Video

[Wrath0fb0b]

They were clearly evacuating a wounded man, something I thought was pretty much a universal no-no for engagement.

I believe you are mistaken on this point. International law and the current US ROE most certainly allow one to fire on a retreating enemy target until they law down their arms and equipment and surrender. A duty to allow enemy troops to retreat with their weapons and equipment intact in order to regroup and attack again at some future time makes absolutely no sense. Customary international law (according to the Red Cross) states it this way:

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebART/612-047?OpenDocument
Rule 47. Attacking persons who are recognised as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combat is:
            (a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party;
            (b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or
            (c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender; provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape

All of this is moot, of course, if the man is not properly an enemy target to begin with, a question I take no position on here because it is a factual dispute and I just wanted to post on the law as I understand it. I'm not at all claiming that it was proper to attack these folks, only that armed retreat is not and has never been grounds for protection under the laws of war. To claim protection, a combatant must lay down his arms and cease trying to escape.

See also:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19910227&id=rnQfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OPEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5146,4465272
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19910227&id=7k8eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XscEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1239,3716450

Re:Video

[jedidiah]

Yes. In hindsight it looks like one of the photographers was reaching around a building to
take a picture of the Apache. That got mistaken for sighting in with a rifle. The photographer
gets the same kind of Darwin award that goes to kids that point water guns at cops. If you are
in the wrong place, you will be taken for a perp. You don't have to be in Baghdad for this to
be case.

Re:Video

[saider]

Soldiers do not go into battle with "just enough" to win. They go in with everything they have and they will use the most destructive devices they can. They are not looking for a fair fight.

Keep in mind this was three years ago during some of the most violent times in Iraq. What you are seeing is guerrilla warfare. The enemy does not stand out with "bad guy" uniforms and because of this, the soldiers are on edge and in a defensive posture, exposed out in the open. They are essentially targets sitting around waiting to be shot at. Their friends are being shot and killed or blown up on a daily basis, and this weighs heavily on their thoughts. Operating in an environment like this for weeks on end without a break stresses people to the breaking point. It is only a matter of time before combat fatigue sets in and you start getting mistakes. Mistakes are part of war, and this is reflected in the law of war. Killing civilians is a war crime, but the law leaves ample room for these inevitable actions under stress.

Be careful when you rush to judge people's actions under these conditions.

Re:Video

[Raumkraut]

The video clearly shows them shooting at the people who arrived to help a wounded victim (identified by Wikileaks as one of the Reuters employees). However, when asking for permission to fire on the new arrivals, the American gunship crew repeatedly said that the people were "collecting bodies".
But they weren't "medics" from what I could tell. They were just some passing civilians, trying to help a wounded man.

Re:Video

[Firethorn]

Excuse me, 30mm is NOT allowed for human targets just like WP isn't supposed to be used. Using anti-aircraft/anti-vehicle weaponry against non-armored human targets goes against the Geneva Convention.

Citation, please.

I've actually read the Geneva Conventions. I've had usage of force training, etc... I am military. USAF, to be specific.

The wording of the conventions is that we aren't to use weapons that case 'unnecessary suffering'.

You are allowed to use any weapons available on any target available with very few exceptions.

Stuff considered banned:
1. Non-metallic rounds. Metal rounds work just as well, non-metallic ones designed to be harder to be removed is just being cruel.
2. Nuclear/Biological/Chemical: Comes under 'not discriminary enough', 'militarily ineffective', and 'needlesly cruel'. Especially against militaries prepared for them.
3. Hollowpoints, but only 'sortof', it's actually a prohibition against expanding/explosive rounds below a certain caliber. Plus, this is more by convention than law, since the USA is not a signer to the treaty that actually banned them, and as long as hollowpoints are demostrated to be 'more effective', they'd actually pass the standards of the Geneva conventions rather easily.

WP is more considered a chemical weapon, plus, if you're close enough to use WP, you're close enough to use other weapons, generally speaking, thus the unnecessary suffering part comes into play.

Re:Video

[HungryHobo]

pretty much.
And if it's a situation where the other side has little ability to retaliate in kind you're pretty much home free for ignoring it.

Re:Video

[RsG]

The Geneva convention has nothing to do with it.

No, seriously, go look it up. The GC covers wounded soldiers, POWS, civilians, noncombatant forces and the like. That's it. Nothing in there at all about weapons. If you think this is a mistake, then might I ask you what section of which convention limits the use of such weapons?

Now, your problem is simple. You've seen others make the same claim about the GC and have made the easy mistake of assuming they were right without confirming it for yourself. It's a very widespread myth, so you've likely seen it repeated.

There are international conventions on the use of weapons above a certain caliber, or made to expand or explode on impact, or leave undetectable fragments inside a human body, etc. The Hague Convention is one, the much more recent Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is another, and there are probably more that I've forgotten about. None of them are the GC.

Re:Video

[shutdown -p now]

A few seconds before they fire on the van, while the guys in the chopper are swearing about how they want permission to fire.

Well, I didn't even notice that there was anyone inside the van on first view. On the second one, looking closely, I see moving human shapes inside, but I wouldn't say that they are readily identifiable as kids.

Please keep in mind that what the soldiers in the helicopter see isn't a 360p youtube video (this is obvious from comments they make about details which aren't visible in the youtube video due to the low resolution).

I watched the 480p version. Actually, I don't think their cameras are that much more high-res, but if so, it would definitely be interesting to watch it in the original resolution. But then, if Wikileaks have the original recording, then surely they'd put it onto YouTube as well? They do allow 720p and 1080p...

Oh and what "details that aren't visible" did they mention? The only thing that I've immediately noticed was color, which I'd imagine comes from the pilot who watches it directly.

Towards the end of the short video when mention of the kids come up one of the chopper guys says it serves them right for bringing their kids to a battle.

Oh, I assumed it was something that was said immediately before or after the attack.

Well... it's certainly not a nice thing to say in the circumstances, but he's got a point there, sort of. I mean, if you're driving a van with your kids, and you hear loud gunfire and see a chopper hovering around, do you keep driving in that direction? And then if you do, and, once you get closer, you see a bunch of dead and dying people on the ground with guns scattered around (and the chopper still in the air above you!), do you drive to them and try to help them? I'd say it's not a smart thing to do no matter how you look at it.

Re:Video

[Firethorn]

Think of the rules of war as a set of behaviors evolved to limit conflict much like how when rutting season hits bucks don't normally kill each other, predators normally manage to keep their territories without killing each other very often. Heck, Meerkats get into a lot of fights(watching Meerkat manor recently), but on average there isn't a lot of casualties every fight.

The 'Laws of War', which predate the conventions, tends to ban certain things that are more likely to stir the population up than to resolve the conflict. Thus, they're counterproductive in the end.

By following the rules, you're only marginally less likely to win, but far more likely to end the conflict sooner, and on better terms.

Re:Video

[medcalf]

Actually, that's it exactly. In fact, the conventions are written in such a way as to specifically exclude from (most of) their protections those who are unlawful combatants, which means those who do not fight according to the rules the convention lays out. For example, a force that does not wear uniforms and hides among civilians is both not entitled to the protections of the conventions, but also is the responsible party in any attack that kills those civilians. You wear uniforms and try to avoid the civilians so that your enemy won't attack your civilians.

If you go back and look at the history of WWII, you will find that we mostly observed the rules against the Germans, who mostly observed the rules against us. (This was, IIRC, predating the Geneva conventions per se, or at least the later ones.) The exception was the SS, who massacred American soldiers at Malmedy and as a result were generally not captured after that, nor allowed to surrender. Against Japan, though, we generally didn't observe the rules, because the Japanese didn't. Japanese early on frequently used the ruse of surrendering and then setting off a grenade as they were being taken into custody. They may have kept trying this, but it didn't work for long, because we started shooting people trying to surrender.

Re:Video

[NeutronCowboy]

This is what happens in war

This. This is the part that is always missing from certain sections of anti-war protestors and war-supporters alike.

War is messy. War sucks. Sometimes you shoot your own people. Sometimes you miss the enemy and hit some goat farmer in the middle of nowhere; sometimes, you shoot him directly. Sometimes you shoot the goat-farmer because you thought he had a weapon, sometimes you shoot him just because.

War is never clean, can never be clean. Even the old standards of a bunch of guys meeting up in a field to club each other over the head had collateral - how do you think they fed their army on months-long campaigns?

War is not heroic, it's not glorious, and it doesn't solve anything. It just is the standard political discourse, carried on through bullets and bombs. Sometimes, there's a need for that. Sometimes, there isn't.

I like videos like these, because they drive home the point about how messy war exactly is. They start the discussion of "Is our goal worth this cost?" Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But when you get into a war, be ready for these situations. Because they cannot be avoided.

Re:Video

[Angst Badger]

And what's wrong with this?

Entirely aside from the specific issue of deliberately and indiscriminately killing civilians, there's the larger issue that we are still conducting an unprovoked war of aggression. We don't have any legitimate targets in Iraq. Afghanistan is arguably a different situation (though whether it will do us any good is another question), but the only legitimate action we can undertake in Iraq is to get the hell out of their country.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly not. What he does make clear is that it is an inevitable result of fighting a guerilla war. In other words, there is no such thing as a "clean" war and anybody who prattles on about smart bombs and limited collateral damage is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. That this stuff happens in war shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone; it's par for the course for even the best trained army when put in such a situation.

Re:Video

[crush]

In fact someone NOT carrying some sort of weapon in Iraq at that time would be taking a big risk. Mere presence of a weapon on someone is not justification for murdering them under ANY legal regime in the world. THe whole video displays the hysterical, hyper-cautious, over-reacting, callous stupidity of the armed forces of the USA. Kinda like cops, but with more encouragement to murder people.

Re:Video

[Limburgher]

I watched it. He's right. I wish he wasn't.

Re:Video

[HangingChad]

Operating in an environment like this for weeks on end without a break stresses people to the breaking point.

There's some truth to that. We had our fire department fund raiser this weekend where we stay up 36 hours to smoke pork shoulders. Even grabbing a couple hours rack here and there by the end of the next day we have to double and triple check everything we're doing because you make really goofy mistakes. And that's after just a day and a half. Trying to imagine what day after day of that in the relentless heat and constant threat, has to be brutal.

I watched the video and didn't see any weapons. Certainly no RPG's, which have a fairly distinctive profile. It was more than the imaginings of a tired mind. No one in the van was armed or picking up weapons, yet that was how it was called in. Fatigue is one thing, this is something else. Like that episode of South Park when the two hunters kept claiming animals were attacking them.

Re:Video

[RsG]

I don't think it hurts the image of the Apache crew, just of whoever ordered them to fire. I'm willing to assume they were given faulty information of the threat on the ground. The question is who decided it was a good idea to use large caliber weaponry very near civilians?

They weren't given faulty data; they were the ones collecting the data. The Apache's gunner was the one with the first eyeballs on the crowd (consisting of around a dozen people, including two reporters).

It's possible some people in the crowd were in fact armed with rifles. Hell, they may have been an armed escort, given that this was a war zone. However the "RPGs" the gunner thought he saw were, in fact, TV cameras. Bear in mind, this is the assessment of a human being in a moving aircraft, looking through a zoomed in camera, at obscured targets, so that isn't as unlikely as it sounds.

The gunship asked permission to engage. They were given it, based on the assessment of that gunner. That part, at least, was an understandable mistake. The part that got me angry was when a civilian van showed up, started evacuating the wounded survivors, and got blown to smithereens - one of the first rules of warfare is "don't fire on the wounded or the people providing aid". Hell, I'm much more pissed that they fired on the van at all than I am they hurt a couple kids inside - they never should have engaged the van in the first place.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Those mistakes cost people their lives and families. If US military came to my country like they did Iraq, and killed people I knew like that - then I wouldn't care less about your excuses, I'd be too busy looking for Americans to kill.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, we don't have any fucking business over there IN THE FIRST PLACE. Okay? Fuck the MIC that sends them over there to kill and be killed.

Re:Video

[Carewolf]

The video is quite clear at this point. The soldiers have even admitted on radio that the man has no weapon and no weapon is in sight. One radio voice keeps asking for permission to engage, and someone says "engage", and they engage and kills them. That part is definitely a total fuck-up and at least one soldier who is way too excited and should have been told to back off and relax, or possibly not have been allowed anywhere near a weapon.

Re:Video

[sznupi]

Regarding WWII & Germany, Allies did want to essentially starve the German population for a few years...and all German POWs were reclassified quickly after the war to fall outside the convention.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

All the more reason he'd be the fall guy.

Re:Video

[amicusNYCL]

the soldiers are on edge and in a defensive posture, exposed out in the open

Not in this case, in this case they're flying around in a pair of Apaches. I can have empathy for a soldier who's been awake for too long manning a high-traffic checkpoint and shoots at a car when it doesn't stop in time. I don't like that situation, but I can imagine that guy is pretty stressed out and isn't thinking very rationally. I don't imagine the same level of stress when you're flying around in an armored gunship with a 30mm cannon and up to 16 Hellfire missiles. In that case, you're the baddest thing on the block, and you shouldn't be spinning your cannon up against a crowd of people without being damn sure they have weapons pointed at you. If you can't verify that, you call in someone who can. We have all of these surveillance drones for a reason.

Re:Video

[mikerz]

Au contraire: the user is clearly talking about man's natural rights, not American law. Government does not give rights - it restricts certain rights.

This delves into the concept of positive and negative rights -- that you either don't have any rights whatsoever until a government grants them to you, versus that you have the full rights entitled to your naturally-born freedom until they are taken away.

Given that man has been around longer than government, I am inclined to say that governments restrict existing rights and cannot grant anything that does not already exist.

The right in question is essentially the right to self-defense.

Re:Video

[darkmeridian]

The background to the story was that US ground forces that had taken fire from that position called in the Apaches, which found the group of armed men. At least two members of the group had weapons. Look at 3:46 in the extended video. One man is carrying an AK and the other is carrying a long, thin heavy weapon that looks like an RPG. The journalists were carrying large cameras that were mistaken for weapons, especially when one of the journalists knelt at a corner to take a photo in a posture that looks just like a person setting up to fire an RPG. At that point, the chopper pilots were freaking out over the possibility of an attack on friendly forces.

The attack on the minivan seemed like a mistake. There were no weapons in or around the van. Firing on a medical transport seemed immoral. (I'm not sure if it's illegal but no one likes guys who shoot at medics.)

Re:Video

[Firethorn]

Actually, that's not true at all, there are laws regarding which weapons are allowable and not allowable in war (international treaties and such).

Sure, chemical and biological weapons are banned, as is deliberate attempts to make shrapnel out of hard to detect/remove substances such as glass.

Beyond that, there are no caliber limits. It is a frequent urban legend, to the point I've actually heard it briefed by military people. However, once I've asked them to cite the regulation, they have been unable to. I've looked myself.

For instance, the use of landmines is currently regulated. Chemical weapons are a general no-no. Nukes are considered bad. In Vietnam, American troops carried flat bayonets, whereas Viet-Cong carried three-sided ones, because of a ban that the American troops had signed. There are also maximum calibers on guns allowed to fire on human targets, above which the gun is classified supposed to be fired at vehicles and equipment.

The USA is not signatory to most of the land mine treaties. Generally because we've 'cleaned up' our act have have land mines that 'expire'.

I'll ask for a cite on the bayonet issue, and the maximum calibers, because as far as I'm aware, and I've looked, there are NONE.

The caliber thing is more a 'rule of thumb' to keep tankers from 'wasting' their main gun ammo killing individuals when the coax would do as well.

That doesn't mean that they can't use the main gun if the coax isn't handy, it's that urgent, or whatever.

'Militarily efficient' and 'breaks the Laws of War' are two different things, after all.

So, in short, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Re:Video

[DG]

I've seen the video.

Yes, the effects of that weapon on people are horrific and not easy to watch, but don't let your horror override your reason.

Those gunships were flying top cover for a ground patrol. (This is all direct from the voice traffic on the video) The ground patrol said they saw people with weapons up ahead, and they asked the air element to have a look.

The air element saw a group of people - not a "crowd" by any means; that's just sensationalism - and saw weapons in the group. According to their ROE, they are allowed to engage armed persons who appear to be a threat (in this case, to the ground patrol) and they did so.

This engagement, as far as I can see, was conducted correctly. They held fire until they were clear of the building and when they IDed that one of the targets was wounded but unarmed, they held fire - exactly as required to by their ROE. The gunner is very keen to have the wounded target pick up a weapon, because that would allow him to open fire again, but he holds fire as required to.

The tragedy here is that the group does not appear to have been an ambush in the making, and that camera equipment was mistaken for weapons. I'm pretty sure I saw at least one AK-47 at one point... but I also saw the camera guy with his camera slung over his shoulder and at that point, it sure looked like a slung weapon.

In other frames, it is more clearly a camera - but I also have the benefit of *knowing* that it *is* a camera. I'm not in a gunship orbiting what I think is an ambush in the making with my buddies' lives in the balance.

From the POV of the ground forces and the gunship, they were seeing an ambush. Based on the activity in the area at the time, which almost certainly had included other, actual ambushes, they were probably pre-disposed to interpret what they saw as an ambush.

So what we have is a tragic case of mistaken identity.

That's terrible, but it happens. It is one of the consequences of guerrilla warfare - when friend and foe look alike, mistakes will be made.

I note too that when the area is deemed secure and the ground patrol shows up, they apply first aid to the wounded and evacuate them. There is a brief question as to where to evacuate them, but there's nothing sinister in that, and it seems like the decision was made to send them to a closer, local hospital rather than wait to get them to an American treatment facility.

This is what war is like. It's not at all pretty, or clean. And when your tools are high-powered weapons, the consequences of mistakes are high and that sucks for all involved. We can, safe behind our computers, armchair-quarterback the decisions made on the ground until the cows come home, but that won't remove the necessity of applying lethal force to the enemies of civilization, nor will it bring back to life those killed in error when mistakes are made.

A tragedy no matter how you slice it.

DG

Re:Video

[HeckRuler]

To be nitpicky, the war in Iraq was over in a couple of weeks. We're REAL good at war. Good job boys.
Since then its been an occupation, not a war. And to be real technical, it was never a Congressional declared war. Which makes Bush a dick for calling it one when it was his own personal quagmire.
We really suck at occupation. We don't want to be there. They don't want us there. And the only reason we ARE there is inertia and the fear that there would be wide-spread sectarian violence. Ok, so MORE wide-spread sectarian violence.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

...should then not serve to their evil overlords...

That is an ignorant statement to the realities of the world, society and government whether you agree the Iraq war to be justified or not. This was an awful occurrence and wrongful actions should be lawfully addressed. If those responsible are found to be guilty of war crimes they should be punished.

Claiming (or believing) an entire government is an "evil overlord" based on cherry-picked actions however shows a lack of constructive thought.

Re:Video

[kidgenius]

I watched the video and didn't see any weapons. Certainly no RPG's, which have a fairly distinctive profile.

Check out 3:40. The journalists are no longer in frame. One guy has what looks to be a rifle swinging from his hand/arm. Another has a very long object. He even sets one end of it on the ground and leans on it, and it comes up to his chest. Looks like an RPG to me.

Re:Video

[David Gerard]

"calling this 'collateral murder' is not appropriate and borders on criminal in itself."

You sound like a Vatican spokesman saying the Pope's hard done by, and ignoring all the child rape.

Re:Video

[Jeffrey Baker]

This is not what war is like, this is what cowardice looks like. If armored infantry are so afraid of 8 photographers walking down the middle of the street that they have to hide inside their armored vehicles waiting for a helicopter to investigate, then those infantrymen are chickenshits. Plain and simple. I'm sure you'll say that the grunts just want to make sure they don't get dead, but the fact is that they're armed to the teeth and in a city crawling primarily with unarmed civilians. They are going to have to be men and not hide behind FLIR gun pods.

"Hearts and minds" and all that.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Soldiers do not go into battle with "just enough" to win. They go in with everything they have and they will use the most destructive devices they can. They are not looking for a fair fight.

Sounds like you are advocating the use of nuclear force against the gophers in my lawn.

Your apologies are unconvincing. We reward those who do more for the group than others, and punish those who damage the group. Nobody else should get special treatment, and doing more for yourself provides its own rewards. We must not accept less than acceptable behaviour, regardless of justification, or the group (the US Army in this case) suffers for the stupidity and meanness of the few (these soldiers).

It's not surprising that this happened. But it needs to be punished, and punished harder than Abu Ghraib was (the US Army should have hung Karpinski, not just demoted her) or the government will have reset the baseline for acceptable behavior in the US Armed Forces. If the USA is going to play cop for the world, we need to string up the bad cops. That's what it takes.

Re:Video

[mcornelius]

Because you don't want the other side doing the things banned by the convention to your own soldiers and civilians?

That's funny, because those on "the other side" like to torture people far worse than any allegation against what has been allowed under either the Bush or Obama administrations (not justifying it; just stating facts), have no regard for medical evacuations, deliberately hide behind women and children, disrupt elections in which they would have the ability to seek approval for their policies from their fellow countrymen, have no hesitation about exploding canisters of chlorine or using WP when they can get their hands on it, don't mind mutilating bodies of Americans and rigging them with explosives, and the list goes on and on.

The Geneva Conventions are enforced by the good sense of most people that are in a position to act accordingly. There are always exceptions, and most of the coverage on this incident has been complete bullshit, from both the DoD and from Wikileaks.

This is like all those "pundits" on TV a while ago, claiming that we shouldn't allow torture because it doesn't work. No, that's bullshit. We shouldn't allow torture, because we shouldn't fucking allow torture. For the same reasons, we should not allow targeting of civilians, or force disproportionate to a legitimate military objective.

Clearly, these guys fucked up. Also, clearly, they were reasonably certain that there was a military objective and that they had acted to achieve that. Everything after that is politics, not justice.

Re:Video

[koreaman]

That's the point: we shouldn't be fighting senseless wars. I think if more Americans knew what the human consequences are, we wouldn't be.

Kudos to WikiLeaks.

Re:Video

[JM78]

Thank you for a balanced perspective. The number of people in a supposedly intellectual society who are still unable to widen their view to the realities of this kind of terrible occurrence makes me sad.

From the video alone, there is absolutely no way for anyone to make a fair judgment or come to any conclusion. If a crime has indeed been committed those responsible should be punished. But a rush to judgment based solely on this is absurd.

In a room crowded with pitch-forks, torches and a lack of constructive thought processes - of which there is far too much of these days - your statement is a breath of fresh air for those of us looking for intelligent perspective. It is appreciated.

Re:Video

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Excuse me, 30mm is NOT allowed for human targets just like WP isn't supposed to be used. Using anti-aircraft/anti-vehicle weaponry against non-armored human targets goes against the Geneva Convention.

Citation, please.

It's not in the Geneva Convention but the St. Petersburg Declaration from 1868 prohibits the use of "incendiary or explosive projectiles weighing less than 400 grams" or something like that based on the fact that at that time, the sole use of small caliber projectiles was against humans. Now the situation changed when AA weapons came into service during the WW I, but it is my understanding that the "don't shoot with it at humans" is still tacitly understood to be in effect and still observed...at least in Europe. US hasn't signed this and they are perfectly free to shoot at Amazonian Indians with exploding tomatoes, or whatever they wish.

Re:Video

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The "gunship" didn't "ask for permission" to engage. Some fucking hillbilly BEGGED to shoot people, and then begged the final victim to provide a nominal excuse to murder him, once he was down.

At the end, he blamed the rescuers for bringing children into combat! Yeah, they made you HAVE to kill babies, didn't they? These were conscientious people, in a fucking regular neighborhood - doing what you'd hope any one would do, if they found a dying man - drive up quickly and try to get him to help.

Babykillers.

Babykillers, Babykillers, Babykillers.

They are the same - I don't care if it's Nazis bombing Guernica, or Johnny Mainstreet ripping the heads off of nursing mothers in My Lai. Babykillers.

Fuck anyone who makes the dimmest excuse for this. Fuck 'em to hell - 'cos that's where they're going. Talk about "moral relativism".

The good news? The U.S> is headed for the same fate as the Soviets. 12 years from now, people 'round the world will squat in the rubble and say: "Remember America? It seemed like that would last forever..."

Re:Video

[sFurbo]

Surprisingly, the keeping of conventions is to quite a large extend for the psychological health of your own soldiers. Killing people, even in a war, is psychologically taxing, and knowing that you abide by rules to limit unnecessary suffering makes for fewer breakdowns.

Re:Video

[copponex]

The Geneva Conventions clearly delineate willful killing as a grave breach of the agreement.

This video encapsulates the entire problem of American foreign policy: a bunch of idiots who are too scared to put themselves in harm's way to confront and confirm what they think is an enemy, so they make rash decisions that end up killing innocent people and creating more problems for themselves.

Then they lie about their stupidity and cowardice and cover it with words like collateral damage, and try to cover their dishonor with words like freedom and democracy.

It's a sad fucking joke.

Re:Video

[mdarksbane]

You are, however, still vulnerable to small arms fire and surface to air missiles. More than that, you are responsible for the lives of everyone one of the soldiers on the ground whom you are supporting, and if you fail to take out the targets, you'll have your friend's blood on your hands.

That said... there are still rules of engagement, and how to identify targets that these men are trained in. The story here is not that this horrible thing happened -- these things are not excusable, but not unexpected, either -- it's that it was covered up, and that apparently no one was held responsible for it. Empathy is not separate from justice or real standards of conduct.

I remember watching a documentary on the first gulf with my veteran cousin. On one shot they showed an armored vehicle through the bore camera of an american tank. My cousin immediately said "wait, that's a friendly" right before it opened fire, and the announcer started talking about the friendly fire incident. They spend a lot of time training people what they are and are not supposed to shoot at.

Re:Video

[shutdown -p now]

You are a RAGING military apologist. What would it take for you to say something bad about the military?

Shooting targets that are clearly identifiable as civilians would do the trick.

By the way, I'm not an apologist. Attack on the van as taped on the video is clearly wrong - there is no sight of weapons, not even something that can be confused as a weapon, and the people are just evacuating the wounded. I don't know if that counts as a war crime or not from a legal perspective (the van / people didn't have Red Cross emblem, which may be required for this to qualify - I'm not sufficiently well versed in these matters to judge), but it sure as hell looks like one.

However, I think it's a far stretch to say that soldiers attacked van knowing that there were kids inside (which is a fair bit worse than attacking adults), and I do think that the original attack on reporters and their escorts was fair - they were in a warzone in a middle of an ongoing military operations, with shots having been fired at U.S. troops in the vicinity already; and they had things that are either weapons or looking an awful lot like them (and carring them in such a way that makes it look like it's a weapon). In the original Reuters story about this, there's also a mention that, according to witnesses on the ground, "two or three" of the escorts "may have been armed", further corroborating this.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Like hell it was. Look up the night-bombing campaigns that the British used against the Germans. Like say Dresden. Or the USA's bombing tactics against Japan. We killed over a million people in Tokyo using fire-bombs. Those were specifically designed and tested to burn paper houses. Then let's not forget the use of nuclear weapons on Japan.

We mostly avoided shooting Germans trying to surrender, but after Guadalcanal, US soldiers typically didn't try to capture Japanese soldiers as they had a habit of blowing themselves up and whomever was nearby with a grenade.

Re:Video

[commodoresloat]

Watch the fucking video. Then come back and tell us what you think.

Re:Video

[Padrino121]

The disappointing theme your comment highlights is your lack of appreciation for the very thing we are supposedly fighting for, the right to democracy and freedom which at their heart value human life. This type of war includes a significant amount of urban warfare and at times collateral damage however regardless of how fatigued one is it is inexcusable to brush off these types of events as mistakes grouped in with the more mundane things we all do when tired. Mistake or not if I fall asleep at the wheel and take someone's life I will be held accountable for it, albeit not the same as if I take a life on purpose but none the less I will be held accountable.

In addition to the points I made above let's discuss one of the issues that applies to your position equally as well as mine. If "mistakes" were made and innocent people died why the obvious cover-up by the military when it was apparent they could not hide the truth?

Re:Video

[chdig]

I disagree with you on the first shooting being understandable -- with the quality of vision the gunmen had, they should not have been able to call the shots they did (and they did). The video made those soldiers look trigger-happy, but far worse showed that the army doesn't seem to have a reasonable set of guidelines on confirming targets.

On the shooting of the van, though, you're bang-on. The exact words of the gunmen leading up to the actual firing on the van were:
"We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh, picking up bodies and weapons."
[a van arrived with children in the front seat to pick up a man who'd been gunned down, no weapons in sight]
"Let me engage", was the next request from the gunman, followed by, "Can I shoot", and topped off with a series of requests for permission and a final, "Come on! Let us shoot!"

And then, permission received, they fired on unarmed individuals coming to help a hurt man, who also had children looking out of the front window in (mangled by poor resolution) view of the helicopter.

Nothing much is understandable about these "mistakes".

Re:Video

[Anml4ixoye]

This was my thought as well. The analysis was wrong ("They have weapons! He has an RPG! Several AK-47s!") and that's a mistake which shows the need for better analysis. I mean, the guy did appear to have an RPG to me before they opened fire, but it didn't look like he was pointing it at any of them.

Far worse was the decision not to evacuate the kids. I mean, the soldiers on the ground had a much better view of what was going on, and to deny that was a travesty. And the cover-up makes it all that much worse.

In general, I see this as bad intelligence leading to a unfortunate call by soldiers looking to keep themselves safe. That doesn't excuse what happened by the commanders by any means. But I can't image being in that pilot's seat. Or the ground soldier when they made the call not to evacuate the kids.

Re:Video

[shoehornjob]

And we wonder why people "over there" hate us. I wish they could differentiate us from our government. This will never end while we are over there making mistakes like this.

Re:Video

[saider]

Would you also be hunting down your countrymen who plant bombs in public places? Even though those bombs were targeting Americans, they ended up killing a much larger number of their own people.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Protocol I, Article 35.

As you are an US military personnel there is no way you can be objective on this matter and as we see you are just trying to justify this war crime. Yes, that's right, shooting unarmed civilian people (Protocol I, Article 50,51), some of the journalists (Protocol I, Article 79) is considered war crime. If you have watched the video, these pyschomaniacs are even shooting the wounded human beings while laughing and swearing. These ... (please do not hesitate to choose your "best words") soldiers and their commanding officers shall pay the price for what they have done. I hope they will be put to a life time sentence without a parole, in a cell. I suggest that, it will be good to make them watch this video along with a short documentary film of lives of victims, at least once everyday.

Re:Video

[tsm_sf]

What exactly do we think will happen when the most powerful military force in our planet's history is employed in what is essentially a police/intelligence capacity? You're taking equipment and personnel designed and trained to utterly destroy large hardware and many, many people and placing them among a civilian population.

How is this massacre a surprising outcome? Put a jittery, sleep-deprived twenty something behind a machine gun in any populated area and something like this is bound to happen eventually. Poor leadership killed these people and, if you believe in this sort of thing, damned a few kids' immortal souls.

Re:Video

[Maxo-Texas]

One of the claimed "RPG"'s looked a lot like a camera with a telephoto lens on it to me. It's where the person is leaning out from behind the edge of the building apparently kneeling.

You know- it occurs to me, this video is a lot more apparent to me on a 24" screen than it may be to the pilots on 4" or 6" screens.

Re:Video

[tibit]

What bothers me is the conversations you hear in the background. The soldiers essentially being happy about the killing. Just listen to that.

I mean, come on, rules of war or not, you're killing people. There's nothing to be happy about. Soldiers who are happy about killing others -- is that what it came to? I thought it was about duty and necessary evil, with full realization it is wrong. No matter how supposedly bad the enemy is. Apparently to them it's just as much fun as playing a video game. And my taxes support that? I'm ashamed.

Re:Video

[kidgenius]

There was mistaken identification on the cameras, but let's look at it this way. There IS an RPG in the group. As the pilot circles around, the guy with the RPG becomes obscured. At that point in time, it's pretty difficult to know if it wasn't handed off to the guy leaning around the corner, aiming it in your general direction. Looking back, yeah, it is a camera, but you've seen weapons now and given your current state of mind, most everything will look like a weapon. It's unfortunate that some innocent people had to die.

Re:Video

[hvm2hvm]

Yeah, I personally 'liked' the parts where the gunner says "come on, let us shoot".

Re:Video

[bill_mcgonigle]

All this means is that someone in the command structure will be ordered to fall on the sword.

Is that all it means? For me, it means all the stories from the military about what happened in a given battle are suspect. I know they lie and cover up now. The only question is if it's done systematically.

Since there was no correction to date from the military, 'systematic' is the most likely answer.

All trust is gone.

Re:Video

[salesgeek]

Jeffery - This situation is just tragic, and those infantrymen are not "chickenshits." They were obeying orders that were put in place by commanders and political leaders eager to fight a war with minimum casualties on our side. If you want to cite cowardice, assign blame to the people who put those "grunts" in the position they were.

Re:Video

[Maxo-Texas]

I think you need to look at 3:40 to 3:46 again. On a larger monitor.

I can't believe they would execute so many unarmed people because someone near them had a weapon.

But you can see two rifle type weapons easily-- especially as one of the guys turns around and light reflects down the length of one of the weapons.
At 3:44-3:45 as the one on the right turns around you can see it's a thin object, long and rifle like, with a 9"ish long thicker part near the tip.

It does not look like an AK47 (http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/ak47.jpg) It's too long and skinny.

It's damn long-- 4'? (3:45) with most of it's length in front of where the guy is holding it, yet it is pointing upwards so the longer part is apparently light.
I can't see the handles that most RPG's have tho . (google RPG). This one looks most similar. (http://www.motionpicturearmourer.com/rpg.jpg)

Re:Video

[c6gunner]

This video encapsulates the entire problem of American foreign policy: a bunch of idiots who are too scared to put themselves in harm's way to confront and confirm what they think is an enemy, so they make rash decisions that end up killing innocent people and creating more problems for themselves.

Yep, you're right. Clearly they should have landed those helicopters, walked over, and said "Hi! We're with the US Military, and we'd really appreciate it if you could tell us: are you the bad guys?".

Don't be a tool. Aerial bombardment/attack has been used since the advent of manned flight. The difference is that now:

1. We can be more discriminate about it.
2. We keep recorded evidence of it.

The result is a huge decrease in civilian casualties, but results in MORE bitching by uninformed simpletons.

Re:Video

[nedlohs]

The initial attack isn't the issue. That's fine, you can 100% guarantee someone had an AK47, you'd be an idiot to be doing journalism in a war zone without some security people. And mistakes happen, of course a soldier is going to see anything that looks like a weapon as a weapon - those that don't die or see their friends die.

But there was never a claim made about weapons when they opened up on the vehicle assisting the wounded guy. A "collecting weapons" throw away when they first arrived but they clearly weren't doing so and that wasn't mentioned again when asking for permission to fire.

They just shot to kill the unarmed wounded guy and the unarmed people assisting him. And no one raised a concern at all.

Re:Video

[BobMcD]

I see no evidence to suggest that what I saw wasn't an RPG (sure looked like it) and it definitely wasn't one of the two reporters holding it (the video makes an effort to highlight the reporters when on screen.) The guy who carried it had it propped up on his shoulder and was edging the corner of the building, keeping the gunship in his sights, pointing it what appeared to be AT the gunship.

In light of this new information that you did not have, NOW what do you think about the use of a gunship, and the order to go ahead and fire?

Since the read-out on the gun's camera shows them beyond double the effective range of any Soviet-made RPG, I'd say they still acted illegally.

Re:Video

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It's hard to be an exhibitionist with a cock as small as mine. So many of my victims fail to be shocked because their vision isn't good enough.

Re:Video

[HangingChad]

Looked like 2 people had AK47s to me.

They showed the video on TV where I could freeze it on a big screen and there does appear to be two people carrying AK's. Even on the big screen I didn't see any RPG's or anyone setting up to shoot, which is what was called in.

Going through it frame at a time, it's hard to see any hostile intent. I'm not judging anyone, just trying to rationalize what they were calling in with the video. Trying to weigh the immediate need to shoot vs moving ground forces into the area. Did anyone see anything that looked like hostile intent? There didn't appear to be anyone around to threaten.

Re:Video

[Schoenlepel]

Yeah, a camera really looks soooo much like an RPG.

Lets make a few things clear:
- A Rocket Propelled Grenade, is a lot larger then a camera, you can notice that clearly and I couldn't even remotely identify an RPG from the images.
- An anti-personnel machine gun is no danger to an armored assault helicopter, which is designed to be shot at.

So, putting all that in perspective I think it was a conscious choice on the part of the pilot to commit murder, he was never in any danger of bein shot at.

Noticing from his behavior I'd say he's a sociopath and should be dishonerably discharged from duty, sent of to Den Haag for war crimes and put in prison for life with forced psychiatric treatment.

Same goes for the tank driver who overrun a body (was that person even dead?)

Committing war crimes seems to be normal to the U.S. army and doing something about it appears to be completely alien to them.

Re:Video

[grumbel]

Thats a tripod and never identified by anybody as RPG. The only thing identified as RPG in the video is the camera, which can be mistaken for an RPG as the view is blocked by the wall at 4:08.

Re:Video

[dmorris68]

You're incorrect, on several counts:

• The Geneva Convention does not reference weapons at all. You're probably thinking of the Hague Convention.

• The Hague Convention was a 19th century agreement, modified slightly at the turn of the century (around 1907-1910), and amended by the Geneva Protocol which specifically referenced chem/bio weapons only. Point being, there is little in the HC regarding modern conventional munitions, and nothing about specific calibers. Other than reference to "dum dum" or notched, flattening rounds, the only vague restriction on anti-personnel munitions is that they not cause "unnecessary suffering." Obviously this is relative, as most would agree that being shot with a standard 5.56mm ball round would cause various degrees of suffering if it did not outright kill. But this was addressed to weapons like WP which are obviously quite ugly in that minimal exposure incurs maximal suffering. But saying that an arbitrary caliber intended to kill the enemy, say 7.62 or .50BMG, is legal against human targets but 30mm isn't, is quite ridiculous. In fact I would argue the opposite, that being shot with a 30mm HE round and killed instantly is far more humane a kill than a 7.62 ball round that causes me to bleed out.

• Finally, yes, in fact, the M230 30mm chain gun on the Apache is intended for "soft" targets, which in military parlance means people and soft-skinned vehicles (like the van in this video). This has always been the specification for the chaingun and weapons like it, such as the 20mm Bushmaster cannon on the M2 Bradley. For armored targets and reinforced buildings/bunkers, the Apache carries Hellfire missles and 2.75" FFARs.

People often erroneously repeat Geneva Convention myths about weapons of war, I'm not sure why. Some think .50BMG is banned against people as well, but of course it isn't. Nor is the 20mm Bradley cannon. The conventions that are in place regarding munitions do not reference caliber, only type of bullet.

Re:Video

[masouds]

I personally think the pilots/gunners were overeager and jumped into action way early. Like all other sting operations you'd see in your local TV show, it was better to establish intent from the people on the ground (Photographer and other people with AK-47) by just doing a fly-by and tempting them to take a shot at the helicopter. After they fire at the helicopters they would have been fair game. But shooting them before being fired upon is what caused this war to last longer than necessary.

Re:Video

[copponex]

Yep, you're right. Clearly they should have landed those helicopters, walked over, and said "Hi! We're with the US Military, and we'd really appreciate it if you could tell us: are you the bad guys?".

Don't assign me your poor reasoning skills.

They should have confirmed with intel before they opened fire. If this is outside of their capability, they shouldn't have opened fire. This is if they gave a shit about killing civilians, which they didn't.

The result is a huge decrease in civilian casualties, but results in MORE bitching by uninformed simpletons.

I won't mistake your planet sized ignorance for malice. The US Military doesn't keep a body count for a good reason: they kill a lot of innocent people.

The Brookings Institution has used modified numbers from the UN Human Rights Report, the Iraq Body Count, General Petraeus’s congressional testimony given on September 10-11, 2007, and other sources to develop its own composite estimate for Iraqi civilians who have died by violence. By combining all of these sources by date, the Brookings Institution estimates that between May 2003 and August 22, 2008, 113,616 Iraqi civilians have died.

Finally, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (ICCC) is another well-known nonprofit group that tracks Iraqi civilian and Iraqi security forces deaths using an IBC-like method of posting media reports of deaths. ICCC, like IBC, is prone to the kind of errors likely when using media reports for data: some deaths may not be reported in the media, while other deaths may be reported more than once. The ICCC does have one rare feature: it separates police and soldier deaths from civilian deaths. The ICCC estimates that there were 43,099 civilian deaths from April 28,2005 through August 22, 2008.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf

How you can possibly defend driving out 2.5 million people from their own country and killing hundreds of thousands more for oil resources is beyond me. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to applaud you for your capacity for evil, but they'll call it patriotism.

Re:Video

[masouds]

Last I checked, Brits didn't use gunships in Northern Ireland.

Re:Video

[digitalunity]

Afghanistan is a war with a purpose. The taliban were very much worthy of america's wrath for harboring not just terrorists but the training camps as well. The taliban were repressive for religious reasons which is worthy of despising.

Saddam was repressive, but only as was necessary to repress an underlying tendency towards civil war. I'm sure a lot of people in Iraq miss Saddam because he brought them relative peace(and tyranny). When the violence is really bad, the fear of predictable tyranny is better than unpredictable guerrilla warfare.

We never should have gone to Iraq, but politicians are like marshmallows in the the face of a president calling for military action in the name of "national security" and "terrorism". I wish they had a brain as big as their hubris.

Re:Video

[jdoverholt]

I think it's the Hague Conventions (specifically, 1899) that you're looking for, not the Geneva Conventions.

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899
Section II, Chapter I, Article 23

Besides the phohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--
[...]
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
Citation

Superfluous may be too subjective a term, but I think this is the line typically thought to deal with this sort of thing.

Personally, I'd like to see an army of giant wrecker robots used to smash the enemy, but I guess I'm impractical.

Re:Video

[feepness]

And we wonder why people "over there" hate us. I wish they could differentiate us from our government. This will never end while we are over there making mistakes like this.

In the last election, 99% of our electorate voted for one of the parties that supports continuing the conflict. In the initial entry, all but two of our Senators supported the use of force.

What are they supposed to think?

Re:Video

[Stephan Schulz]

Keep in mind this was three years ago during some of the most violent times in Iraq. What you are seeing is guerrilla warfare. The enemy does not stand out with "bad guy" uniforms and because of this, the soldiers are on edge and in a defensive posture, exposed out in the open. ... Operating in an environment like this for weeks on end without a break stresses people to the breaking point. It is only a matter of time before combat fatigue sets in and you start getting mistakes. Mistakes are part of war, and this is reflected in the law of war. Killing civilians is a war crime, but the law leaves ample room for these inevitable actions under stress.

These guys were having fun killing people. This is not and can never be ok. Indeed, they are in a bad place - but its the responsibility of the political leadership that sends them there to ensure that people are not kept in a position that puts them under so much strain that they will break. In fact, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Bush government that started the war without any idea of how to end it. But everyone down to the guy who pulls the trigger can say no to such illegal acts.

And, of course, keeping such fuck-ups secret is completely and utterly unacceptable in a democracy. How can voters be expected to cast informed votes if the government blatantly lies to them?

Re:Video

[rapiddescent]

Whilst a lot of the content in this video is indefensible - there is one moment, where the Reuters photographer bends down on one knee at the street corner and presumably looks at the back of his digital SLR - which has a long lens on it. I replayed this bit a few times and I can tell you that (unfortunately) it looked exactly like the activity to load and arm a cheapo shoulder mounted RPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-22) where the front tip is aimed to the ground, charge is loaded and ranger finders snapped up. Clearly, the camera angle on sees about 1/4 of the activity and the diameter and profile of the SLR with its long lens match that of an RPG.

It was about 1 sec later that the mood changed from curious to blood thirsty attack mode and they got permission to engage before the helicopter even rounded the corner to get full sight of the group in the courtyard. Plenty of total bullshit like: "we received small arms fire"

I'd be keen to learn how the material was found and decrypted.

Re:Video

[VON-MAN]

Typical insurgent tactics include a getaway vehicle.

That is just cynical excuse to kill more people. Many activities include a vehicle. This was a van with men, small children, probably one or more women that arrived at the scene well after the shooting. They did what you would hope many people would do: they tried to help one of the survivors.
The soldiers first claim the van is there to help the insurgents and pick up the weapons. However, we don not see them picking up any weapons. The people from the van start to help the wounded man. Then we hear the one of the soldiers thinking\hoping aloud: "pick up the weapon. come one, pick it up". Somewhat later, we hear the question "are they picking up weapons?", and this is maybe the only questions that is never answered. We do hear the crew repeatedly ask for permission to fire, and to me it starts to sound like pestering. Until someone gives in.

Re:Video

[mikkelm]

It's the gunner identifying the targets, identifying the weapons, and asking for permission to fire. It's the people on the ground asking the pilot what the situation is, and the pilot returning the gunner's assessment.

Re:Video

[crush]

Mod parent up. This is the single most important point about the whole thing. Incidents like the above are just one INEVITABLE consequence of invading and occupying OTHER PEOPLE'S COUNTRIES.

Re:Video

[mikkelm]

His isn't a balanced perspective. His is the opposite perspective, the apologetic advocacy. 'X, but Y,' is no better than 'Y, but X.' You aren't balanced without the Z.

Re:Video

[martyros]

I'd be too busy looking for Americans to kill.

Then you'd be a sucker, falling for the very trap that Al Qaida set for you.

There's a reason the laws of war require combatants to dress in an obvious uniform and avoid civilian areas unless unavoidable: because not doing so endangers the lives of civilians. By dressing up like the locals, you cause this kind of mistake.

If these "insurgents" cared about Iraqi people, they would avoid civilian areas and dress in a clearly identifiable uniform. But the "insurgents" don't actually care about civilians. This kind of a mistake is actually good for them. They try to make incidents like this happen on purpose. Why? Because it causes a reaction just like you're having. They are more cynical about PR than the US military. While the US military just tried to bury this video to save face, the insurgents purposely do things to cause things like this to happen so the US military would lose face.

Obviously this was a screwed up situation. The guy who made the call to shoot made a mistake, and people died because of it. But the guys who do have weapons, and do have RPGs, caused that mistake; and they did it on purpose. They have the greater blame.

Re:Video

[Runaway1956]

The part that so many commenter miss entirely, is that the gunship was called in by ground troops who were FIRED ON. Watch the video again, and pay attention to the chatter. Read the captions. Hotel 26 was fired on from this location, or from a location so close to it that it looked like this particular place. When the gunship came over, they spotted multiple people armed with AK-47 rifles, and one who appeared to be armed with an RPG. Moments before the gunship opened fire, that RPG was aimed toward Hotel 26, and that was the reason they maneuvered quickly into a good firing position. They were reacting to a percieved threat to their troops on the ground.

Go ahead, watch again, and pay attention to the radio traffic.

Later, when they opened fire on the van, their reasoning is less clear, but there was chatter between the gunship, their commander, and Hotel 26. I need to watch it again, and try to understand all the chatter - the reason for firing again may become clear.

Was it the "right" decision? Maybe not - but it was almost certainly NOT WRONG.

Re:Video

[Jedi Alec]

There's a reason the laws of war require combatants to dress in an obvious uniform and avoid civilian areas unless unavoidable: because not doing so endangers the lives of civilians. By dressing up like the locals, you cause this kind of mistake.

Uh oh, someone better retroactively inform all those resistance cells in WWII. Oh wait, those are the good guys in our book.

When going up against an opponent that has pretty much every advantage you can think of, guerilla is the way to go. And yes, doing so will cost the lives of your countrymen. But from the point of view of the guerilla, his tree of liberty needs watering as well.

Re:Video

[HairyNevus]

Yeah, they mentioned that there were some weapons, but check out 9:30 on the short video. There's a wounded man (the journalist) and the gunner keeps egging him on to pick up a weapon so he can kill him (but a camera would have done the trick, too), then when a rescue team (unarmed) tries to save his life, they kill all of them. There's international treaties the US has signed that forbid killing people involved in taking care of the wounded.

Re:Video

[c6gunner]

Try wikipedia, for one. The article is rather biased, but it does show the following:

"A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis found that 78% of the population opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, that 69% believed the presence of U.S. forces is making things worse, and that 51% of the population considered attacks on coalition forces acceptable, up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006. When asked if Coalition forces should leave, about 35% of the population wanted immediate withdrawl, while about 66% of the population thought Coalitions should remain until various objectives were met, such as security restored, stronger government, independently operating Iraqi security forces, etc."

The linked polls also show that 47% of Iraqis think that the Invasion was "somewhat right" or "absolutely right", which in itself is quite interesting. I'm not sure how Iraqis can oppose the presence of US forces while still wanting them to stay and also thinking that the invasion was justified, but there ya have it. Might have lost something in the translation.

Re:Video

[pjt48108]

"I was waiting for someone speak out against all this liberal drivel..."

What a way to begin...

"War sucks. Period. The problem we have here, is terrorist scum hiding amongst the population and using them as shields."

No, the problem we have here is a helicopter GUNSHIP, manned by soldiers eager to kill, taking on civilians. At best, they might have been taking on a rag-tag group of ne'er-do-wells. But, really, what does a gunship have to fear from AKs?

"I am proud of the soldiers we have in our armed forces. Would you be willing to do what they do, for the pay they receive, the time away from your family, and the thanks they get from our newspapers and the public? Sounds like a suck job now doesn't it?"

To be honest, they weren't drafted, and their reasons for choosing such a line of work is beyond the magisteria of most people back home. It seems, however, that you are countering the "liberal drivel" with "conservative drivel." Fair and balanced, I guess: accuse those critical of a wartime clusterfuck of not being sufficiently proud of the troops.

"You still want to blame them for making the wrong call that ultimately is trying to save Iraqi and American lives?"

Yes. Who else do you blame for making the wrong call? Santa Claus? Lenin? No, you blame the eager beavers begging that they be allowed to shoot, and who then have a chuckle in the process. If they were indeed trying to save lives, I think, as the kids would say, they were "Full of fail."

"I'm not even sure I really blame the military for trying to cover this up"

Yeah, cuz at home, they don't have a helicopter-fucking-gunship to defend (HA!) themselves.

"...reading the reactions of MOST of the slashdot crowd, it was best for them to cover this up and hope it never got out, because everyone is yelling about how savage and murderous our soldiers are."

No, they are yelling about how savage and murderous THESE PARTICULAR SOLDIERS were, and how the Iraq War was a masterful piece of clusterfuckery from the very beginning. And why is this best covered up? To protect people who fucked up? To project a false image of a clean war? To protect the archetype of the honorable soldier?

"Once again, war sucks, and mistakes get made. Its easy to judge when you're here on American soil in your damn easy-chair."

As you have shown.

Re:Video

[NeutronCowboy]

In a nation where the vast majority of the population has never served, and where most people have never even held a weapon, it simply makes no sense. If your goal is propaganda, then sure, it works great. Otherwise it's completely pointless.

On the contrary. The biggest danger in a nation where the population has never served is that War becomes idealized: either as a clean, simple affair, or as a cruel campaign that is never appropriate. Both are clearly wrong. Videos like these are necessary because they epitomize the daily struggle that soldiers have in a battlefield. Just watch the discussion: were there or were there not weapons in the crowd? Could the cameraman be positively identified as presenting no-risk? Heck, even the van rescuing wounded civilians is not a clear-cut situation. Only through a vigorous discussion centered around videos like these can people gain a better understanding of what it means to be in a war zone.

Similarly, videos of surgeries gone wrong and of massive crash pile-ups are regularly shown, and both with the same goal: to demonstrate what happens in certain situations. Surgeries gone wrong less frequently, but I got my drivers license after a course that included the dangers of driving - and you ain't seen nothing yet if you haven't seen the results of cars going at 150 mph into an embankment.

Finally, on the subject of context: if you think it is missing, feel free to provide it. I've seen a number of posts by people in either active service or who have retired, and they provided great context. Where's yours?

The simplest propaganda is to shut down discussion and label it propaganda. Then you can say whatever you want and no one can challenge it.

Re:Video

[Lehk228]

did you listen to the radio chatter? they weren't scared they were having fun.

this was sadistic murder for entertainment. everyone on the scene should be charged with war crimes and murder, and everyone who helped cover it up and harass wikileaks should be charged with conspiracy and accessory to murder after the fact

Re:Video

[Thiez]

Well that doesn't really matter does it? I'm sure it's possible to hate Al Qaida and the guys invading your country at the same time. Given the fact that Al Qaida didn't start this war, it's easier to hate the invaders, they're the ones attacking.

Re:Video

[MartinSchou]

Shooting targets that are clearly identifiable as civilians would do the trick.

Congratulation - you've won the Catch 22 award.

Is this taking place in a city? Yes.
Do civilians tend to live in cities? Yes.
Are there lots of civilians in this particular city? Yes, 6.5 million
Do some of these civilians take up arms against the Coalition Forces? Yes.
Do these people wear anything that makes them distinguished? No

So you're pretty much saying it's alright to just shoot all 6.5 million people in Baghdad. You cannot clearly identify someone as a civilian. The only difference between a civilian and a rebel is the weapon in the hand of the rebel. And since we only see three or four suspect weapons in the initial group of twelve, the other eight or nine are what? Out of luck?

And as for it being okay to shoot people who happen to be in an area, where shots have been fired previously. It's in a CITY. That city has five thousand people per square kilometer. Are they all just supposed to sit indoors all day long, starving to death? Are the reporters supposed to only go with the occupation forces, covering only their point of view? Are the reporters supposed to just ignore the plight of the civilians who have done nothing at all, and not report on the unfortunate consequences they suffer under?

And as for the van not being a marked Red Cresent vehicle (Muslim countries use the cresent instead of the cross) ... ask yourself this question: You are somewhere where ambulance service is spotty to non-existant. You see someone who's bleeding to death on the sidewalk. Are you really callous enough to look at that situation and go "fuck it, I'm not helping him"?

I'm not. And there's nothing to indicate that the van driver even knew the Apache was the one responsible for the shooting. They could easily have assumed that the Apache had chased away the people responsible, and it was providing cover for them.

Which brings up another point - why the fuck haven't the US mounted speakers on their gunships? Just use some prerecorded phrases like "place the weapons on the ground and lie down next to them". Add a powerfull spotlight to it, like you get on the tiny Bell police helicopters, and stuff like this could easily be avoided. And it'd add a lot more weight to the suggestion that the Coalition is there to bring about law and order until the Iraqi police can take over.

Re:Video

[gweihir]

Last I checked, Brits didn't use gunships in Northern Ireland.

The Brits very sensible did not use overwhelming fore in Northern Ireland. It means your casualties will about match that of the enemy and that in turn gives a possibility to start negotiations on an equal footing at any time. The US way of doing this highly asymmetrical (they will accept a high number of enemy casualties for each one of their own) is by now known to boost support for the underdog side tremendously and typically results in a long, drawn out all-out war. Face it, you have to show respect to the enemy to get respect in return and that means giving the enemy a real chance to kill you.

Of course doing something like this requires warriors, not killers. The US military forces seems to be mainly comprised of cowardly killers today. People that do place getting home alive again over everything else are not warriors. While this is understandable on an individual level, it does more damage than good in the real world.

Re:Video

[shutdown -p now]

So you're pretty much saying it's alright to just shoot all 6.5 million people in Baghdad. You cannot clearly identify someone as a civilian.

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying that it's okay to shoot people who may or may not be civilians, provided that you have reasonable grounds to believe that they are not. What is "reasonable" largely depends on the circumstances, and in this case, having watched the video, and knowing the background (ongoing operation in the area, chopper specifically requested to locate enemy infantry in this direction because shots have just been fired from there) - yes, I do think that it was reasonable during the initial attack. It was clearly not reasonable to attack the van, though.

And since we only see three or four suspect weapons in the initial group of twelve, the other eight or nine are what? Out of luck?

Well, yes, sticking around armed people in a conflict zone tend to mean you're a bit short of luck, yes. For one thing, if you're holding something that looks vaguely like a weapon alongside a guy who is holding something that's definitely a weapon, it's quite reasonable to assume that your thingy is a weapon as well. Even you don't hold anything, if you clearly look like a part of a single cooperating group (rather than, say, combatants herding civilians at a gunpoint), then you'll be treated as such.

It's in a CITY. That city has five thousand people per square kilometer. Are they all just supposed to sit indoors all day long, starving to death?

They don't have to sit indoors all day long. They are, however, advised to stay indoors while active fighting is ongoing on the streets immediately outside.

Are the reporters supposed to only go with the occupation forces, covering only their point of view? Are the reporters supposed to just ignore the plight of the civilians who have done nothing at all, and not report on the unfortunate consequences they suffer under?

Reporters should make that decision for themselves, but they have to understand the risks of travelling with an armed, non-uniformed escort in combat zone. It's practically inviting an incident like that. I wonder, in fact, if they warned the coalition forces about their excursion (in which case they're in the clear), or were entirely on their own. If the latter, then they shouldn't be surprised when they're shot at.

Which brings up another point - why the fuck haven't the US mounted speakers on their gunships? Just use some prerecorded phrases like "place the weapons on the ground and lie down next to them".

Other people have already corrected my (and your) mistake, noting that, given the bullet speed and the delay between gun firing and bullets hitting, the chopper was likely around a kilometer away.

Re:Video

[chrb]

If these "insurgents" were totally crazy suicidal, they would avoid civilian areas and dress in a clearly identifiable uniform.

There, fixed that for you.

Seriously, the French resistance did not avoid civilian areas or wear uniforms. Neither did the Belgians, or the Greeks, or any resistance force, ever.

But the guys who do have weapons, and do have RPGs, caused that mistake; and they did it on purpose. They have the greater blame.

That is the same logic that the Nazis used in occupied Europe to justify violence against the civilian population following attacks on German forces. Don't gun proponents always say that ultimate responsibility lies with the man holding the gun, and with nobody else? Why in this case are the men firing the weapons not held responsible for their actions?

This abdication of military responsibility and projection onto a third party is reminiscent of Bloody Sunday, where British forces opened fire on civil rights protesters and then blamed the IRA. It is the same excuse that the Serbian forces used whenever they killed civilians - that the KLA were ultimately to blame. The fact that a third party may somehow benefit from soldiers killing civilians does not make it okay to do so. Blaming the third party is a poor excuse - it is the fault of the soldier pulling the trigger, and of his superiors for providing inadequate rules of engagement. Soldiers operating in civilian areas have a duty different from those operating in a war zone - a role more akin to a police force than an invading army, and the rules of engagement need to make that clear.

This was not an active war. This was an occupying military force. The roles and rules of engagement are supposed to be different. Opening fire on civilians without verifying that they are even armed is not supposed to be allowed. Most Americans would go crazy if U.S. police officers or National Guard troops opened fire on some innocent people walking down the street. There was no warning. There was no provocation. This wasn't even some protest. If this happened in the U.S. there would be a hundred posts here decrying government force and suggesting violent revolution. Why do you makes excuses for excessive government and military force being used to kill civilians in Iraq, when you would not excuse it in your own country?

Re:Video

[chrb]

Even though those bombs were targeting Americans, they ended up killing a much larger number of their own people.

It is a mistake to think that the people who set the bombs are targetting their own people. Sunni nationalists do not see Shia as "their own people" any more than American white supremacists see African-Americans as "their own people". Living in the same geographical region does not make people part of the same ethno-religious group.

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been in ISAF and NATO Security Branch.

We were not allowed to fire high calibre directly on humans, unless they were firing on "our" troops or civilians, if they were hiding behind a truck on the other hand..

Anywhoo, firing a 30mm into a crowd, would mean jailtime here in yurope.

Re:Video

[bolthole]

These guys were having fun killing people. This is not and can never be ok.

As opposed to building an army of people, who hate killing people?
That does not make for a particularly functional army.

two things to consider:

1. the army has to train a certain amount of aggresion into soldiers

2. The solders DID THE RIGHT THING. They stayed mentally "combat ready", but WAITED FOR CLEARANCE TO FIRE.

They got the clearance, they opened fire.

the fact that you dont like what they were muttering in order to psyche themselves up for the very nasty business of killing another human being, is irrelevant.
Try to think in the real world, instead of a fairy tale.

Re:Video

[OrangeCatholic]

>We can, safe behind our computers, armchair-quarterback the decisions

But that's exactly how these people were killed....safe, behind our computers.

Re:Video

[dave420]

They don't wear uniforms because: a) there is no organised army for them to fight with, and b) if they did they'd be killed immediately. If a people is put up against an overwhelming force, of course they'll stop wearing uniforms. The British had plans to do just that if the Germans invaded in WWII, and indeed the SAS often didn't wear uniforms when out killing bunches of people. Stomping your feet and getting upset because the other guys aren't playing fair is pathetic.

Re:Video

[Sprouticus]

Im not going to make a full set of comments, it seems like we have some people in the thread with more tactical expience than me.. But to your point, if there were troops within a few hundred meters of the people, that means they were 'at risk' and thus their desire to engage and kill the people with the 'RPG' was valid.

War is sad.

Re:Video

[SETIGuy]

So your fine with foreign intelligence agencies telling foreign governments how to manipulate the opinion of your countries people then?

No, but it's going to happen anyway. You didn't think Rupert Murdoch was an American, did you?

Re:Video

[Q-Hack!]

Possession of "a very long object" is a great fucking reason to end a man's life.

In a war zone, you better believe it. What I see in this video is US military personnel following the rules of engagement. Sucks that it was a group of innocents... But it is a war zone. They have to make split second decisions in battle... With the equipment available. On a 14 inch monitor, it sure looks like a couple of guys carrying AK-47's and the guy peeking around the corner could be an RPG... hind sight shows that it was probably just a camera, but I will never fault them for thinking it was an RPG. Better to be wrong rather than letting them fire an RPG at our guys on the ground. Yes, I really said that. If you want to be a journalist in a war zone with a really large camera, go right ahead... Just don't be surprised when somebody mistakes you for a combatant.

We have the best equipped military in the world, but the fog of war is still there. These guys were following the rules of engagement for that battle. Would you rather us bring back carpet bombing? Seems like Americans took less flak back in the day when we used this barbaric technique.

Re:Video

[Idiomatick]

# Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
# Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm.

- Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B)
I realize they were army not marines but the rules are likely similar. The armies rules seem to change based on the military action? Either way I couldn't find it online, tell me if you can.

SFA rules (Hague/Geneva): http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/Repository/FM3071.pdf
Some main points of the above rules from the wikipedia summary which may be of interest (full thing is pretty long):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOAC#Roles_of_laws_of_war_in_the_United_States_military

Fight only enemy combatants.
Collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.
Do not attack medical personnel, facilities, or equipment.
Destroy no more than the mission requires.
Treat all civilians humanely.

I would contend that the family in the van hadn't been shown to be enemy combatants hence civilians. The unnarmed guy crawling in the dirt has been effectively neutralized and wounded. And I would certainly argue that they destroyed more then REQUIRED.

Re:Video

[Rei]

The gunship here is literally at least a mile away from the targets; look at how long it is between when fire retorts and impacts. RPGs have an effective range of, what, 200-300m? They self detonate at, what, ~900m or so? And AK-47s, at a mile range+ range? Give me a break. These people posed ZERO threat to that gunship and they knew it. Otherwise, they'd be a heck of a lot less relaxed about calling in the weapons that they saw.

Furthermore, the gunners didn't just hit the people who were suspected to be carrying guns. Or even try to. Big crowd of unarmed people visibly chatting with each other? A good enough cause to unload and then cheer at the aftermath like a series of frags in a video game, apparently. And a van of rescuers? Not only cause to disable the van, but to flatten it and everyone inside.

These are not proper rules of engagement. It shames our military to behave like this. We're supposed to be better than they are.

Re:Video

[Boldoran]

Yes he deserves an award alright but it should be a f*** medal. What he did to report from a warzone took way more courage than sitting in an apache and hoping to find some guy that carries something that could pass as a weapon so you can push a button to blow him into pieces.

Re:Video

[turbidostato]

"These guys were following the rules of engagement for that battle."

You repeat so much that "rules of engagement".

Which "rules of engagement" allows for a standing troop to start fire against uncovered un-uniformed people that didn't open fire first *even* if they are armed? Which "rules of engagement" allow for shooting high cadence weapons with no prior warning shooting against uncovered un-uniformed people obviously trying to help a wounded fellow?

Re:Video

[penguinchris]

It's been said by some people that he pointed the camera at the Apache to take a picture, but they've got the last few pictures from his camera here and that doesn't seem to be the case. The EXIF data has been stripped, but presumably whoever leaked the shots had the original files, and you can tell through a variety of means (most simply, the sequentially numbered filenames) if any shots had been deleted.

He was obviously doing *something* with the camera behind the wall, but I see no evidence to suggest they even knew the Apache was nearby, or looking at them - they were quite a distance away.

Re:Video

[Stephan Schulz]

These guys were having fun killing people. This is not and can never be ok.

As opposed to building an army of people, who hate killing people? That does not make for a particularly functional army.

On the contrary. Building an army of people hating killing is the only way an enlightened democracy can build an army and keep the moral high ground. The aim of an army is not to kill people. It's to avoid war, or, if wars have to be fought, to win them. Winning is not achieved by simply killing people. It's only achieved by killing more than you piss off enough to join the fight.

Re:Video

[Xest]

You keep noting that you haven't seen the video but feel the need to suggest you have a hard time believing what others are saying regardless.

Let me spell it out for you, because I have watched it, in the video it is absolutely clear that the majority of civilians in the group are completely unarmed, only one really looks like they have a weapon but it is a camera. It's a group of 8 people appearing very white on the camera footage, with nothing that could even be confused for a weapon standing out, again, apart from the cameras and even then, the gunners cry of "RPG" when he sees the camera is laughable, god only knows what type of RPG the insurgents have access to is that short and stubby- it's not like any RPG I've ever seen carried around in places like that.

After the shooting, one of the journalists with what appears to be his leg shot to shit is trying to crawl away to safety, the gunner says something along the lines of "Come on, pick up a weapon" because he's just desperate to shoot the guy, even though he never had a weapon to start with.

A van turns up, and starts to try and carry the injured guy into it, again, no one from the van has a weapon, there is no sign of the van having any weapons in it, the van is clearly just trying to help evacuate the wounded. The gunner is like a little kid basically saying "permission to engage" a few times which sounds in my mind more like "Can I shoot daddy? can I? please please please!" and eventually he's told yes, he can, so he does. After letting off a few rounds the dust clears and they see they got a round right through the windscreen amongst other places, and they congratulate themselves on that.

When the troops finally turn up and realise there were two kids in the van, who are carried away for treatment the gunner tries to tell himself what he does was all well and good by saying something along the lines of "Well, it's their fault, they shouldn't have bought their kids into the fight". Sorry? What fucking fight exactly? You mean carrying away the wounded?

Please, don't assume anything about the video until you have actually seen it, it's clear, wanton breach of multiple sections of the geneva convention, coupled with a few jokes and laughs about it all as they do so.

Re:Video

[dave420]

1. There was no RPG.
2. The children were with their family who were driving through the area (people do live in Iraq), and they saw a severely wounded man and had the audacity to try to help. That cost them all their lives.

If the gunner actually used his brain instead of itchy trigger finger, and didn't see a tripod on a guy's shoulder and jump to the conclusion that there are five or so armed people, they would all be alive. Yes, shit happens in wars, but that is no excuse to ignore the woefully under-trained state most US troops enter the battlefield in.

The US military shouldn't be shooting at people they only think have weapons - they should be shooting at people they know have weapons, and know said people are shooting at them. You are insinuating that every person in Iraq who hasn't actively identified themselves to US troops is a real target. That is pathetic.

Re:Video

[evocarti]

And we wonder why people "over there" hate us. I wish they could differentiate us from our government. This will never end while we are over there making mistakes like this.

Should people differentiate the American people from its government?

It's a democracy. We're responsible for the actions of the people we vote for; collectively that's the American government. If and when they act in ways that the public disapproves of, it's the public's job to remove them via the political process. If the public is too apathetic or unmotivated to do so, I believe that is implicit approval.

Mistakes will be made. Undoubtedly, some will be tragic. I feel heartbroken by this story.

Re:Video

[shutdown -p now]

shooting the van was legal because they were carrying combatants away from the scene and were not surrendering. The van wasn't clearly marked as an ambulance. Consider it this alternative way: Osama Bin Ladin was there, shot, and a supporter drove up in a van and carried him away. No way to be sure since everyone (civilians and bad guys) are dressed in civilian clothes. I get this part upsets some folks- it upsets me less than some other parts.

Per Geneva conventions:

1. It is illegal to knowingly shoot at civilians, unless as a collateral damage when they are misused as a shield by a legitimate military target. The dying guy was not a legitimate military target (he ceased being one the moment he was incapacitated, since he had no weapon to begin with), and was definitely not "using" the civilians.

2. It is illegal to shoot at medical personnel providing medical assistance whether they wear insignia or not. It is explicitly mentioned that said personnel is not to be fired at if "seeking or transporting bodies and wounded". It does not require them to be Red Cross members - protection applies to all medical personnel in the armed forces, and also to civilians who are members of national Red Cross organization of a party to conflict, or another medical organization officially recognized in such capacity by the party.

So, to sum it up - either the guys in the van are combatants, in which case they are protected by #2 (not armed, not posing any threat, merely transporting wounded/bodies), or they are civilians, and then protected as such.

Now, if the guy they were carrying away was still clutching a gun, that'd be another story (though it is legal for medics to pick up his gun and carry it away, so long as they do not use it offensively, i.e. against someone who fires at them first).

Note that it is not legal to shoot at civilians under the excuse that "bad guys don't distinguish themselves". If you actually capture such a bad guy, without uniform, and concealing his weapon, then you can put him against the nearest wall and shoot him, or stick him on the rack etc - he does not enjoy any protections a legal combatant is entitled under the Conventions. But, aside from that, a guy in civilian clothing who is not armed is a civilian, unless definitely proven otherwise, and should be afforded all protections that civilians normally are.

Consider it this alternative way: Osama Bin Ladin was there, shot, and a supporter drove up in a van and carried him away.

It is a perfectly valid chain of events according to the standing customs and laws of war - the latter do not change depending on whether it is Osama, or someone else.

I understand how it causes certain inconveniences, but nonetheless, rules are rules - especially when you (by which I collectively mean Western countries) are the one to come up with them. At this point, sticking to them or ignoring them is one factor that distinguishes civilized folk from barbarians.

Re:Video

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You make baby Jesus cry tears of blood.

Re:Video

[Maxo-Texas]

Also came across this site:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

Video Shows Reuters Camerman With Insurgents Being Killed [BUMPED/UPDATED: Vidcaps Show Weapons]

UPDATE 4/06/2010 AM: I've uploaded a moving image created by Ryno which clearly shows weapons being carried by the so-called "civilians" who were killed along with the news that we have photos of rifles and grenades at the scene.

UPDATE 4/06/2010 PM: We've added important info to the new post linked above, including the fact that an RPG was found at the scene. Click here for more recent updates.

Well, I'm going to make my first donation.

[synthesizerpatel]

For anyone who complains that the main-stream (or alternative media) aren't doing their job, perhaps you should make a donation too. The truth needs to be known and if wikileaks is the only entity out there willing to take that risk, the least we can do is support them.

Re:Well, I'm going to make my first donation.

[QuantumRiff]

Its okay, I am counting on FOX news to be headlining with this soon. They keep stressing that they are not part of the MSM (yes, they abbreviate it, to show how alternative they are)

Re:Well, I'm going to make my first donation.

[Kell Bengal]

Reuters, if I recall, counts as main-stream media. Those people put their lives on the line to bring us news, and they paid the price so that we might know. It's one thing to go to war and lose your life in service of your country. It's another thing entirely to go to war and lose your life in service of the truth. Rest in peace, Reuters reporters - your sacrifice will not go unremarked.

Re:Well, I'm going to make my first donation.

[isorox]

For anyone who complains that the main-stream (or alternative media) aren't doing their job

Mainstream media are often the ones that get shot at by American yahoos. Alternative media are often fat lardasses that blog about "how terrible mainstream media" is while drinking a latte at their local starbucks. Sure, you get some bloggers that simply report on events where they live, but they are typically intelligent enough to stay out of any real on-the-ground danger, its "just" the government.

I work for mainstream media - I'm not a journalist, so I only need to travel airport->office->hotel, but I had to go on a hostile environment course a couple of months ago. One of the things you think about when you talk to people that have been kidnapped and watch videos of people that have had their foot blown off, is "why the fuck am I here".

Re:Well, I'm going to make my first donation.

[Stradivarius]

You know, I've looked at and appreciated a bunch of Wikileaks material before, and thus was predisposed to like them.

But then I saw how they handled this video, and I did a 180. I would've understood if they just posted the video. But the lengthy preface to the video, putting it on a site called "collateralmurder.com", the zooming/highlighting of easy-to-miss details (the benefit of which the soldiers lacked in real-time), just seemed design to prejudice us against the soldiers rather than help us determine the truth.

The truth here was the soldiers made a big mistake (identifying camera equipment as a RPG), and innocent civilians lost their lives as a result. But Wikileaks seems intent on pushing beyond that truth and into manipulating our emotions. Which is where they lost me. We don't need any more 24-hour emotion machines in this world.

Re:Well, I'm going to make my first donation.

[martas]

your sacrifice will not go unremarked.

it almost did, though

Outrage of the week

[MaXintosh]

I find this all sorts of appalling. As someone else who started watching it said, "That's really screwed up." But that said, I have almost no hope that this will ever go anywhere. We've seen a seemingly never ending parade of illegal and barbaric behaviour come to light in both Iraq and Afghanistan, on the part of US forces, but each time nothing ever happens because of it. We all seem to just shrug our shoulders and go on with our lives.

Wikileaks is just peeing into the wind. Nothing will probably come of this, because outrage is dead.

I'm really hoping someone proves my cynical attitude wrong.

Re:Outrage of the week

[royallthefourth]

Americans don't really have ways to participate in organizations that will stop this sort of thing from happening.

Republicans endorse it, Democrats endorse it, and third parties are barely even a sideshow. As far as I know, there's no group of "stop sending our military to kill browns" that I can give money to.

I can do all kinds of stuff about domestic policy, try to encourage foreign policy to increase intervention (Darfur (no thanks)), but there's nothing I can do to decrease foreign intervention. It's ugly and the citizens are powerless.
I can't even really blame the troops that much because it's basically a trap for poor people who can't find a job to do the bidding of our imperialist leaders.

I highly recommend everyone read Killing Hope by William Blum to get a good rundown of how much this has been happening in just the last 60 years.

Re:Outrage of the week

[MaXintosh]

I think the problem is that Republicans (I speak as if they're a vague monolithic organization) feel they have to go gangbusters on the war, no matter what. Because it started under their tenure as president.
Democrats (generalization!) feel like that they have to support it, or else risk alienating voters by appearing 'soft' on security.

And the public is very distractable, is the problem. It seems like political views are more hereditary now, instead of come to through introspection.
I think you got a good point about there being nothing to we little people can do to decrease foreign intervetion. But I guess what I'd say is that maybe we can try to lessen the effects of foreign intervention. Give money to try and help the people who's country/lives have gone to hell in a hand-basket. I'm not sure what NPOs are doing work in Afganistan and Iraq...

Re:Outrage of the week

[royallthefourth]

I guess there is one thing we know we can do. I just sent $50 to Wikileaks and I bet most other slashdotters can afford that easily, too.

Re:Outrage of the week

[hondo77]

By questioning anything that happens in Iraq or Afghanistan, you are being an unpatriotic traitor to the US and should be hanged!

There's a Democrat in the White House so it's now okay to do those things.

Re:Outrage of the week

[jabithew]

When did this take place? Under Obama or Bush?

Does it matter?

Re:Outrage of the week

[schnablebg]

Ron Paul was in favor of bringing our troops home and closing foreign bases.

Perot was also info in favor of closing foreign bases back in 1992.

This would save a lot of money.

Re:Outrage of the week

[dkleinsc]

As far as I know, there's no group of "stop sending our military to kill browns" that I can give money to.

Actually, there are, but they aren't political parties. One of the longest-running and effective is FCNL, a Quaker lobbying group that's been pushing for a more peaceful stance since 1943. There are also specific candidates you can support on these issues, most notably Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (what's interesting is that they arrive at the same conclusions for entirely different reasons).

Of course, the trouble is that these guys only have morality, justice, religion, and sense on their side, whereas the pro-war side has billions of dollars in defense contractor money.

Re:Outrage of the week

[Slider451]

"I can't even really blame the troops that much because it's basically a trap for poor people who can't find a job to do the bidding of our imperialist leaders."

1973 called. They want their draft-era mentality back. Way to demean our servicemembers. The fact is our brave men and women come from all walks of life and represent all economic and political demographics. They continue to volunteer for many reasons, only some of which are financial. "They" are "Us". Ask journalists who've embedded with them for any length of time. Even the most anti-war skeptics speak about our servicemembers with admiration.

I'm glad you don't blame our troops when things like this happen (it's almost always a senior leader or politician trying to hide something). But save your pity. It's pathetic.

How long will this video last?

[compucomp2]

I'd imagine the CIA and DoD get on this fairly quickly and get it taken down.

Re:How long will this video last?

[fysdt]

It's gone viral.. they can't take it down

Re:How long will this video last?

[MozeeToby]

Dude, it's on the internet. It's been downloaded, uploaded, torrented, copied, cleaned up, trimmed down, analyzed, re-analyzed, commented on, posted, and removed dozens of times already. Even if you somehow identified every website that currently has it posted and somehow forced them to pull the video, it would live on and be recovered from people's caches and be re-posted to an order of magnitude more websites tomorrow. It's over. If the DoD has any intelligence whatsoever they'll ignore the video and hope it goes away, such is the only possible defense to something you don't like hitting the internet.

How are we supposed to understand this?

[Skyshadow]

I always feel like the key trouble with video of any military operation is that the general public has absolutely no basis from which to really understand what they're seeing -- the context of civilian day-to-day just doesn't create the sort of base of experience you need to watch this sort of video and draw decent conclusions from it.

What was the situation? What were these guys trained to do in this sort of situation? What had happened the hour or day or week before in this area, what was happening in the region, what sort of tactics had the bad guys been using, what were other patrols telling these guys? These details are actually more important than what we see in the video towards understanding the events, but we have none of it.

I don't want to make apologies if these guys screwed up -- I'm not of the mindset that out men and women in uniform are all heroes who can do no wrong or anything of that nature. That said, I'm also willing to accept that I don't have the experience or understanding to understand what I'm seeing... I'd be interested to hear from someone who does.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[MozeeToby]

I'll grant you there may be reasons why this happened. Maybe a suicide bomber hit their squad mate in that square just a week ago. Maybe the rules of engagement said to fire if you felt threatened (I highly doubt that but maybe). Maybe some in the crowd looked suspicious, maybe a camera looked like a gun for a second.

None of that would change the fact that a fully automatic weapon was discharged into an unarmed crowd of civilians. If it was a mistake, fine, warfare is ugly and brutal. But the soldiers involved should have been investigated, public apologies should have been made, rules of engagement should have been changed, training should have been improved. Instead, the incident was lied about, covered up, denied, and ignored and that is unforgivable in my opinion.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the video it seems that the soldiers involved genuinely thought there was a present threat, so I don't hold them at fault that much. What they did might have been totally justified by the circumstances surrounding the events.

However, there is a huge amount of blame to be placed in how the government dealt with this situation after the fact. Being open about the situation and not doing what amounts to a cover-up would have helped. A statement of apology and explanation should have been made.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Jerrei]

I see civilians being shot, I hear officials on comms laughing about the truck driving in there to attempt to save those shot running over a corpse and I see us being told that Iraqi insurgents were responsible. How the fuck is this open to interpretation?

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[darjen]

the general public has absolutely no basis from which to really understand what they're seeing

sure we do. we see the military killing innocent people. and when this happens, our leaders do their best to cover it up and not let their media lapdogs talk about it. what else is there to it? innocent people die needlessly in EVERY war.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Skyshadow]

What could possibly be said to justify firing into a crowd of unarmed people?

I suppose my base assumption is that this patrol wasn't just walking down the street one day, saw a group of people and thought to themselves, "Hey, let's blast away at these motherfuckers! I haven't gotten to shoot anyone all day, and I just can't get an erection anymore if I don't do so. Also, maybe we can punch a baby or two when we're done."

For example, why exactly did people have video cameras? I admit that my sole experience in this is having seen 'Hurt Locker', but it seems to me that's the sort of thing that would set off certain alarm bells for me if I were a soldier. What was being said on the ground? What sort of behavior preceded attacks in this area in the past, what sort of warning signs were these guys responding to?

Again, these guys may well have screwed up and may well be deserving of punishment. Assuming, however, that my base assumption (that these guys aren't all evil merciless killing machines) is correct, there must be factors we don't, as civilians, understand.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[binarylarry]

The military personnel CLEARLY thought that crowd had an RPG, AK and other weapons. You don't carry that type of weaponry for protection. Hell, you can even hear them talk about being worried the RPG was being readied to fire on them.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[burkmat]

Even so, firing at the van stopping to assist the wounded is something I simply cannot wrap my head around.

Say for sake of argument that the crowd of people really were bad guys.
Someone comes driving along, and finds a large amount of dead bodies, with a wounded man writhing at the side of the road. The driver pulls over, and runs out to help the person - and this grants the coalition forces the right to engage? Someone finds a wounded person and tries to help, and for this they deserve to die?
Even if that was a Really Evil Terrorist I can't grasp how the ROE would permit engaging someone to stops to help a wounded person.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Jawn98685]

I'm sorry, but what military objective was obtained by gunning down a dozen people from a helicopter? Were they armed "bad guys"? OK, fine. Let's assume that at least some of them were. So we have less than 12 armed bad guys standing around in a street. Again, what military objective was gained?

Answer: None. There was no objective for which military force was the right tool. Suppressing insurgency from an Apache, a thousand yards off, is the wrong approach with the wrong tool. Fucking stupid.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[TheCarp]

Thats a problem, and a real one. However, in the end, one thing is true. The military exists at the desire of, and is paid for by, the civilian administration and, who is answerable to the people.

Whether these soldiers did right or wrong is a matter for the military, civilian administration, and courts to decide.

Regardless of whether the individual action was right or wrong, an attempt to cover up an atrocity that the public or civilian administration may need to review and use to form their opnion as to how to make war and how and whether to support war is inexcusable, whether the atrocity is judged to be an actual atrocity or not.

We pay the checks, we support the people who make the laws. It is our opinion that matters in the end, attempting to lie to us and keep from us the information that we need to have an opinion is an offence against the very democratic ideals that they are supposed to be defending.

-Steve

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Bakkster]

Again, these guys may well have screwed up and may well be deserving of punishment. Assuming, however, that my base assumption (that these guys aren't all evil merciless killing machines) is correct, there must be factors we don't, as civilians, understand.

Even if they did nothing wrong, the question then becomes "why cover it up in the first place?" That is far more troubling to me than the fact that the mistake happened.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[blitzkrieg3]

The Pentagon had their chance to release the video and explain themselves at the press conference covering the attack. In fact, David Petraeus said he would. Then they could have shown from the video footage that there were two guys with assault rifles, and that it would have been impossible to tell that there were two children in the van, and that the camera looks like an RPG from head on, and that they (supposedly) followed the rules of engagement. They could have cut out some of the audio and the images of the Hummer driving over dead bodies. Instead they denied Reuters the video despite repeated FOIA requests, and proceeded to lie about how the children were injured.

My hunch was that Petraeus thought they were following the rules of engagement, and then when they looked at the video later they realized it was worse than they thought, and decided not to release the video. I don't have the experience or understanding to know what's going on either, but those in the Pentagon do. If they're not comfortable releasing the video because they can't justify what happened, and they have to subsequently lie about certain important details, it means that someone screwed up.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[medcalf]

It is not uncommon for the enemy to drive up in vans and jump out. In fact, in places like Palestine (and previously in Iraq, when they had more resources) it is not unusual for jihadis to use ambulances to transport fighters. They try to use our rules against us, which is why it's common for the enemy to deliberately fire at us from within crowds of civilians. (If you want to know why the soldiers didn't stop just because there were also obvious civilians in the crowd, you have an answer now.)

Look, the enemy wants to win. I want for us to win. You want for us to fight clean. Your and the enemy's goals are compatible. My goal is not compatible with the enemy's, and it's far from clear if my goal is compatible with yours. No military has ever tried to fight a counterinsurgency of this scope with this many restrictions on how we behave in combat, and it's not clear if the enemy's exploitation of our rules, and our general determination to adhere to them, prevents us from winning or not. I sincerely hope that we can both minimize civilian (and "civilian") losses, and still win; I am unconvinced that we can.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Mondorescue]

I always feel like the key trouble with video of any military operation is that the general public has absolutely no basis from which to really understand what they're seeing -- the context of civilian day-to-day just doesn't create the sort of base of experience you need to watch this sort of video and draw decent conclusions from it.

I think you make a good argument. I would respond by pointing out that the Rules of Engagement (Iraq, 2007) are violated at least three times in that video. If you want a copy of the ROE, I'll dig it out of my tuffbox and post a copy. They're FOUO (For Office Use Only) but they're not Classified. People tell you they are but they're not.

The ROE exist for many reasons, one of which being to stop troops from doing boneheaded things. The man behind the trigger was far too enthusiastic (even swearing when he wasn't given permission to fire); his Higher finally relented, figuring the man was swearing because he had a target and wanted to take it down, not because he was an over-zealous cherry who wanted to make his dick feel bigger.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[FrozenFOXX]

Mod parent up. In a situation like this, hard as it is to believe on Slashdot, mistakes happen. ROE can be not what you expect, and as noted earlier you simply don't know. I always thought the concept of places like this was to hold things in doubt, not to jump onto a bandwagon.

From my wife's experience in the Air Force she had to man the machine-gun pit in front of her Air Base out in Iraq. Her orders were that if anyone stepped beyond the signs she'd shout a single warning. If the person, man, woman, child, car, whomever did not stop, turn around, or otherwise, she was supposed to blow them to kingdom come. Mercifully she never had to, but consider the following:

Same scenario, area is set up as a kill zone. Large group of journalists with cameras walk down the road. She shouts a warning to turn around, they don't heed it (maybe they don't speak English, doesn't matter why). Insert video of blowing away unarmed journalists on a street from a machine gun pit. A van rolls into the kill zone, also does not heed the warning, ALSO gets blasted to Hell and back. What the video would never show you are her orders, the kill zone perimeter warnings, or the situation (in this case extremely hostile area, heavily fortified entrance, no expected visitors except at specific times during which that would not be one of them, so on and so forth).

Now you the viewer know nothing beyond what you've seen. You can make any assumption you want, but the fact is that a video of that doesn't tell you anything beyond a fact, not the WHY it happened. It's appalling, but not for the reasons you'd imagine.


Again, mod the parent up. Why were people blown away? We DO NOT KNOW. What we DO know is that it was covered up by those who shouldn't be covering it up. Now THAT is appalling and deserves a lot of investigation. What were the troops' orders? Who GAVE those orders? Was this a clearly designated kill zone? Was a large group of people with cameras (and later a van dropping in) viewed as a threat? If so, why? Who noted it was a threat? These are the kinds of questions we need answers to first.

It's appalling, yes, but I find covering it up more appalling. If it's a screw-up it's a screw-up and we take it from there. If it's NOT a screw-up then we need to know that, too. We need more info, IMHO. But hey, I could be wrong, maybe our military is just chock full of ruthless barbarians going rogue and itching to kill people. From meeting quite a few of said barbarians I don't think that's true, so I'd like more info first.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Binestar]

I am not going to take sides here, but it is well known that Nervous Laughter helps people work through stress. These weren't belly laughs on this film, it came across to me as nervous laughter. I am certainly no expert though, having never been in the military nor in any situation anywhere near this.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[vux984]

I always feel like the key trouble with video of any military operation is that the general public has absolutely no basis from which to really understand what they're seeing -- the context of civilian day-to-day just doesn't create the sort of base of experience you need to watch this sort of video and draw decent conclusions from it.

So what?

1) This is what war looks like. 'The public' should bloody well be exposed to it. If they can't understand it, fine. If it makes them coil away in revulsion, even better. We'd be involved in fewer pointless wars if the public was faced with what it really looked like on a regular basis.

2) If the soldiers had a good reason to fire, a target had been identified, orders had been issued, etc. Then there is nothing to hide. They did the right thing, and the military can bloody well justify it. War is ugly. If this 'had to be done' then let them defend their actions.

3) If this was a mistake. Own up to it, investigate it, and find ways to reduce mistakes like this.

Hiding behind an excuse like the 'public wouldn't understand it' is the most puerile self serving bullshit I can imagine. If anything it argues that the public needs to be exposed to it MORE, not less.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Zironic]

Isn't the entire fucking reason we're there in the first place to prove that we're better then them? If we start shooting civilians that just shows that we're morally corrupt and it's right of them to drive airplanes into our buildings.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Anonymous Coward]

When things like this happen, it immediately goes under investigation. What happens is that an investigating officer outside of the unit collects all the sworn statements and evidence to determine the proximate cause. 9 times out of 10, you will never see the results - but since this leak you better believe they will take this case seriously.

I have done a couple investigations myself, and you wouldn't believe how many are done in any given unit. If we run over someone's goat, guess what? An investigation is executed to determine who's at fault. The owner of said goat would get paid, apologies made to the owner and the village, and leaders would be ultimately responsible for what SOP's that were put in place (if rules were adhered to, inspections made, the whole nine yards).

I could understand how civilians are enraged by this, but when you've experienced the military life you may (or may not) understand why information does not get released. Does the government cover up these things as a knee-jerk reaction? Yes, but the intent is not primarily to lie to the American public. It's about the mission. War is fought over kinetic action as well as information. COIN operations are very heavy on controlling information, and the insurgents know and practice just that. It's all about who releases information first to sway the local national's opinion.

As a disclaimer, I am in the Army and I cannot take sides because I wasn't there. I'll be more than happy to talk about the things in my recent deployment though.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I sincerely hope that we can both minimize civilian (and "civilian") losses, and still win; I am unconvinced that we can.

The problem with your analysis is your definition of "win." It's a modern version of "win the battle, lose the war" approach. Failing to minimize civilian causalities will lose us the war, full stop. That's why there are so many new restrictions on combat, not out of some sort of dogooder ideal that's "compatible with the enemy's goals."

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[Toxicgonzo]

In their defense (for defense sake, not that I am looking to justify their actions) the army did have a reason to shoot at the van, as is summed up by reddit user Deviltry:

"...They use vans to come up and pick up the bodies, but truth be told they don't care about the bodies, they come to get the weapons/rpg's. We have made it VERY well known throughout the country that they cannot even make it look like they are going for weapons. The problem with this situation is one i've seen personally on multiple occasions... The Van pulls up, takes the bodies of the men, leaves any children/women, and takes all the weapons. Then they take pictures, and blast them across the airwaves saying Americans murdered unarmed women/children."

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/bmooi/wikileaks_video_just_got_released_its_titled/

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[DrJimbo]

... the enemy [does this] ... the enemy [does that] ... the enemy [does this other thing] ... No military has ever tried to fight a counterinsurgency of this scope with this many restrictions on how we behave in combat, ...

I don't consider people my enemy just because they are fighting to oust foreign invaders from their homeland. The repeated use of the word "enemy" is used to de-humanize the people who get killed defending their country from foreign invaders.

Be that as it may, the root of the problem is that the foreign invaders are unable to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. I disagree that the defenders of their homelands are trying to get the invaders to follow the Geneva Conventions. They are making their best effort to kick the invaders out of their country by putting them in a no-win situation. If the invaders obey the Geneva Conventions then they are unable to eradicate the combatants but when the invaders start killing innocent civilians then they create more combatants among the friends and loved ones of the innocent people they killed.

The situation is highly asymmetrical. The invaders stick out like a sore thumb while the defenders are often indistinguishable from the civilians. We can see this asymmetry as an insurmountable problem or we can see it as the key to the solution.

There is no way for the foreign invaders to "win". One approach is to continue the brutality and war crimes until the local population is cowed into submission and then install a puppet dictatorship. Another approach is to back-off on the brutality and war crimes which will keep the invasion + resistance going on indefinitely. The third approach is to declare victory and go home.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

Crowds fired upon are always "unarmed civilians". With no real context to the larger situation going on, we have no idea what the real story is. If I'm in a gunship and a guy in a crowd of civilians has a stinger (or the like), the people in that crowd are about to have a really bad day. Sucks, but that's life.

if you're in a gunship and have only that crappy camera to base your decisions, you either get close enough to be able to read the fucking "nikon" on the camera's body, or let the job to the infantry.

gunships were created to attack vehicles, a situation where it's pretty damn hard to confuse a pickup truck with civilians to a tank with a big ass cannon on top. using an apache to engage people on foot from a kilometer away is pretty fucked up.

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[hipp5]

Ahhh where are my mod points when I need them. Spot on.

Back in the day, winning the war meant killing the general and routing their troops. Even in more recent times it meant destroying their industrial production to the point where they couldn't put up a fight.

However, war has changed. There is no longer an obvious head of command to chop off. There is no industrial production supporting the war. The enemy is made up of pissed off people with $45 guns and rigged-up bombs. They happen to be hugely effective because they are decentralized and aren't afraid to die. To date, the US has fought these wars like catching Hussein or Bin Laden would end things. Like it was chess. It's not.

Winning today's war is fundamentally anchored in not creating more pissed off people that will pick up a cheap gun or build a bomb. It's about convincing people that there's something better than insurgency. It's not about stomping them into the ground.

Every incident like this is one step back in winning the war. I guarantee that this situation just created more angry people with guns. It doesn't matter if it was handled by the book. The book is outdated. War has changed. The army better change too

Re:How are we supposed to understand this?

[evilviper]

If it makes them coil away in revulsion, even better. We'd be involved in fewer pointless wars if the public was faced with what it really looked like on a regular basis.

The history of public executions says the exact opposite is true, actually.

Hiding behind an excuse like the 'public wouldn't understand it' is the most puerile self serving bullshit I can imagine.

I don't think he suggested "hiding." His statement sounds more like a counterpoint to all the others here, screaming "war crime!" at the top of their lungs.

Re:Context?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Probably because they are too busy running basically content-free "analysts" who just so happen to be retired military of various flavors, with current ties to a variety of defense contractors?

Re:Americans

[binarylarry]

No, you hate us because have and control the world's money and cultural trends.

Minor military fuckups like this happen all over the world everyday, it's not a problem unique to the US.

Re:Conditional Freedom of Speech? Yay!

[Capt James McCarthy]

Awesome, we need to have a completely anonymous leak site to even know how corrupt our government even is. What a statement!

I always find it interesting that folks are so quick to jump on the band wagon on stuff like this. I mean you suspect everything from any government (and rightfully so), along with any large corporation, but the moment one source puts out one piece of potential evidence everyone is all over how corrupt the entire process is. Really? The whole process of government? Wow. Well, good luck with that.

Let the facts come out and be reviewed. Cover up or not, that too shall be vetted. Perhaps there is more here then what is in the video. We still only see one side of a story here.

Re:Context?

[gront]

In a press conference on April 5, 2010 at the National Press Club (USA), Wikileaks released a video "showing murder of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists".[106] The 38 min video shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site reveals that US military mistook the journalists' cameras for AK-47s and a Rocket-propelled grenade, and opened fire, resulting in the violent death of several people, including the two Reuters news staff Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#Airstrike_Video_Release

Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1617459520070716

Re:Americans

[rsborg]

Minor military fuckups like this happen all over the world everyday, it's not a problem unique to the US.

Yeah, and it's the US's hypocrisy that really chaps people's hide - "You should stand for freedom of the press!" while their military gunning down journalists and hides/denies the action.

Noone says that the US is the most brutal government (far from it), but when it does not practice what it preaches, scorn, derision and hatred ensues.

Mistakes

[SkankinMonkey]

In wartime there are bound to be accidents by those on the ground. That is no excuse, however, to cover things like this up. Huge mistakes like this should be used to make sure that they don't happen again. Top brass lying and changing the story around just makes the US look dishonest and 'evil' and prevents any good work that is being done from getting the credit it deserves.

Now I see why they hate us

[bogaboga]

That video is disturbing. I just did not have the stomach to watch it all.

The trouble too is that we "preach" democracy but when a democratic process puts those we "hate" in power, we (read the US government), then treat the democratically elected administration as parties not to be dealt with in any way. Hamas anyone?

Re:Now I see why they hate us

[Scrameustache]

That video is disturbing. I just did not have the stomach to watch it all.

The trouble too is that we "preach" democracy but when a democratic process puts those we "hate" in power, we (read the US government), then treat the democratically elected administration as parties not to be dealt with in any way. Hamas anyone?

"Not to be dealt with"? How about "overthrown and replaced with a servile monarchy or military dictatorship"?

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the United States Central Intelligence Agency; [1] The crushing of Iran's first democratic government launched 25 years of dictatorship under Mohammad-Rez Shh Pahlavi, who relied heavily on U.S. weapons to hold on to power until he was overthrown in February 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

This is the best documented event, but it's not the last. See also: All of south america. And don't think this is strictly a USA activity, Britain was heavily involved in this Iranian incident, in other instances France was involved (Argentina).
It's the new world order: International despotism with a friendly democratic front.

Re:Simply put you don't shoot wounded and unarmed

[Jerrei]

At 8 minutes 30 seconds you can hear the guy in the Apache, crosshair hovering over a gravely wounded individual that is clearly struggling to even get anywhere saying and I quote "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon".

Re:Americans

[Lord Ender]

To hate millions of people because of the actions of a few is pretty ignorant, Mr. Coward.

Re:Conditional Freedom of Speech? Yay!

[Hyppy]

It's not that all government is inherently corrupt. The point is that a government is corrupt if its citizens need to be completely anonymous in order to safely question their government or present damning evidence about it. The harassment and detainment that Wikileaks editors have had to endure is a very telling point in this debate. The anti-Wikileaks documents that have been leaked by, well, Wikileaks, are also an interesting point to note.

Magnet link

[klapaucjusz]

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3509b6e5a2de56fda41a06d793c86e3ec0cd680c&dn=CollateralMurder.mp4&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce

Re:Americans

[Hyppy]

Minor military fuckups like this happen all over the world everyday, it's not a problem unique to the US.

The problem isn't with the collateral damage, though blatantly blowing away children and people evacuating the wounded is deplorable. The big problem is the cover-up that followed it.

Re:Simply put you don't shoot wounded and unarmed

[shutdown -p now]

Which is actually rather reassuring, since he didn't fire then. Which means that, no matter what his personal take on it is (he may be thinking that a good enemy is a dead enemy - which is very common among those who watch the war unfold among them, and not on TV), he's still obeying by the rules of engagement and laws of war.

Re:Listen Up Tools

[Beelzebud]

Wow you're a real tough guy! I'm impressed! I'm so glad that brave heroes like you are protecting me while I sleep from some guys on a street corner in Iraq!

Re:Simply put you don't shoot wounded and unarmed

[Jeffrey Baker]

Maybe you can make a screen shot that shows the rifles and the RPG. All I see is two men with camera lenses and one with a tripod.

Re:Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

"This was an ACCIDENT"

Maybe, but the coverup was not.

In defense of the military...

[Tei]

It looks to me, from the video, that the military detected or gueses weapon like rpg and ak47.

Soldiers are (probably) trained to shot to other army people. This could be a false positive, but in a battlefield, is best to shot to something like a tractor, than to get shot by a tank.

The problem here is having a militar force patroling a city. Thats whas WTF about it. But maybe you can't have something less letal than this so, false positives will happend.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Orga]

3:40-4:00 on the film. Those long dark things being carried, and towards the end you see what appears to be a very long tube being carried. Those aren't cameras

C'mon! Let me shoot!

[erroneus]

That was all I needed to hear.

To me the difference between a murderer and a soldier is that a murderer wants to kill. The vast majority of my family and myself included have been or are currently in the U.S. armed services. I am not "anti-military." This is a group of yahoos shooting fish in a barrel. Reminds me of that scene in full metal jacket -- "How can you shoot women and children?" "Easy, you just don't lead 'em as much!"

Re:Simply put you don't shoot wounded and unarmed

[smash]

What a hero. :-\

Re:Context?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Also, I meant why isn't the MSM covering the leak on wikilinks, not the incident itself.

Because the MSM have been willing participants in the propaganda machine?

Re:I don't see the problem

[Orga]

4:15 - 4:19 is also interesting although a second of our vision is obscured by the crosshair. Why is that indivdual crouching at a building corner and fiddling with something and then looks like he picks is up and points it. I'm not defending any actions here or trying to justify anything, I'm just pointing out some suspicious looking activity in the film. Does anyone know why these journalists were with so many men? Obviously some of them armed?

Re:Americans

[fbjon]

Coverups of the fuckups also happen, as the video shows. But more importantly, saying "they do it too" is the most cynical, small-minded excuse possible.

Re:Conditional Freedom of Speech? Yay!

[Mondorescue]

The tape is, in my opinion, authentic. I was serving in the area at the time. I note four things in the tape:-

1. Double-tap --- engaging an individual or individuals after the threat has been eliminated.

2. Engaging personnel with anti-material weaponry; this isn't illegal but it looks bad. :-p

3. Failing to establish PID (Positive Identification of a threat) before engaging the "bongo truck" full of injured individuals.

4. Failing to establish PID before engaging what is, basically, a group of civilians wandering around the streets.

In essence, they shot some people for carrying weapons, then shot up the ambulance. I'm very saddened by this, since it's not the first violation of the ROE that I've encountered. The last one wasn't caught on tape. I had to put a stop to it myself.

Video: Why apache gunners are horrible policemen

[BobMcD]

This video clearly demonstrates why policemen do not operate from behind the gun mount on an Apache helicopter.

1) Were or were there not any guns? I didn't see any. If there were, were these guns illegal? Is it really legal to fire on a crowd of people because one or two might be armed? Remember the men with weapons outside the Obamacare townhalls? Would it be okay to turn automatic (anti-vehicle) weapons on that crowd? Did the men on the ground know this was the case before they got shot? Did they even know who was doing the shooting? None of this is clear.

2) Was opening fire on the crowd the only option? Could the choppers have moved away, evading the range of the 'RPG', until the ground forces arrived? Was anyone's life in immediate jeopardy to the point that the military had to open fire?

3) Was this a 'battlefield', as the soldiers claim it was, or was it 'Thursday'? See number 1, but what reasonable chance did the deceased have to avoid getting shot that day?

Police procedure is filled with examples of how do deal with situations such as these. Also, they tend to arrest, rather than assassinate.

My point - You cannot police Iraq with soldiers, unless you just don't care about guilt or innocence, life or death.

Re:America!

[doug]

Meh. It happens to every army. Didn't some German Peacekeepers in Afghanistan waste a truckload of local soldiers? It isn't good, but every soldier everywhere lives in a Kill or Be Killed situation. And nearly everyone decides to err on the side of self preservation. This is human nature, and as long as we have wars, we will have senseless killing of civilians.

- doug

Re:Simply put you don't shoot wounded and unarmed

[nawcom]

Did some have weapons? YES. Kills authorized? YES. It's the people in the van helping the wounded that are the crime. You never shoot wounded, ever, ever, ever.

Though I mentioned this before I'll mention it again - Iraqi law under Saddam and was continued by Paul Bremmer allows civilians to carry ak-47s.

Imagine the military wiping out a bunch of American civilians because someone was carrying a rifle, and had the right to carry that rifle in public! That's what the situation was here. And of course if you watched the video it was a camera, not RPG.

Re:Can someone explain what they did wrong?

[OzPeter]

I might have missed something in the video, anyone care to explain?

Ask yourself this .. if American soldiers were attacked and defeated .. and then the attackers came back and creamed the wounded, how would you feel? What sort of outrage would you see in the American press?

Mistake

[cloakedpegasus]

The gunner in the helicopter fucked up, I wonder how he lives knowing this everyday.

Re:Mistake

[Khashishi]

You listen to him speaking--do you really think he gives a fuck? This is what he does everyday.

Re:I don't see the problem

[Zironic]

You mean the camera stand? you're either trolling or need new glasses.

Two sides to every story

[Anonymous Coward]

Early in the video, it really does look like a legitimate mistake. At least one of the guys is clearly carrying an AK, and at 4:15 in the video the camera looks a lot like an RPG and the cameraman as if he's about to take a shot from around the corner. However, when the helicopter flew around for a clear shot it should have raised an eyebrow that not only was no RPG apparent, but that people were not assuming any combat stance. Nonetheless, I can understand that given the earlier context of the day (apparently shots had been fired at American helicopters) that the Apache team was on edge.

The real crime here comes when they fired on the van that had come to evacuate the wounded. Note that they did not fire on Saeed when he was down, and no weapon was visible. It was against their rules of engagement to fire on the wounded (Rules of Engagement refcard, 2c). The van was clearly not engaged in any hostile action against coalition forces. The Apache crew did obtain permission to fire from their superiors, so it appears that it is those commanders that are at fault for this crime.

Re:I don't see the problem

[OzPeter]

4:15 - 4:19 is also interesting although a second of our vision is obscured by the crosshair. Why is that indivdual crouching at a building corner and fiddling with something and then looks like he picks is up and points it.

I believe it is called a camera, with a long lens, and the user is a war photographer. If it was an RPG then the military should be able to provide it as evidence.

Why would they?

[Valdrax]

Yes I read the summary. The summary didn't say "this incident happened 3 years ago in Baghdad". Also, I meant why isn't the MSM covering the leak on wikilinks, not the incident itself. Or is that being covered up as well?

No, it just makes them look bad -- like the empty shells of the Fourth Estate that they are. Plus, investigative journalism that makes the military look bad is far too much effort with far too much backlash (from conservative viewers and the government both) to bother with in a modern, advertisement-driven instead of product-driven ethos. The news today is about "infotainment," not about delivering the hard facts.

They won't touch it until momentum builds up on the internet to the point where some feel that it makes them look worse not to cover it. The days when the media would stand up when the government did something wrong are long gone, to the point where they don't even stand up if one of their own is killed through negligence.

US Military needs to be removed from Iraq

[Dan667]

It is obvious that a military is not an occupying force, they are sent in to blow stuff up.

Re:Simply put you don't shoot wounded and unarmed

[elnyka]

At 8 minutes 30 seconds you can hear the guy in the Apache, crosshair hovering over a gravely wounded individual that is clearly struggling to even get anywhere saying and I quote "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon".

...which sort of runs counter to the point, since he didn't just drill the guy and move on to the next target like he would have if these troops were just engaging in a spot of wanton murder.

Where was the weapon that the wounded man got wounded for to begin with?

Transcript

[Anonymous Coward]

going to try to post transcript, prolly will get filtered as spam, guess we'll see...

00:03 Okay I got it. 00:05 Last conversation Hotel Two-Six. 00:09 Roger Hotel Two-Six [Apache helicopter 1], uh, [this is] Victor Charlie Alpha. Look, do you want your Hotel Two-Two two el-
00:14 I got a black vehicle under target. It's arriving right to the north of the mosque.
00:17 Yeah, I would like that. Over.
00:21 Moving south by the mosque dome. Down that road.
00:27 Okay we got a target fifteen coming at you. It's a guy with a weapon.
00:32 Roger [acknowledged].
00:39 There's a...
00:42 There's about, ah, four or five...
00:44 Bushmaster Six [ground control] copy [i hear you] One-Six.
00:48 ...this location and there's more that keep walking by and one of them has a weapon.
00:52 Roger received target fifteen.
00:55 K. 00:57 See all those people standing down there. 01:06 Stay firm. And open the courtyard. 01:09 Yeah roger. I just estimate there's probably about twenty of them. 01:13 There's one, yeah.
01:15 Oh yeah.
01:18 I don't know if that's a...
01:19 Hey Bushmaster element [ground forces control], copy on the one-six.
01:21 Thats a weapon.
01:22 Yeah.
01:23 Hotel Two-Six; Crazy Horse One-Eight [second Apache helicopter].
01:29 Copy on the one-six, Bushmaster Six-Romeo. Roger.
01:32 Fucking prick.
01:33 Hotel Two-Six this is Crazy Horse One-Eight [communication between chopper 1 and chopper 2]. Have individuals with weapons.
01:41 Yup. He's got a weapon too.
01:43 Hotel Two-Six; Crazy Horse One-Eight. Have five to six individuals with AK47s [automatic rifles]. Request permission to engage [shoot].
01:51 Roger that. Uh, we have no personnel east of our position. So, uh, you are free to engage. Over.
02:00 All right, we'll be engaging.
02:02 Roger, go ahead.
02:03 I'm gonna... I cant get 'em now because they're behind that building.
02:09 Um, hey Bushmaster element...
02:10 Is that an RPG [Rocket Propelled Grenade]?
02:11 All right, we got a guy with an RPG.
02:13 I'm gonna fire. 02:14 Okay.
02:15 No hold on. Lets come around. Behind buildings right now from our point of view. ... Okay, we're gonna come around.
02:19 Hotel Two-Six; have eyes on individual with RPG. Getting ready to fire. We won't...
02:23 Yeah, we had a guy shoot---and now he's behind the building.
02:26 God damn it.
02:28 Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad [Bradley Fighting Vehicle; an tracked Armored Personal Carrier that looks like a tank]. Uh, 'bout, there, one o'clock. [direction/orientation]
02:34 Haven't seen anything since then.
02:36 Just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up.
02:38 All right.
02:40 I see your element, uh, got about four Humvees [Armored cars], uh, out along...
02:43 You're clear. 02:44 All right, firing.
02:47 Let me know when you've got them.
02:49 Lets shoot. 02:50 Light 'em all up.
02:52 Come on, fire!
02:57 Keep shoot, keep shoot. [keep shooting]
02:59 keep shoot. 03:02 keep shoot.
03:05 Hotel.. Bushmaster Two-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, we need to move, time now!
03:10 All right, we just engaged all eight individuals.
03:12 Yeah, we see two birds [helicopters] and we're still fire [not firing].
03:14 Roger.
03:15 I got 'em.
03:16 Two-six, this is Two-Six, we're mobile.
03:19 Oops, I'm sorry what was going on?
03:20 God damn it, Kyle.
03:23 All right, hahaha, I hit [shot] 'em...
03:28 Uh, you're clear.
03:30 All right, I'm just trying to find targets again.
03:38 Bushmaster Six, this is Bushmaster Two-Six.
03:40 Got a bunch of bodies layin' there.
03:42 All right, we got about, uh, eight individuals.
03:46 Yeah, we got one guy crawling around down there, but, uh, you know, we go

Re:Americans

[H0p313ss]

Noone says that the US is the most brutal government (far from it), but when it does not practice what it preaches, scorn, derision and hatred ensues.

Exactly. The U.S. has set themselves a higher standard for morality and freedom for decades and for good reason. I have a great deal of respect for them because of it. When they fail to deliver, which they do, they should be called on it and have the issues aired out in public so they can do better next time.

We should expect people to fail from time to time and when they do it needs be recognized and compensated for so that it can be corrected and improved apon. Hiding such mistakes is as un-American as the communist manhunt was and carpet bombing and torture continues to be.

I'd like to think that this is not anti-American thinking, I think that the world would just like America to do what it does well even better and own up when it fails.

My View as a former Bradley gunner and Infantryman

[phoebusQ]

So I've spent about two and a half years deployed to Iraq, and seen my share of combat. I've served in several different infantry positions, both as a dismount and as a gunner in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (the "Brad" mentioned in the video). I am always skeptical of these sorts of videos, because they lack context. As a third party, one never knows the full tactical situation, the histories of individuals and groups in the area, the mission and orders of the soldiers involved. So everything I say must be understood to be the view of a third party observer, one with a fair amount of boots-on-the-ground experience, but a third party nonetheless. Based solely on what appears in the video, it doesn't look like the gunner(s) had sufficient justification to fire. Simple possession of an AK-47 is legal in Iraq, and having it on the street isn't always enough to warrant immediate termination, and certainly not when the target is standing in a crowd of unarmed personnel. The "RPG" was poorly identified, and didn't appear to be of significant threat to the Crazyhorse element. It does sound like there had been recent combat in the area, so that may be why there was a minimum standard of ID used prior to engaging the targets. One thing to remember is that Bushmaster element can't always see everything that Crazyhorse does; they rely to some degree on the helos' info to inform their commands. If nothing else, this looked like a textbook situation for dismounted troops with air cover. It sounds like they had Bradleys and dismounts nearby, and they probably should have been sent in to deal with the situation. Dismounts have an infinitely superior view of what exactly is happening on the ground, and when combined with top-down info from the birds, they can properly assess a situation. If these RPGs and AKs were really cameras as reported by the site, then that would have been obvious to dismounts. Firing on the van completely blew my mind. This looks like a series of tactical mistakes combined with an overeager air element, combined with total disregard for the normal RoE (and again, I don't know if they were operating on some kind of modified Rules of Engagement). U.S. soldiers, in my experience, go to great lengths to prevent civilian casualties. Maybe things are different in the air, but those of us working on the ground have to look at everything we do, up close and personal. Don't paint U.S. forces with a broad brush based on the actions and mistakes of a few individuals. Also, remember that it's not the line troops that are performing coverups. Talk to your government about that.

Re:Listen Up Tools

[elnyka]

Just go back to your button pushing and put your feeble brains absent of logic capable of anything other than whinning like the pussys you are, away and back in that little box you keep for your balls.

Rough men stand in the ready to do violence on your behalf so that YOU can sleep peacably in your fucking miserable bed- George Orwell dickwads

Lastly, to avoid death as a journalist in a war zone, stay away from the enemy dumbshit

I'm sure you feel all rough and manly and strong and awesome as the soldiers you somehow think you are praising and quoting Orwell out of context, but dude, you don't get those attributes by association or verbal quoting.

I could understand how soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan and Al Qaida fight and die to protect our peace. That I understand, that I support.

However, I don't see how our soldiers fighting a military adventure cooked by Bush' chicken hawks, invading a country that had no ties to the *real* enemy, bombing it back to the stone age and put into a terrible situation among civilians is a fight for our peace.

Explain that one to me in a logical, non-rhetorical, non dumbshit way.

I haven't watched the video

[jeko]

I haven't watched the video

You really need to watch the video before speaking this time.

WHY?!

[killmenow]

"Also, I meant why isn't the MSM covering the leak on wikilinks, not the incident itself."

Because haven't you heard Tiger Fucking Woods is playing the Masters this week for Christ's sake. WHAT THE FUCK WILL HE SAY TO THE REPORTERS?! WILL HE ADDRESS HIS INFIDELITY?!?!?!?!?!

OMFGWTFBBQ! It's Tiger Woods finally returning to golf after his (what, like five month?) hiatus! This is the biggest fucking news in a CENTURY!!!

YOUR HEAD ASPLODE!

So fuck all those dying brown people in other parts of the world (even if we're the ones fucking up their shit and blowing them to hell). We've got a brown guy right here ready to dance for us. Pay attention, citizen.

Too much of a condemnation.

[maillemaker]

I watched the entire video.

This sort of thing is sad, but should not be shocking.

It is a difficult thing for most people to kill other people. A large part of military training, from what I understand, is breaking down these inhibitions. Dehumanize "the enemy" so that you can get your troops to at least accept killing as part of their job. If you are really good, you can build an esprit d'corps, where not only do your soldiers become willing to accept doing their job, but they also take pride in it.

They not only feel fighting is necessary, but RIGHT. They are not just willing to fight, they are EAGER to fight.

It may be a disgusting perversion of the humanity of our kind to create people with this mindset, but it has been found, through ages of warfare, to be effective and necessary.

Having watched the video, I see no malice on the part of the soldiers involved. The soldiers involved seem passionate about their task, and they seem confident in their assessment of their enemies, and they are eager to kill them. The entire attack seems to have been a mistake - BUT THE SOLDIERS MAKING THE MISTAKE DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE IT.

Moreover, these soldiers must know that everything is being recorded.

Honestly when I watch this movie I am filled with a sense of wonder that soldiers can be as restrained as they are, and do not seek vengeance and/or retribution more often and engage in blatant, willful acts of violence.

Got any advice that works?

[Valdrax]

It's a war, people die. If you don't want to die, don't hang out with people who carry around AK 47's and RPGs.

Didn't seem to work for those cameramen and their attempted rescuers. Got any better advice for not getting yourself killed when under the watch of jumpy, paranoid, armed soldiers?

Situations like these are why I'm sometimes scared of dealing with cops. It doesn't matter that I expect that 99%+ of the force are solid, level-headed professionals. There's always the chance that you've got the one jumpy guy that's liable to empty their clip into you for pulling your wallet out the wrong way because he thinks you're pulling a gun.

Iraqis have to deal with an armed force of young people who suspect each Iraqi to be a potential terrorist that could jump them at any moment. (This fear isn't unjustified, mind you.) Imagine living with that every day, from either POV. It's no wonder this happened, but the military's reaction to its fatal mistake is utterly unforgivable -- as is the actions of the soldiers who continued to fire past the point where confusion was reasonable, and as is their blaming the victims.

Re:My View as a former Bradley gunner and Infantry

[Animats]

Firing on the van completely blew my mind.

Yeah. The van was recovering the wounded on the ground. They were unarmed and presented no threat. The air element was clear on this; they clearly identified the van as recovering wounded, requested permission to engage, got it, and fired. It wasn't a mistake. That's a court-martial offense.

This undermines the war

[stimpleton]

Despite this being an illegal war, this event could save lives. Public opinion will count against this. The wife at home espousing his husband is "in the war" and "flies a helicopter" could possibly now be met with silence and a few nods, rather than wholesale overt praise at the dinner party. This sort of thing is akin to the photos from the Vietnam War of the children walking from a village, burned and with skin hanging off them after a napalm attack. That series of photos did more damage than any military attack.

Re:C'mon! Let me shoot!

[darkmeridian]

You sound like a guy who's never been in a war. The pilot wants to shoot because he thinks his guys on the ground were in mortal danger. First off, members of the group were armed with RPGs and AKs. Look at 3:46 in the long clip. But the photographer aimed his camera from a crouching position behind a corner, just like insurgents do when firing an RPG. At that moment, the pilot became very nervous, agitated, and couldn't wait to circle his chopper around to get the shot. He reasonably believed that the photographers were carrying RPGs. You do not expect journalists with cameras to be walking around. (It's not unforeseeable if you sit and think, but during combat, it would never occur to anyone that these were really large cameras.) I assume that bad guys want to kill the enemy. If you can somehow argue that the chopper pilots knew they were shooting at civilians or photographers, then you'd have a better argument. However, the pilots believed they were engaging hostiles.

Even the Nazis got this right!

[Suzuran]

Even the Nazis got this right! With only a few glaring exceptions (most of which involved the SS) the Wehrmacht conducted themselves in a civil manner throughout the conflict and treated civilians and our POWs as well as could be expected. The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were similarly well behaved.

If even the Nazis are capable of conducting war in a mostly civil manner, we should be capable of the same.

Re:Even the Nazis got this right!

[SakuraDreams]

Even the Nazis got this right! With only a few glaring exceptions (most of which involved the SS) the Wehrmacht conducted themselves in a civil manner throughout the conflict and treated civilians and our POWs as well as could be expected. The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were similarly well behaved.

If even the Nazis are capable of conducting war in a mostly civil manner, we should be capable of the same.

Total nonsense. The Germans were most cruel to people in the East whom they considered subhuman. I lost relatives to German army. If you also consider the numbers of Russian casualties and the numbers of SS as well as the numbers of troops killed by Stalin's own thugs, you have to logically concur that the Wehrmacht was guilty of many war crimes and actively executed civilans as well as POWs on top of providing logistical support for the SS.

War crimes of the Wehrmacht were those carried out by German armed forces during World War II. While the principal perpetrators of the Holocaust amongst German armed forces were the Nazi German political armies (the SS-Totenkopfverbände and particularly the Einsatzgruppen), the traditional armed forces represented by the Wehrmacht committed war crimes of their own, particularly on the Eastern Front in the war against the Soviet Union. The Nuremberg Trials of the major war criminals at the end of World War II found that the Wehrmacht was not an inherently criminal organization, but that it had committed crimes in the course of the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#War_crimes

Of course the Germans were more civil towards those they didn't consider sub-human eg French, Americans, British, Dutch etc and life was comparatively easier there with prisoner exchanges, five star facilities and whatnot. There were also instances of the Wehrmacht participating in massacres of civilians in Italy, France and Holland but not on the level as in the General Government (Poland), Soviet Union and other parts of Eastern Europe. The notion that only the SS were the main killers is preposterous and sick to the extreme.

It's amazing how we now demonise the Japanese but consider ONLY the Nazi SS to be nasty with gentlemanly armies and sailors fighting along - yet if you read the Wiki article on brothels, mass rapes, tortures, executions of non-Jewish women and children by Werhmacht soldiers (non-Gestapo/non-SS personnel) you realise how uncivilised Europeans really are. I had the honour of losing family to Wehrmacht in WW2 myself - civilians and POW.

Judge what is right.

[mosb1000]

Most people have no idea what it is like to be in a situation like this (me included). But if you really think about it, it's easy to understand why this kind of thing happens. Most of us would do the same things in the same situations.

The main problem, for everyone involved is thoughtlessness. Soldiers are not in a position where they can consider their actions, because waiting to take action is often fatal. And regardless of their best efforts it is impossible to wage a war without killing innocent people.

The problem is not the soldiers, nor even the military establishment. The problem is, in fact, the thoughtless public who gladly pays soldiers to go out and kill our "enemy" so that they may continue to enjoy the conveniences an active military provides. Don't bother telling me that you "voted" against it and so it is not your fault. That kind of rationalization simply proves how thoughtless you really are. Our participation in a system that causes these things is what truly needs to be judged. Reflecting on the effects of your own actions, and using judgment to decide what actions to take is the only kind of judgment that matters.

Re:Judge what is right.

[BobMcD]

And regardless of their best efforts it is impossible to wage a war without killing innocent people.

Is it possible to try not to kill innocent people? Because this video shows what happens when you make no effort whatsoever to sort friend from foe.

Re:America!

[sznupi]

I can't really see how shooting from an Apache at a distant, casually behaving group of people...some of which only appear to you like they might be armed...calssifies under "kill or be killed"

Especially you speak things like "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon" or "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle"

Re:I don't see the problem

[Clandestine_Blaze]

So journalists are only supposed to interview "the good guys" and never, ever, ever talk to the other side so that we get a clear understanding of both sides of the war?

Embedded journalism IS PROPAGANDA. When you're filtered to only hearing one side of the story, IT IS PROPAGANDA.

By the way, please watch the video again. If you can't tell the difference between Cameras / Tripods and RPGs / AK 47's, then you need to turn in your geek card.

Mistakes

[twoallbeefpatties]

Mistakes are part of war, and this is reflected in the law of war.

One of the surest differences between incompetence and talent is how you deal with your mistakes - not whether or not you never make mistakes, but whether or not you own up to them, learn from them, and adapt to fix the situation or clean up the mess you made as a result.

It is not simply enough to say, oh, it's war, and in war, mistakes are made. If mistakes are covered up, ignored, and lied about, that is not a good sign to any operation.

Re:Sad, but this is war people

[copponex]

As I've said elsewhere, I hope the next empire deploys troops in your neighborhood, and I hope you are there to watch your loved ones die. I hope they suffer and I hope you have to watch helplessly.

Then talk to me about people just doing their jobs. And while you're at it, you can explain to me why strapping a bomb on yourself and trying to kill just one person sharing their uniform would be cowardly.

Ever heard of the French Resistance?

[alcmaeon]

For example, a force that does not wear uniforms and hides among civilians is both not entitled to the protections of the conventions, but also is the responsible party in any attack that kills those civilians. You wear uniforms and try to avoid the civilians so that your enemy won't attack your civilians.

No. This is simply poorly-researched revisionist nonsense. I guess you have never heard of the French Resistance or any of the various other national resistance movements supported by the Allied during WWII.

GCIV Article 33. "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

Civilians are "protected persons" and the restriction is against the occupying power.

The fact that the parent was modded to a 4 proves how little slashdotters know about law. Maybe we should stick to praising Linux and dissing Windows.

Re:Ever heard of the French Resistance?

[mdielmann]

That's only half relevant. What that means is you can't go to a town and kill everyone because Baghdad Bob lives there. You can shoot at armed 'civilians' or 'civilians' who are with other people who are shooting at you. I put civilians in quotes because if no one wears a uniform, how is anyone to tell if you're a civilian or not? So you can't just assume anyone walking by in civilian clothing is a scary terrorist.

This is similar to the rules regarding hospitals and schools. They are civilian targets until you have military emplacements in them. Then you can attack them, after taking reasonable precautions to reduce civilian injuries (difficult, given the military placements were put there to take advantage of the unpleasant prospect of targeting civilians in the first place).

Oh, and according to this link, the French Resistance wasn't covered by the Geneva Convention for a number of reasons that apply to the Afghan fighters! "Because he was an illegal combatant, wearing civilian clothing, Lt. Guiraud did not have the rights of a POW under the Geneva Convention."

In short. Want to fight, and lay claim to the Geneva Convention? Get a uniform, and wear it! If not, suck it up. Guerrilla warfare is a bitch.

Re:Think before you comment...

[elrous0]

I know that romanticizing the noble soldiers and Marines is all the rage, but I've worked with a lot of these guys, and some of them *are* actually scum. That's not most of them, but there are more than a few I've met who actually seem to get their rocks off on trigger time, and are WAY too trigger happy for an environment with so many civilians walking around. Why do you think the military command makes them get permission to start shooting, or has rules of engagement in the first place?

oh fuck off

[unity100]

did you actually do military service ? i did. if we used 30 mm rounds on unarmed civilians, we would be in for a looooong series of inquiries and potential repercussions, even only if it was due to needlessly wasting precious ammunition.

and you do not carry a gunship with you. you call it via radio. there is no target necessitating calling of a gunship with anti armor 30 mm ammunition.

this was a great fuck up, and each of the idiots who were involved in that should pay dearly.

Re:oh fuck off

[An Onerous Coward]

In Basic Training (Army), when my drill sergeant was explaining the use of a 50-cal in combat, he said that under the Geneva Convention, we could only use it against "equipment", not personnel. Then he added something to the effect of, "But the rucksack the guy's carrying? The helmet he's wearing? That's equipment."

Back then, I was young and dumb enough to enjoy the sentiment.

Re:oh fuck off

[couchslug]

He was propagating a popular myth. :)

John Browning's .50 BMG "Ma Deuce" has been lawfully composting enemy troops for nearly a century. It certainly doesn't cause "unnecessary suffering" as it is much more likely to be immediately fatal.

Some general background on similar myths:

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

More info. The ICRC, being anti-US, objects to API variants on a technicality:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/522209

"However, the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's office has issued a legal opinion that the .50 BMG and even the Raufoss Mk 211 round are legal for use against enemy personnel."

Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone in the Army who was in Baghdad from Nov 2007 to early 2009, I have to say this is pretty appaling. Just for the record, the Iraqis are ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS. If you're not being fired upon or in immediate danger then you don't open fire. I know nothing will happen to the guys who did or the chain of command who allowed them to open fire but they completely deserve to have done to them what they did to those civilians. THIS is where terrorists come from, and I dont blame them in the least.

Why the US is hated.

[VShael]

Remember this, the next time you hear someone push the "they hate us for our freedoms" meme.

Just because this stuff is covered up in the US, doesn't mean it's covered up elsewhere.

The people of the United States are often the most ignorant of the atrocities being carried out in their name.

Re:Why the US is hated.

[copponex]

The people of the United States are often the most ignorant of the atrocities being carried out in their name.

The real problem is that once they found out, they rationalize their brutality and pretty much pretend that it doesn't exist. That's why the guys who fire from gun ships a mile a way are heroes, and the suicide bombers are terrorists. It's why 24 is a number one show. It's why we can see gun violence 24/7 on American television, but a single nipple is a national tragedy of exposing our children to immorality.

Fighting the good fight has nothing to do with the courage it takes, or how much you put on the line to defend your country, especially if your home country is Iraq. It's entirely dependent on what side you are on, and Americans of course always have God on our side. We're always right. We'll never apologize for our crimes. We live in the greatest country God ever gave Man, according to the top three TV personalities on Fox News, which is the top "news" source on American television.

Until we suffer an invasion on our home soil, someone is going to be angling to send our standing army off to die to make a buck or two invading someone else's. And that's not a good prerequisite for becoming a prosperous and peaceful nation.

Re:America!

[GreatBunzinni]

Meh. It happens to every army. Didn't some German Peacekeepers in Afghanistan waste a truckload of local soldiers?

I don't see how an hypothetical screw-up justifies every screw-up, particularly one so gruesome and so blatantly unjustified as this one.

 

It isn't good, but every soldier everywhere lives in a Kill or Be Killed situation.

How exactly is a AH-64 crew threatened by an unarmed group of men including journalists carrying cameras walking calmly in a street? And let's supposed that those imaginary RPGs and AK47s that aren't seen but are mentioned were indeed there. How exactly is a AH-64 threatened by an man wielding one of those, calmly walking around in a street without the faintest hint that he is even aware that a helicopter is in that general area? In the radio chat it is explicitly mentioned that no US ground force is present in that area and it took at least over 10 minutes for a ground crew to intentionally get there while rushing. Who exactly was threatened by those imaginary weapons?

And what about the "bongo van"? How exactly is a AH-64 crew threatened by a "bongo truck"? The AH-64 crew clearly noticed that the people leaving the truck were intentionally aiding those poor souls who got shot by the AH-64's 30mm autocannon. The AH-64 crew explicitly stated that the people from the truck were aiding the injured men and "picking up bodies". How exactly does that threaten a AH-64 calmly flying around? And the AH-64 crew repeatedly state that they wish that the injured reported "picked up a weapon" for them to kill him. How exactly is a AH-64 crew threatened by a man who was just shot by a 30mm autocannon, is squirming on the ground and wasn't carrying any weapon to begin with?

The truth is they aren't threatened. The truth is that this was by far no "Kill or Be Killed situation". Is this a screw-up? Clearly it is. Nonetheless, no one in their right mind can seriously claim that what happened in this case was remotely a "Kill or Be Killed situation". This was a trigger-happy crew who was never threatened and desperately wanted to shoot at people. They didn't even flinched when they were told that they shot at children. "They shouldn't have brought them into a battle". What battle?

Hindsight

[nurb432]

Is always 2020. Just because we think we now know they were not dangerous does not mean they were not a perceived threat at that time in that situation.

Furthermore, until you have proven that you are perfect under a stressful situation like being in the middle of a war, shut your face. Yes, its sad innocents got killed, but it does happen and it wasnt intentional.

Re:Simply put you don't shoot wounded and unarmed

[brit74]

Fast forward to 3:38 and watch until 4:00. The two guys just to the upper left of the crosshairs (3:38) both appear to have weapons. At 3:45-4:00, it looks like one of them has an RPG. They aren't the two guys identified earlier as cameramen (who were misidentified as having weapons). At 4:05-4:20 it appears like one man is peeking around the building and aiming at the helicopter at 4:20 - whether that's an RPG (as the helicopter pilot claims) or whether it's just a man with a camera is hard to tell, but the sneaking behavior looks suspicious for a cameraman.

Re:C'mon! Let me shoot!

[nedlohs]

So what was the hostile threat that led them to shooting up the people assisting a wounded person?

Did you watch the video? they beg to fire

[SmallFurryCreature]

Listen to the comments by the pilots, they beg to fire on clearly unarmed people in civilian clothing. Then when they learn they fire on kids, they say "well that should teach them not to take kids into battle".

America is in Vietnam 2. And it will loose this war again because its soldiers and leaders are unable to see non-americans as human beings.

Re:Did you watch the video? they beg to fire

[fyoder]

Their level of hatred and eagerness to kill was conspicuous, and their laughter at the desecration of a body being run over by a vehicle chilling.

You can see that there is a command and control structure in place no doubt designed to prevent this sort of thing where they have to request permission to engage, but when they lie saying that they've encountered hostiles with AK47s and RPGs, then of course they get permission and that check is totally bypassed, allowing them the slaughter they're so obviously craving. The structure is professional, but it is totally subverted by the butchers on the trigger.

But the commitment to professionalism of the higher ups also comes into question when they cover this up rather than bringing these bastards up on charges. In so doing they subvert the very structures they've set in place. In a situation like that, truth is sacred not for any philosophical reasons, but because it is essential to operations, the system depends on it so completely.
 

Re:Did you watch the video? they beg to fire

[Doctor_Jest]

you are proceeding from a false premise. You assume because after the fact there were not weapons that they deliberately lied to get permission to fire on known-unarmed civilians. That is unproven and characterizes everything else you say as politically charged nonsense.

Impressive

[Aphoxema]

Just watched it...

They enjoyed it, they were looking for a chance to slaughter. The people on the ground were just waddling around without any sign of hostility.

There was nothing that looked like a weapon. I know it's a shitty black and white image, but even the cameras barely showed up as anything that could be distinguishable from a piece of cloth or anything.

Regardless, just having weapons didn't make these people acceptable targets.

The mistake here was putting these idiots in charge of these machines.

Re:Americans

[BobMcD]

I'd like to think that this is not anti-American thinking, I think that the world would just like America to do what it does well even better and own up when it fails.

I'm an American, and I see it exactly this way as well.

Re:My View as a former Bradley gunner and Infantry

[phoebusQ]

Definitely. That's not how we've done things in any of my units, and honestly I don't understand how those actions could ever have passed muster. You know how when you are given an award, they always say "...reflects great credit upon yourself, your unit, and the United States Army"? This kind of thing does the exact opposite.

Fool's hope that...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they will be put to a life time sentence without a parole, in a cell.

Americans don't do time for their war crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

As of March 2010[update], 111 states are members of the Court,[7][8][9] and a further 38 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.[7]
However, a number of states, including China, India, Russia and the United States, are critical of the court and have not joined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#United_States

In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the U.S. providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court (exceptions granted), and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court, leading opponents to dub it the "Hague Invasion Act."
The act was later modified to permit U.S. cooperation with the ICC when dealing with U.S. enemies.

The U.S. has also made a number of Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs, also known as "Article 98 Agreements") with a number of countries, prohibiting the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and U.S. employees (including non-national contractors) and nationals.
None of these agreements preclude the prosecution of Americans by any nation where they are believed to have committed any crime.
As of 2 August 2006, the US Department of State reported that it had signed 101 of these agreements.[30]
The United States has cut aid to many countries which have refused to sign BIAs.[30]

In 2002, the United States threatened to veto the renewal of all United Nations peacekeeping missions unless its troops were granted immunity from prosecution by the Court.[31]
In a compromise move, the Security Council passed Resolution 1422 on 12 July 2002, granting immunity to personnel from ICC non-States Parties involved in United Nations established or authorized missions for a renewable twelve-month period.[31]
This was renewed for twelve months in 2003 but the Security Council refused to renew the exemption again in 2004, after pictures emerged of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and the US withdrew its demand.[32]

And then people ask why would any nation want or need a nuclear program.

US waiting for another 9/11

[jbssm]

Probably will be ranked down to oblivions but still I have to say it.

Just remember that the only way the brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers of these innocent people you just killed here have to get back at you, is to do stuff like it happened in 9/11.

You are both the victims and the guilty ones for all the terrorist attacks you receive.

Re:C'mon! Let me shoot!

[MartinSchou]

You do not expect journalists with cameras to be walking around. (It's not unforeseeable if you sit and think, but during combat, it would never occur to anyone that these were really large cameras.)

What combat? There was no combat until the gunships opened fire. They came across an open square with a congregation of people. Not people who started to look up and look for defensive positions to target the Apache. Not people who looked nervous, excited or otherwise indicated they'd be about to launch an attack.

Now, I will admit that the journalist framing the picture, presumably to get a long narrow street with the Apache hovering over it, looks suspicious, but there was no combat.

Disgusting

[Ritual]

At the end of the unedited video it shows the Apache's engaging a building with three hellfire missiles. Their justification was that they seen one person with a machine gun enter inside it. While they are setting up their aim for the missile you can see civilians in and around the building. They had no idea how many people were inside. Even knowing that the building was surrounded by civilians and not having any intel on how many civilians were inside, they still were given and executed orders to engage. This video was simply disgusting MURDER by the U.S. The soldiers show no remorse or hesitation to kill civilians. There was absolutely zero concern for the safety of bystanders. They actually enjoyed it and cheered on the higher the bodycount went up, irregardless if they had killed combatants, children, or civilians. These soldiers are endangering my safety as a United States citizen. They were killing in my country's name and breeding hatred for my country with these evil acts. We can no longer call the Iraqi's terrorists since we are obviously exterminating their people freely. DISGUSTING VIDEO. We have ZERO moral highground. Shame on the US Military! I thought we were better then this. With the technology we have this is UNEXCUSABLE. And the SICK SICK SICK SICK part is the US Military will probably stand for this as excusable. Thats scary, sick, twisted shit. The end of days deserve to be upon us.

Yes, there were guns present

[thepainguy]

I just put together a quick analysis that makes it clear that the two journalists who were killed in the Apache attack video were unfortunately caught up in an attack on a legitimate target.

- Apache Attack Analysis

I also highlight the frames where weapons are visible.

Re:I can't believe that people actually *defend* t

[KPexEA]

I agree 100%, the Irony is Fox news covered this better than CNN. Go figure.

Re:Conditional Freedom of Speech? Yay!

[Mondorescue]

First of all, I apologize that it took me so long to reply, and that my reply is so long.

Rules of engagement vary with the specific mission, the unit, the combat theater, and even the year. However, the concept of PID (positive identification of threat) is always crucial. PID is the sine qua non of any ROE.

Double-tap is against ROE, and it always will be, because a "double-tap" consists of neutralizing a threat and then shooting the target again for 'good measure' even when it is no longer a threat. If it's not a threat, you're not allowed to shoot it, even if it WAS a threat earlier. If it's no longer a threat, then you don't have PID. If you don't have PID, you mustn't shoot it, even if ordered to, unless you want to get caught under a pissing contest between your Chain of Command and the ROE of your theater.

Double-tap is not to be confused with a controlled pair. Example: Room-clearing team enters the room. Target is acquired. Target is shot twice - bang, bang - and target goes down. That's a controlled pair. We use controlled pairs because the M4, with its shorter barrel (4" shorter than the M16) and collapsible buttstock, has a tendency to ice-pick the target, rather than giving the tumbling we need in order to make a nice hole. However, two holes in close proximity to one another can really mess up your day. Plus there are those blended-metal rounds that we're not allowed to use anymore. :( But I digress.

Example of double-tap: Room-clearing team enters the room. Target is acquired. Target is shot (controlled pair, whatever, doesn't matter). Target goes down. Target is no longer a threat; incapacitation, surrender, death, doesn't really matter. Target is not a threat AND YET some bozo shoots the target a second time because that's what people do in the movies. BAD.

Whether the foe is wounded or not is irrelevant. The question is, do you (the good guy) still have PID (positive identification of a threat/target)? If the guy is no longer a threat, he's not a valid target. It gets more complicated when you're talking about traffic control points, vehicles, etc. but here we're talking primarily about a bunch of guys who are walking down the road, minding their own business, with their weapons (if that's what they are) slung, NOT in their hands. They weren't a threat to begin with. Therefore, the gunner didn't have PID. Therefore, he shouldn't have even asked for permission to fire, because he didn't have PID. His Higher gave him permission to engage (G-d knows why), and from that point on, it was the responsibility of the gunner to kill the targets, period. He had permission (which he shouldn't have, but whatever); from that point on, KILL THEM. Don't half-ass the job and then come back to finish the job when they don't pose any kind of threat.

The worst thing you can do is engage a non-threat, half-ass the job, engage a non-threat AGAIN, and finally engage the non-threat a third time while someone is ferrying the injured to hospital. I know it didn't have a red cross on the side but it walked, talked, quacked like an ambulance. The gunner knew exactly what was going on -- the injured were being taken to get medical attention -- and he engaged the vehicle anyway.

Engaging a vehicle with 30mm cannon fire is fine: 30mm is anti-materiel, and a vehicle counts as materiel. Engaging a group of men with 30mm cannon fire because they MIGHT have weapons slung across their shoulders? I'm not sure whose bright idea that was.

Re:Can someone explain what they did wrong?

[McSnarf]

Another former soldier here. From a country which learned that war means your country is in ruins afterwards - and you will probably have lost someone you love. War is more than just sending heroes out to foreign countries to kill the "bad guys".

Of course, I would expect everybody up to NCO level to be against the conventions, as it makes their life more difficult. Working to international conventions requires judgement and thinking. But of course, life would be much easier if you could fire at civilians at will, use land mines, chemical weapons, napalm and many other toys.

I've seen the video. In addition, I read the official report, which is ALSO available online.
Look for
"INVESTIGATION INTO CIVILIAN
CASUALTIES RESULTING FROM AN
ENGAGEMENT ON 12 JULY 2007 IN
THE NEW BAGHDAD DISTRICT OF
BAGHDAD, IRAQ

Report of Investigation UP AR 15-6
MAJ , Investigating Officer
2ND BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM
2ND INFANTRY DIVISION (MND-B)"

The official report shows the following in Exhibit O:
AK found on the ground.
RPG-7 photo redacted, nothing to be seen.

In Exhibit R, we see photos which appear to be taken by the journalist before being shot at. You can recognize in detail a US HMMWV in telephoto range.

So, yes, there was at least an AK rifle and the helicopter crew might have at least good reason to see that a RPG attack was imminent. Exhibit C mentions "Probable Telephoto lens", but is this obvious to trigger-happy kids in a gunship? I doubt it. Plus they don't want to be responsible for the results of not taking action.

(Read paragraph 6 on page 12 of 43.)

The helicopter crew reports and requests permission to fire.

So far, this is more or less an unavoidable chain of events. Most likely a mistake, but given the circumstances, understandable.

But...

Have we learned to shoot at wounded combatants? At people trying to help the wounded? Which are obviously not returning fire?

There's the war crime.

Re:Decisions in the Field

[grumbel]

They responded to a preceived threat of a rocket propelled grenade launcher. A real threat to a gunship.

An RPG has a range of ~1000 meter before it self detonates, an AK-47 has a range of 400 meter, the Apache was flying at a distance of around 1600 meter (~2 sec delay between shooting and projectiles hitting the ground multiplied by ~800 meter projectile velocity). Even if the RPG would have been real, they where never in real danger. And thats ignoring the van incident, nothing there ever looked like a weapon.