Collateral Murder

[JMorris]

right, im the ignorant one for making an honest observation of reality. my mistake. i should simply fall in line and pretend that america's wars are democratically agreed upon & initiated.

 

[dust1n]

Sheeze, we're arguing with someone who doesn't realize that the military doesn't start wars.

That alone tells me I'm talking with a person of very limited understanding.

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kai]

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.
Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War.[citation needed] In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

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

 

[dust1n]

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.
Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War. The only exception was President Clinton's use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo War.[citation needed] In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

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

So in 1973, a law was passed that limited the executive branch doing of what it was never supposed to do anyway. How thoughtful of our lawmakers.

 

[kai]

So in 1973, a law was passed that limited the executive branch doing of what it was never supposed to do anyway. How thoughtful of our lawmakers.

and all through debate that supposedly doesnt exist

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

the military doesn't start wars.

Well at least the American Military. We tend to blame the public officials we elect to office for that. I guess the blame is misplaced, we should say the buck stops with the American people.

 

[dust1n]

and all through debate that supposedly doesnt exist

Oh, I'm sure it was there. - How that debate and vote didn't actually reflect the sentiments of the people that the government supposedly serves is another case.

It wasn't there for 125 occupations though.

 

[kai]

Oh, I'm sure it was there. - How that debate and vote didn't actually reflect the sentiments of the people that the government supposedly serves is another case.

It wasn't there for 125 occupations though.

125 occupations?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So what was the story with the van? Again I emphasize the gunner reported a falsehood when he said they were collecting weapons. There were no weapons but there were children, they were wounded and three innocent people blown away. The gunner should be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, the families should be compensated, policy on the rules of engagement should be revised. No?

 

[kai]

So what was the story with the van? Again I emphasize the gunner reported a falsehood when he said they were collecting weapons. There were no weapons but there were children, they were wounded and three innocent people blown away. The gunner should be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, the families should be compensated, policy on the rules of engagement should be revised. No?

The report says " it was obvious from the radio transmissions and the gun camera tapes that the Apache pilots thought the van was to be used as a means of escape for the wounded insurgents. The van arrives as if on cue and is immediately joined by two military aged males who appear from a nearby courtyard. the children are never seen" The reccomendations to reduce the likelyhood of similar casualties in the future are blacked out.


http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/...nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation.pdf

 

[dust1n]

125 occupations?

Belligerent military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army.

-Wiki

EDIT: Second thought.. you are right.. a lot of those couldn't be considered occupations.

 

[*Anne*]

Hindsight is 20/20 and armchair quarterbacks prevail. If you've never served in a war zone, or loved someone who has (and listened to their stories of fear and adrenaline), you can't possibly grasp the full scope of this sort of event.

Kathryn, I have not read every single reply in this thread, but yours was one of the many I did read, and I wanted to say I wish your son well. I deeply appreciate his service and am so sorry he had to experience what he did.

Regarding the video, the world isn't perfect, and neither are our armed forces. I'm very sad for what happened, and my sympathy is extended to everyone involved, our soliders included, who will wrestle with this for the rest of their lives. I'm confident most soldiers do not want to make mistakes and hurt innocent people. I'm not in the military, nor have I ever found myself in a war zone, so I don't feel qualified to judge them.

I can't imagine having to live with it all. May this war be over soon.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The report says " it was obvious from the radio transmissions and the gun camera tapes that the Apache pilots thought the van was to be used as a means of escape for the wounded insurgents. The van arrives as if on cue and is immediately joined by two military aged males who appear from a nearby courtyard. the children are never seen" The reccomendations to reduce the likelyhood of similar casualties in the future are blacked out.


http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/...nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation.pdf

And yet, they weren't insurgents, they were a couple of the millions of men aged 15 - 65 years old who presumably live in Baghdad. The van didn't arrive as if on cue, it arrived as if Baghdad is an enormous city full of vans and cars and people everywhere in the middle of the day.

So when unarmed people evacuate unarmed wounded, this is "escape of wounded insurgents" and justifies blowing them away? I thought medics and non-fighting wounded were given quarter, they certainly should especially in an urban environment where it is easy to target innocent civilians, as happened here, including children.

And no mention of the false information about "weapons" reported by the gunner?

 

[kai]

And yet, they weren't insurgents, they were a couple of the millions of men aged 15 - 65 years old who presumably live in Baghdad. The van didn't arrive as if on cue, it arrived as if Baghdad is an enormous city full of vans and cars and people everywhere in the middle of the day.

the pilots were engaging insurgents ( we now know some of the men were not namely the two photographers), there were weapons revovered at the scene AKs ,RPGs and RPG rounds , there are no other vehicles in the film seen or refered to except military ones,In fact its pretty deserted and there was an operation going on, the Apaches are in support of ground troops who were under sporadic small arms fire, the camera of one of the photographers shows military vehicles, Its not the middle of the day .

So when unarmed people evacuate unarmed wounded, this is "escape of wounded insurgents" and justifies blowing them away? I thought medics and non-fighting wounded were given quarter, they certainly should especially in an urban environment where it is easy to target innocent civilians, as happened here, including children. well again your looking at it from where you are and not where the Air crew were. to them at the time according to their information at the scene they were insurgents

And no mention of the false information about "weapons" reported by the gunner?

weapons were clearly there , they had already engaged what they thought were insurgents and they could not let insurgents pull up and start taking control of the scene. Medics and ambulances are protected so are journalists. |Neither the van the Men nor the journalist were marked as protected and the children were not seen.

There is a recommendation not blacked out concerning the Photographers, the recommendations concerning the van are blacked out.


The recommendation that:
-(10a) Members of the press be encouraged or required to wear identifying vests or distinctive
body armor within the MND-B AOR is (approved) (disapproved) (remanded to the BCT Cdr).
-(10b) Coalition Forces be notified when members of the press are operating in their AORs is
(approved) (disapproved) (remanded to the BCT Cdr).
-(10c) Condolence payments be made to families of the two children wounded in this engagement
is (approved) (disapproved) (remanded to the BCT Cdr).
I remand the matter to the 2/2ID Cdr for appropriate action.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

the pilots were engaging insurgents ( we now know some of the men were not namely the two photographers), there were weapons revovered at the scene AKs ,RPGs and RPG rounds , there are no other vehicles in the film seen or refered to except military ones,In fact its pretty deserted and there was an operation going on, the Apaches are in support of ground troops who were under sporadic small arms fire, the camera of one of the photographers shows military vehicles, Its not the middle of the day .

What time was it? In the photos you posted it looks like the middle of the day. Anyway, you're saying all of this indicates the men who showed up in the van were insurgents. However, the wisdom of experience proves this reasoning wrong. Any unarmed person who drives over to the scene of a shooting in a city and helps a wounded person is NOT necessarily an insurgent. This incident proves that.

well again your looking at it from where you are and not where the Air crew were. to them at the time according to their information at the scene they were insurgents

No, not true. According to their information, two men showed up on the scene after the shooting/explosions occurred and helped a wounded man. They might be part of the original insurgent team. Or they might be two of the millions of people who live in the city, they might even believe they are arriving on the scene of a car bombing.

This is the problem with foreign military occupations, it's like a witch hunt, everyone is guilty by association and one man with bad judgment (the Apache gunner) acts as judge, jury and executioner.

Speaking of a witch hunt, what is an "insurgent" anyway? What is the definition? Apparently you don't even have to be armed, or near anyone who is armed, to be considered one, so what is the definition?

weapons were clearly there

But that's not what I asked. The gunner said the people in the van were collecting weapons. That's not what he saw. This is not a good characteristic for the "eyes in the sky" with the power of life and death over any person in the city below.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It looks like the middle of the day, blue sky, plenty of light, in the photo of the soldier carrying the child, which is included in the investigation PDF you linked to from centcom, kai.

 

[kai]

What time was it? In the photos you posted it looks like the middle of the day. Anyway, you're saying all of this indicates the men who showed up in the van were insurgents. However, the wisdom of experience proves this reasoning wrong. Any unarmed person who drives over to the scene of a shooting in a city and helps a wounded person is NOT necessarily an insurgent. This incident proves that.

It was around 10 AM Baghdad time Yes this incident does prove that, when ordinary people get mixed up in this kind of urban military action against non uniformed insuregents they have a high chance of being mistaken for insurgents
No, not true. According to their information, two men showed up on the scene after the shooting/explosions occurred and helped a wounded man. They might be part of the original insurgent team. Or they might be two of the millions of people who live in the city, they might even believe they are arriving on the scene of a car bombing. They might be this they might be that, but they arrived at the wrong time to the wrong place and were mistaken for insurgents, either you beleive they were mistaken for insurgents or not?

This is the problem with foreign military occupations, it's like a witch hunt, everyone is guilty by association and one man with bad judgment (the Apache gunner) acts as judge, jury and executioner. Thats the problem in war zones Spinks the man with the gun is in charge. There are a number of very distinct and fatal events that led up to this , the photographers wore no Identifying Press vests and were accompanied or were accompanying armed men into an area where a military cation was taking place and US forces were being fired upon.

Speaking of a witch hunt, what is an "insurgent" anyway? What is the definition? Apparently you don't even have to be armed, or near anyone who is armed, to be considered one, so what is the definition?
But that's not what I asked. The gunner said the people in the van were collecting weapons. That's not what he saw. This is not a good characteristic for the "eyes in the sky" with the power of life and death over any person in the city below.

I think a group of men without uniforms carrying AKs and RPGs in central Baghdad in 2007 may just possibly run the risk of being be identified as insurgents by an Air defence team operating Air cover for ground troops who were receiving sporadic small arms fire before and after the incident we are talking about. I think you need to watch it again , concerning what the gunner said about "possibly " picking up weapons.

 

[kai]

It looks like the middle of the day, blue sky, plenty of light, in the photo of the soldier carrying the child, which is included in the investigation PDF you linked to from centcom, kai.

Its around 10 AM Baghdad time and it look deserted (don't you think) , i suggest because of the Operation that was going on since dawn.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It was around 10 AM Baghdad time Yes this incident does prove that, when ordinary people get mixed up in this kind of urban military action against non uniformed insuregents they have a high chance of being mistaken for insurgents

I see, you're saying it was their fault for driving their kids to class at 10 a.m. in the city where they live, passing by the scene of a shooting or bombing, seeing a wounded man, and picking him up. They shouldn't have done that. None of the responsibility lies in the trigger-happy mentality among troops, who are clearly eager to open fire to the point they are actually asking the guy they wounded to pick up a weapon. And no responsibility for this tragedy is born by the rules of engagement, which apparently cast such a wide net for "legitimate targets" in a dense urban population that cases like this one must be quite common. Apparently, the cynical calculation is that the killing of innocent people is worth it in order to make sure not a single potential insurgent gets away. It doesn't take a genius to see that such rules are not only morally questionable, but also self-defeating to winning over "hearts and minds".

They might be this they might be that, but they arrived at the wrong time to the wrong place and were mistaken for insurgents, either you beleive they were mistaken for insurgents

Yes they were mistaken for insurgents. Sorry. The military is still responsible for these deaths. War is hell, remember? In fact it's so hellish that the military, not the civilian population, has to take responsibility for preventing civilian deaths. One way for the military to prevent these tragedies in the future is to have a policy, which says soldiers cannot assume someone who arrives on the scene of a shooting and helping wounded is an insurgent. It took me about 5 seconds to come up with this novel idea. Now, would this rule restrict troops' ability to engage the enemy, would some insurgents be able to slip away? Maybe. But that's too bad for the soldiers, then. War is hell, after all.

You and Kathryn and others are fond of pointing out that out that "war is hell" when it is innocent foreigners bearing the cost of our military's mistakes and misjudgment. But the maxim could equally well be used to justify the measures I'm suggesting, and put the burden of preventing civilian deaths firmly on the shoulders of the military, even at the cost of letting a few insurgents get away sometimes.

I think a group of men without uniforms carrying AKs and RPGs in central Baghdad in 2007 may just possibly run the risk of being be identified as insurgents by an Air defence team operating Air cover for ground troops.

That's not what we are talking about, we're talking about the van later in the video. There were no AKs or RPGs with the people in the van. They had precisely zero connection to the group of men who several minutes earlier had possession of weapons. The fact that they arrived on the scene only proves that in a dense city at 10 a.m. someone will pass by, or go to investigate, the scene of a shooting or bombing and loud noises and cries for help. Sometimes, the civilians may be so inconsiderate that they will dare to take their kids to school without bothering to ask permission from the U.S. military, to make sure none of the patrols took sporadic small arms fire that day anywhere in the city.

I think you need to watch it again , concerning what the gunner said about "possibly " picking up weapons.

You're right he did say that. But that's still not accurate. It's not possible they were picking up weapons, because if they were doing that we would have seen them doing it. Why didn't he say, "They are not picking up weapons"? That would have been just as accurate as saying "they are possibly picking up weapons". Why was this accurate piece of information deemed unworthy of notice or reporting? These are the questions an occupying force should ask itself while taking responsibility for its own actions. We ask our soldiers to risk their lives and kill, surely we can dare to ask them to intelligently weigh evidence and wait for events to develop before pulling the trigger.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Its around 10 AM Baghdad time and it look deserted (don't you think) , i suggest because of the Operation that was going on since dawn.

I disagree, it's impossible to tell from the video if there are people in the buildings or traffic in the surrounding areas. But let's suppose for the sake of argument we think it's deserted. A van pulls up. This piece of evidence does not prove that the people in the van are armed insurgents. It proves the area was not deserted.