Collateral Murder

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if the weapons operator in my hypothetical is lying, then the pilots in the collateral murder video are lying. They said the guys in the van were picking up bodies and weapons. Not true.

I think it's more likely that they were simply mistaken, not that they were actually lying.

Their adrenaline was pumping and they thought that they were in a split-second, life-and-death situation. Also, I'm not sure whether the video we have is actually what they would've seen - maybe they mistook some action for picking up weapons when they saw it by the naked eye, but we're judging it by a zoomed-in camera image.

My best guess: they were watching to see if the second vehicle had weapons, and were on a mental hair-trigger to fire as soon as any were spotted. Adrenaline can mess with your head; maybe the fact that they expected to see them grab the weapons made them misinterpret something they saw.

In panic situations, how we react is usually a matter of pure habit and reflex, which has been built up by years of training. I guess my worry is that if the blame is placed on the helicopter crew, then this might point us away from some real problem in the way these sorts of soldiers are trained.

Edit: I guess my point is this: when you put people in high pressure, life-or-death, split-second decision-making situations, their capacity for calm, logical reasoning will be severely diminished. I don't think it's at all unexpected that when you put people in these sorts of situations, sometimes they'll make the wrong decision. We should try to minimize this, certainly, but I don't think it can be eliminated altogether.

When you go to war, innocent people will die. We know this. This just means that it's all the more important to make absolutely sure that when we do go to war, it's for the right reasons.

 

[kai]

So if the weapons operator in my hypothetical is lying, then the pilots in the collateral murder video are lying. They said the guys in the van were picking up bodies and weapons. Not true.

well is he? thats my accusation. now tell me how he came to the decision to open fire? what was his information at hand that brought him to that conclusion? what are the circumstances ? I say he is lying and murdered those men am i right or wrong? Where is the context?

you could come to that conclusion in this case , have you? I think i asked you before if you thought they were just plain lying and murdered those people.?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it's more likely that they were simply mistaken, not that they were actually lying.

In that case, the weapons operator in my hypothetical was simply mistaken, not lying.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't think it's at all unexpected that when you put people in these sorts of situations, sometimes they'll make the wrong decision.

Exactly. I'm not surprised that people sometimes make the wrong decision in these circumstances, either. But kai says it was the best decision, not the wrong decision.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In that case, the weapons operator in my hypothetical was simply mistaken, not lying.

In that case, there are several points of similarity to an incident that occurred in Afghanistan in 2002. In that case, the pilots involved were found guilty, but based on their letter of reprimand, there were certain extenuating circumstances:

- they were directly ordered to hold fire
- they had other avenues of action open to them, but chose not to take them (in fact, descending to fire would've actually increased their risk if they'd actually been under threat)

I think this remark puts it in an interesting light:

Major General Stephen T. Sargeant: A reasonable pilot never would have believed that the fire on the ground was a threat to his flight. And even if he did, turning, descending, and decelerating was an unreasonable reaction. However, disregarding all the alleged reckless maneuvers Maj. Schmidt made to reach the spot where he invoked self-defense, dropping a bomb at that instant was not unreasonable. In other words, if Maj. Schmidt suddenly woke up at 14,000 feet (4,300 m) and four nautical miles (7 km) away from the mystery fire, it would be reasonable to drop a bomb in self-defense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. I'm not surprised that people sometimes make the wrong decision in these circumstances, either. But kai says it was the best decision, not the wrong decision.

I think that might be a matter of using the same word for different ideas.

In hindsight, the result that occurred wasn't the best result possible, obviously. However, that's a different question from whether the pilots made the best decision they could've, based on the information they had at hand and in the context those decisions were made in.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

well is he? thats my accusation. now tell me how he came to the decision to open fire? what was his information at hand that brought him to that conclusion? what are the circumstances ? I say he is lying and murdered those men am i right or wrong? Where is the context?

The context is this: he made contact with a group of insurgents and killed them. Then, he reported making contact again and immediately fired in that direction. However, the camera on his helmet recorded no gunfire. All evidence indicates there was no gunfire. So apparently, he imagined it.

you could come to that conclusion in this case , have you? I think i asked you before if you thought they were just plain lying and murdered those people.?

I think they were overzealous and insufficiently cautious, thus causing them to assume civilians are insurgents instead of erring on the side of civilians, and causing them to imagine weapons in spite of the information right in front of them. Or, perhaps they were so certain this van was insurgent, that they lied/deceived themselves about seeing them collect weapons, because they were so sure they would be collecting weapons in a matter of moments.

Let me put it this way: suppose we show the video of the shooting of the van to recruits, as part of training. What is the lesson to be learned here? When the pilots say "they're picking up bodies and weapons", and fire on that justification, yet the video shows they are doing neither, is this an example of what every recruit should be doing when they go into the heat of battle? Or is this an example of what they should do their best NOT to do, which is rushing to an incorrect judgment in the heat of battle, not looking carefully at the information in front of you, and not waiting until you PID weapons like you are supposed to?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In that case, there are several points of similarity to an incident that occurred in Afghanistan in 2002. In that case, the pilots involved were found guilty, but based on their letter of reprimand, there were certain extenuating circumstances:

- they were directly ordered to hold fire
- they had other avenues of action open to them, but chose not to take them (in fact, descending to fire would've actually increased their risk if they'd actually been under threat)

I think this remark puts it in an interesting light:

One difference that immediately strikes me is that in this case, they observed anti-tank and machine gun fire, which they thought was incoming anti-air fire. The military judge said he "blatantly disregarded the rules of engagement". In the "Collateral Murder" case, weapons were not observed on the guys in the van, nor were they observed picking up any weapons, nor was any firing of weapons or any hostile act observed. When you shoot unarmed people, that seems a blatant disregard of the rules of engagement to me.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think that might be a matter of using the same word for different ideas.

In hindsight, the result that occurred wasn't the best result possible, obviously. However, that's a different question from whether the pilots made the best decision they could've, based on the information they had at hand and in the context those decisions were made in.

Right, they are two different questions. I am not talking about the hindsight question. I'm saying, at the time, given the circumstances and the information they had, they made the wrong decision. The pilots' actions and the ground troops' actions demonstrate the Apaches should only fire if they PID weapons, in the case of the van they fired without PID weapons. Firing on unarmed civilians who are assisting a wounded insurgent is simply not the correct decision, the correct decision is to observe and only fire if you can PID weapons or hostile acts.

 

[kai]

The context is this: he made contact with a group of insurgents and killed them. Then, he reported making contact again and immediately fired in that direction. However, the camera on his helmet recorded no gunfire. All evidence indicates there was no gunfire. So apparently, he imagined it. Ah so he wasnt lying he was just caught up in the heat of it all and made a mistake. context is everything before people cry liar! and Murder!
I think they were overzealous and insufficiently cautious, thus causing them to assume civilians are insurgents instead of erring on the side of civilians, and causing them to imagine weapons in spite of the information right in front of them. Or, perhaps they were so certain this van was insurgent, that they lied/deceived themselves about seeing them collect weapons, because they were so sure they would be collecting weapons in a matter of moments.

Let me put it this way: suppose we show the video of the shooting of the van to recruits, as part of training. What is the lesson to be learned here? When the pilots say "they're picking up bodies and weapons", and fire on that justification, yet the video shows they are doing neither, is this an example of what every recruit should be doing when they go into the heat of battle? Or is this an example of what they should do their best NOT to do, which is rushing to an incorrect judgment in the heat of battle, not looking carefully at the information in front of you, and not waiting until you PID weapons like you are supposed to?

Both scenarios show exactly what can and does happen in such situations . Its extraordinary circumstances i hesitate to say it but its beyond a civilians comprehension, the pressure the fear the responsibility day in day out .

No one knows however much training you have, how you are going to react in such a situation ,adrenalin flowing your mind is racing ,your priority is protecting your own men , your scared of getting it wrong and your own men get killed . You have seconds to reach a decision. people are put into extraordinary situations and sometimes they get it wrong but its not Murder.

 

[kai]

Right, they are two different questions. I am not talking about the hindsight question. I'm saying, at the time, given the circumstances and the information they had, they made the wrong decision. The pilots' actions and the ground troops' actions demonstrate the Apaches should only fire if they PID weapons, in the case of the van they fired without PID weapons. Firing on unarmed civilians who are assisting a wounded insurgent is simply not the correct decision, the correct decision is to observe and only fire if you can PID weapons or hostile acts.

The whole thing was viewed as a hostile act .

From the weapons teams point of view insurgents were about to open fire on their comrades who were under small arms fire from different directions before during and after this incident, so they opened fire and during contact they were attempting to make their escape so they opened fire and disabled the van.

They viewed it a continuous action not splitting it into two like you are doing. Remember to them its one action flowing along taking minutes its we who are splitting into two separate incidents and we are doing that because we know after the fact that children were in the van . they , the weapons crew believed the van to be part of the insurgent group. which to them was one of several engaging ground forces that morning.

context is everything.

 

[Blackheart]

The whole thing was viewed as a hostile act .

From the weapons teams point of view insurgents were about to open fire on their comrades so they opened fire and during contact they were attempting to make their escape so they opened fire and disabled the van.

They viewed it a continuous action not splitting it into two like you are doing. Remember to them its one action flowing along taking minutes its we who are splitting into two separate incidents and we are doing that because we know after the fact that children were in the van . they , the weapons crew believed the van to be part of the insurgent group.

context is everything.

But did they see them with any weapons?

 

[kai]

But did they see them with any weapons?

Interestingly all the air weapons team in their statements say they were recovering weapons . Now they are either point blank lying or mistaken.

 

[Blackheart]

Interestingly all the air weapons team in their statements say they were recovering weapons . Now they are either point blank lying or mistaken.

They should be locked up and looked after by the families of the people they killed.

 

[dallas1125]

They should be locked up and looked after by the families of the people they killed.

Can I ask why?

 

[Blackheart]

Can I ask why?

Coz im not keen on murder

 

[dallas1125]

Coz im not keen on murder

I dont consider it murder, but I understand why you might consider it that way.

But to keep the spirit of debate alive, could you produce some convincing argument?

 

[kai]

Heres an interesting take on the full unedited film. which shows the van(or one like it) in the area before the incident.

Collateral Murder « Road to Academia

 

[Blackheart]

I dont consider it murder, but I understand why you might consider it that way.

But to keep the spirit of debate alive, could you produce some convincing argument?

The whole thing is international terrorisim. Im not going to convince anyone of anything because we all know how the conflict came about and therefore my point isnt debatable or am I missing something?

 

[Kathryn]

Yeah, you're missing a LOT. Start by reading the thread completely, and doing some research on both "sides" of the "unedited" wikileaks video.