Collateral Murder

[Alceste]

Alceste I thought those conventions apply to war, not necessarily insurgency? And in some ways, isn't the US obeying those conventions more closely today than any of the state actors did during WWII? French cities were carpet bombed by high altitude aircraft and artillery for example, that's not what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Horror at the unrestrained civilian carnage of WWII was the whole reason the Conventions were written in the first place. They did not exist during WWII. The article in question did not exist until after the unrestrained civilian carnage of Vietnam.

Can you explain the difference between "insurgency" and "war" please? Not just the definitions of the words, but why you think what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't fall under the category of an "international armed conflict".

At any rate, plopping the gigantic "green zone" in the middle of Baghdad is a violation of this rule - legitimate military targets are not to be located in densely populated areas.

 

[Alceste]

That's true. But again, even if they are insurgents: you are allowed to shoot unarmed enemies evacuating their wounded?

That's another violation. But frankly, nobody pays any attention to the Geneva Conventions when they get a little bloodthirsty.

 

[dust1n]

I can understand **** happens.

It's the complete and utter lack of transparency that bothers me.

The lying - the attempt to conceal the information.

 

[kiwimac]

All armed-forces do this kind of thing. That does NOT make it acceptable, however.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Further to my earlier comment that the Geneva Conventions may "prohibit" urban fighting, I have now had the time to look it up (since Angellous failed to deliver ). It isn't a "prohibition", it's this:

As I said earlier, the US, much like their adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, couldn't care less about these rules but it is nice to know they exist all the same. Gives a bit of structure to the outrage.[/quote]

Alceste I thought those conventions apply to war, not necessarily insurgency?

There's that, but also, if that article has any sort of application to the Iraq War, it's more of a prohibition against insurgents blending into the civilian population than it is against the soldiers who try to fight those insurgents.

And in some ways, isn't the US obeying those conventions more closely today than any of the state actors did during WWII? French cities were carpet bombed by high altitude aircraft and artillery for example, that's not what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To be fair, part of the reason for this is that weapons have increased in precision. Carpet bombing a section of a city in WWII was justified because WWII-era bombs were aimed with an accuracy of several kilometers. Today, if an air force were to carpet bomb a city, it wouldn't be justifiable on the same basis because it's no longer necessary to obliterate a whole city to destroy a target within that city.

Suppose the guys in the van were insurgents. You can shoot unarmed enemies who are evacuating their unarmed wounded? If unarmed people drive up in a van and evacuate an unarmed wounded man, shouldn't the assumption be that they are civilians unless proven otherwise? If there were any civilians in the area I would expect them to naturally assist an unarmed, injured man, for all they know he was an innocent bystander not an insurgent.

In the CNN video, the general mentioned that the insurgents who had shot at American troops earlier that day were using vans to move around. Given that the helicopter crew had already decided that the group of men were insurgents, I think it would be a reasonable logical leap to believe that the van was being driven by more insurgents.

In the Apache video, after the gunner opens fire on the van, the radio voices explicitly say there were children harmed, and the video shows children being evacuated. CNN chose to pretend like that part of the video doesn't exist and chose not to inform its viewers that children were injured.

You're right that they didn't mention this, but I'm not sure that information that was only learned after the fact is necessarily relevant in deciding whether the earlier decisions were justified.

 

[kai]

I can understand **** happens.

It's the complete and utter lack of transparency that bothers me.

The lying - the attempt to conceal the information.

How so?


Reuters asked the US military in 2007 to conduct a full investigation into the killings of Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh in Iraq after evidence emerged casting doubt over the explanations given into their deaths.

Witnesses told Reuters that they had seen no gunmen in the area and were not aware of any clashes leading up to the Apache helicopter attack. Reuters management were shown the video by the US military and asked for it to be made public. It never was.

The US Department of Defence released a statement in response to the WikiLeaks video release saying: "This tragic incident was investigated at that time by the brigade involved and the investigation found that the forces involved were not aware of the presence of the two reporters, and that all evidence available supported the conclusion by those forces that they were engaging armed insurgents, and not civilians.

In response to a FOIA request, twelve documents supporting this investigation were provided to Reuters in 2009. These documents include photos showing the presence of weapons on the scene, including AK-47s and an RPG 7. During the course of the engagement, the Apache crew mistook one of the Reuters photographer's camera to be another RPG.

We regret the loss of innocent life, but this incident was promptly investigated, and there was never any attempt to cover up any aspects of this engagement."

Video released of Iraq Apache attack - Channel 4 News



Reporters in the war zone wear a visible press badge and permit issued by military. Reporters and photographers are required to obtain clearance to enter the battle zone. They are given and are required to wear a press vest and helmet. The press vest has a unique color that clearly indentifies the person as a members of the press by military personnel on the ground and from the air. I do not see any of the men who are shot and killed wearing press vests I believe Reuters has guidelines for this and i believe some journalists do not whear them when embedding themselves with insurgents and they are more than aware of the risks in doing so.

Why on this occasion they werent wearing them would be a good question for Reuters with their own investigation.In my view if they were, they would still be alive.

 

[sandandfoam]

Reporters in the war zone wear a visible press badge and permit issued by military. Reporters and photographers are required to obtain clearance to enter the battle zone. They are given and are required to wear a press vest and helmet. The press vest has a unique color that clearly indentifies the person as a members of the press by military personnel on the ground and from the air. I do not see any of the men who are shot and killed wearing press vests I believe Reuters has guidelines for this and i believe some journalists do not whear them when embedding themselves with insurgents and they are more than aware of the risks in doing so.

Why on this occasion they werent wearing them would be a good question for Reuters with their own investigation.In my view if they were, they would still be alive.

I'm not sure about this line of thinking because it presupposes that 'the military' are in charge, that they are in the right and that there is one side to the conflict.
Reporters are/should be with the 'other' side - I think Ross Kemp in Gaza is a good example of this.
I agree that there are risks to the reporters but that's the job and they should be non-partisan when reporting in as far as possible.
Not wearing a vest issued by one party to the conflict doesn't excuse that side for killing them. Mistakes will be made and that's the risk reporters accept. I think 'mistake' if genuine is an excuse. Not wearing a vest is not imo.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

the gunner asked for instructions he was told to fire,

No, he asked for permission to fire on people who are "collecting wounded and weapons". He was not instructed to fire. Only the gunner could see, as we can in the video, that the guys in the van were not collecting weapons nor had possession of any weapons.

He needed permission from ground troops, it seems, as before, to confirm that there were no friendlies in that area.

dont get me wrong i am not immune to the shock of it all but i just know its not so black and white as "collateral Murder" would have people believe.

I agree, but again, he wasn't instructed to fire he was given permission to fire, partly based on the gunner's false report that they were collecting weapons. Again, I'm asking: do the rules of engagement allow soldiers to fire on unarmed enemy collecting their unarmed wounded? If a couple of clearly unarmed Allied soldiers in WWII went to collect a wounded man, Germans would have the right to massacre them? Seriously, I'm asking.

If the rules of engagement do allow that, isn't that a terrible rule to have in urban combat with small bands of insurgents, in the middle of civilians? After all, if a street battle erupted in Houston, in some hypothetical scenario, and I saw an unarmed wounded man, I might go to his aid, that doesn't mean I'm participating in the battle.

 

[kai]

I'm not sure about this line of thinking because it presupposes that 'the military' are in charge, that they are in the right and that there is one side to the conflict.
Reporters are/should be with the 'other' side - I think Ross Kemp in Gaza is a good example of this. I dissagree! to be similar it would have to be Ross kemp in Operation cast lead, and he wore one in Afghanistan which was actually in operations
I agree that there are risks to the reporters but that's the job and they should be non-partisan when reporting in as far as possible.
Not wearing a vest issued by one party to the conflict doesn't excuse that side for killing them. Mistakes will be made and that's the risk reporters accept. I think 'mistake' if genuine is an excuse. Not wearing a vest is not imo.

wearing a press vest designates you non partisan. remember insurgents do film/photograph their own operations, the trouble is if you embed yourself with insurgents you may blatantly disregard the protection that vest gives you from coalition forces in order to get the story/pictures you are after.


of interest:

http://www.newssafety.org/index.php...sts-why-not&catid=244:equipment&Itemid=100120

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Can you explain the difference between "insurgency" and "war" please? Not just the definitions of the words, but why you think what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't fall under the category of an "international armed conflict".

Well, with the Iraqi insurgency it seems we don't even know who they are much of the time. In some cases, of course, they are Shiite militias. But much of the insurgency has no central leadership. It isn't a state actor, there is no declaration of war, no statement of demands. If a peace summit was held tomorrow to open negotiations with the Iraqi insurgency for a ceasefire or peace treaty, who would be sent to represent the insurgency? Does anyone represent all the splinter groups and can anyone control it or make agreements on its behalf? I am skeptical that the Geneva conventions truly forbid an occupying power from using force against armed insurgency. If an urban center itself becomes the target, which was the case in WWII when we bombed industrial centers, that's one thing. If OTOH troops are patrolling the streets and they are fired on, and an Apache helicopter opens fire on a group of insurgents with guns in the street .... there is simply no comparison between that, and WWII carpet bombing of downtown urban centers.

It's hard to imagine the same Geneva conventions which place so many responsibilities on occupying powers, also forbid occupying powers from using ANY force within city limits, thus effectively prohibiting anyone from being an occupying power at all and making the responsibilities of occupying powers irrelevant.

At any rate, plopping the gigantic "green zone" in the middle of Baghdad is a violation of this rule - legitimate military targets are not to be located in densely populated areas.

What? This makes no sense. If it's a violation to put a nuclear missile silo or a military airstrip, or hide your mobile artillery pieces in an urban center, that's one thing. That makes sense. But to say no army can ever set up headquarters in a city is effectively saying that no army can ever occupy a city. Is that really what the Geneva conventions are saying?

By the way, the Green Zone is under the authority of the Iraqi government now.

 

[kai]

No, he asked for permission to fire on people who are "collecting wounded and weapons". He was not instructed to fire. Only the gunner could see, as we can in the video, that the guys in the van were not collecting weapons nor had possession of any weapons. well to be honest you are assuming they have no weapons and the gunner is assuming they have,( because we still dont really know do we?) or that they are part of the insurgent team, like i said we are not seeing the whole picture here.

He needed permission from ground troops, it seems, as before, to confirm that there were no friendlies in that area.

I agree, but again, he wasn't instructed to fire he was given permission to fire, partly based on the gunner's false report that they were collecting weapons. Again, I'm asking: do the rules of engagement allow soldiers to fire on unarmed enemy collecting their unarmed wounded? If a couple of clearly unarmed Allied soldiers in WWII went to collect a wounded man, Germans would have the right to massacre them? Seriously, I'm asking.

I am suggesting that the gunner is viewing the van as part of the team. Obviously a marked van with medics would not be fired on. and no you are not supposed to fire on an injured man unless he still has a weapon or is reaching for a weapon. if the van was viewed as part of the team then its all part of the firefight.

If the rules of engagement do allow that, isn't that a terrible rule to have in urban combat with small bands of insurgents, in the middle of civilians? After all, if a street battle erupted in Houston, in some hypothetical scenario, and I saw an unarmed wounded man, I might go to his aid, that doesn't mean I'm participating in the battle.

No it doesn't but the there is no use comparing in Houston and Baghdad 2007.


look at the end of the day my position is. that the video was leaked and edited i such a fashion as to give a first impression of out and out murder of two photographers . That was wrong.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I am suggesting that the gunner is viewing the van as part of the team. Obviously a marked van with medics would not be fired on. and no you are not supposed to fire on an injured man unless he still has a weapon or is reaching for a weapon. if the van was viewed as part of the team then its all part of the firefight.

First: Really? You can shoot unarmed enemy assisting their unarmed wounded? I hate to ask three times, but I'm surprised.

Second: But there was no reason to view the van as part of the team. There was reason to view it as a van with two unarmed men assisting an injured man. They could be civilians, the reason he opened fire on the first group was because he thought they had weapons, but now you're saying they don't need weapons to be identified as insurgents instead of civilians, they just need to be arbitrarily judged "part of the team". So the first group could have been shot even if they didn't have weapons OR cameras that looked like weapons? Because they too could have been part of the team?

 

[kai]

First: Really? You can shoot unarmed enemy assisting their unarmed wounded? I hate to ask three times, but I'm surprised.

Second: But there was no reason to view the van as part of the team. There was reason to view it as a van with two unarmed men assisting an injured man. They could be civilians, the reason he opened fire on the first group was because he thought they had weapons, but now you're saying they don't need weapons to be identified as insurgents instead of civilians, they just need to be arbitrarily judged "part of the team". So the first group could have been shot even if they didn't have weapons OR cameras that looked like weapons? Because they too could have been part of the team?

OK look Spinkles its no good second guessing what was going on is it really? In my opinion and its only my opinion the first group were fired upon because it was judged they were a threat to the ground operation, i suggest that the Apaches were there to cover the ground op, which of course the video dosent show also i am concerned that the video starts where they want it to start, so we get no idea of what is really going on just an edited window into part of the whole picture.


Reuters saw this in 2007 and they say:

David Schlesinger, Reuters' editor in chief, said of the video released by WikiLeaks that the deaths of Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh were "tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones."

"The video released today via WikiLeaks is graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result," he said.

Reuters has pressed the U.S. military to conduct a full and objective investigation into the killing of the two staff.

Video of the incident from two U.S. Apache helicopters and photographs taken of the scene were shown to Reuters editors in Baghdad on July 25, 2007 in an off-the-record briefing.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6344FW20100405


as for the targeting of the van i can only give my opinion that they saw it as part of the team,( as in deploying and evacuating insurgents) like Katherine said 20/20 vision is very clear in hindsight. I haven't seen any other info on the van have you?

But there was no reason to view the van as part of the team. There was reason to view it as a van with two unarmed men assisting an injured man. They could be civilians, the reason he opened fire on the first group was because he thought they had weapons, but now you're saying they don't need weapons to be identified as insurgents instead of civilians, they just need to be arbitrarily judged "part of the team". So the first group could have been shot even if they didn't have weapons OR cameras that looked like weapons? Because they too could have been part of the team?

i think there's two different viewpoints at work here, yours where you have no reason to view the van as as part of the team ( i mean why would you?) from wherever you are looking at that video and the air weapons team during contact with insurgents ( or at least thats what they thought at the time) from where i am sitting i agree it looks terrible and it is terrible, but neither i nor you were there at the time and when you are there at the time you have to make decisions based on the information at hand, and i remind you that we don't know all the information that was at hand.

I have no alternative at this time but to agree with the military investigation conclusions.

 

[Kathryn]

I can't believe that I posted that poem written by my son, which I think so eloquently portrays the mindset of an infantry soldier, one who was in the same situation many times - and there was not one response to his perspective.

 

[sandandfoam]

I can't believe that I posted that poem written by my son, which I think so eloquently portrays the mindset of an infantry soldier, one who was in the same situation many times - and there was not one response to his perspective.

How to respond?
I don't want to offend.
Young soldier, afraid, hating and willing to kill.
Sad. A waste of life and youth. I hate war. A poem like that depresses me.

Like I said if I offend I apologise but I am offering a response

 

[Kathryn]

Stephen, I wasn't offended by the lack of response. I'm sure everyone's reason for not responding differs.

I just thought it was interesting. Like I said in my original post, some of the responses on this video seem an awful lot like armchair quarterbacking. Seems like a lot of people are quick to base their kneejerk judgments on preconceived political opinions and an obviously edited video rather than seeking more information.

I WAS however offended by a certain RF member's assertion that she wishes death on US soldiers. I take that personally since I have three children serving in the US military.

Here's a good rule of thumb to follow (not directed at you, Stephen - you of all people seem to have learned this lesson in maturity):

SEEK FIRST TO UNDERSTAND.

 

[kai]

I can't believe that I posted that poem written by my son, which I think so eloquently portrays the mindset of an infantry soldier, one who was in the same situation many times - and there was not one response to his perspective.

I thought it was quite good just there for people to see, me i couldn't write anything like that, never could.I hope he is OK.

 

[sandandfoam]

I thought it was quite good just there for people to see, me i couldn't write anything like that, never could.I hope he is OK.

See I knew it.
US troops are superior to British ones :run:

 

[kai]

See I knew it.
US troops are superior to British ones :run:

theirs always one isn't there

 

[Kathryn]

Thanks, Kai.

My son is struggling with PTSD but at this point it's not incapacitating. He's currently assigned to a non infantry unit in Korea, near the DMZ. He's receiving treatment and continuing to serve in the military. It will be interesting to see how the military and veterans services will manage his treatment plan.

He's a generally upbeat person though and I believe he will be OK in the long run. One thing for sure - he left the US a young kid and came back a man.