Wikileaks Releases Video of Journalist Killings 1671
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.
Re:Video (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Outrage of the week (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Video (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How are we supposed to understand this? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:I don't see the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Conditional Freedom of Speech? Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:How are we supposed to understand this? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
1 American life 100 non-Americans (Score:1, Interesting)
1. This wasn't a remote drone. And remote drone stuff is basically video games turned real - you are not in the shit so it doesn't affect you *nearly* as much.
2. As for people outrages by the video, what do you prefer? 30,000 additional American soldier casualties or 150,000 civilians killed that you will never meet? That's where the rubber meets the road. You either send in boots on the ground to investigate, and potentially get killed, or you prefer to kill 100 people "just in case". American public clearly prefers the latter.
As to the video, what do you expect? I could definitely "see" AK-47s. But then gunships can't really tell a friend from foe anyway. They rely on ground intelligence to determine the nature of the threat. Relying on intelligence from gunship cameras alone is plain *stupid* - you can justify anyone a target.
But then again, what do you prefer? American soldiers in danger and possibly killed, OR a few Iraqi casualties that you will never meet? That's why it's called collateral damage. Military don't like it - it's wasted ammo and bad PR. Sadly, this will continue.
Re:I don't see the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:How are we supposed to understand this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides, it's just that one particular crew who got a bit trigger happy on just that one incident. These things don't happen and systematically get covered up every day. The fact a journalists killed there is irrelevant. Your tax money isn't financing murderous airborne psychopaths. Go read an iPad story.
Re:Americans (Score:1, Interesting)
I am willing to bet that the kids of the people killed in that video will not be hating you because you "control the world's money and cultural trends". Now multiply that hate for every person that lost someone close during the invasion / occupation of Iraq.
Re:Video (Score:3, Interesting)
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:How are we supposed to understand this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Video (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How are we supposed to understand this? (Score:1, Interesting)
Let me try to provide some insight...
First, why do you suppose they were patrolling that area? Most likely, there had been reports of "insurgents" or at the least, individuals with rifles. Why not send a foot patrol? Because its probably an ambush. Its happened many times. So, send a gunship. Safer in the air. And one gunship can patrol many such areas quickly.
So they circle, and see what they think are two people with rifles, and turn out to be two reporters with cameras. So that's a mistake, but understandable. They were likely sent there on the basis of actual intel. So they're looking for something, and they see it. At this point, according to ROE, they cannot engage. They also see a third man with a rifle, and this one is spot-on. Check the short video at 3:40. Three men are walking, the two on the left certainly appear to be carrying weapons, not cameras. At 4:07 in the short video, a man kneels down at the corner of the building and appears to be preparing to fire an RPG.
If you're flying a gunship, there is no moment of dread quite like someone about to engage you with an RPG while you are not in a position to shoot back. Could that have been someone with a camera and telephoto lens taking a picture of the helicopter? Sure. Could it have been a bad guy trying to shoot down a helicopter? Sure. I've watched it several times, and even knowing there were two reporters there I'm still 50/50 on what it was. I guarantee the pilots thought it was an RPG. Now, according to ROE, they can engage. And they do.
As far as the van goes, I don't know what the ROE were at that time, as I wasn't there then. But, if there are wounded, and ground forces are nearby who can render assistance, someone else trying to remove the wounded is actually considered hostile. The concept is that the wounded might be valuable sources of intel, or at the least bad guys we want to send to prison. Someone else coming by, i.e. their fellow insurgents, to take them away, is akin to a jail break. The military would view them as hostiles that have been taken. The gunship can't shoot the wounded, and they don't. The gunner is heard to be eager to shoot him, but can't unless he picks up a weapon.
Somebody commented that the children are clearly visible. Bullshit. Imagine you're flying a $15,000,000 helicopter, and you think somebody almost took a shot at you with an RPG. You're looking at a little screen, about 6x8, and its grainy black and white. Did I mention you're flying this thing? You see a van, you assess the situation. You try to count numbers of people, but your best estimate is based on the number of people who get out of the van, and that you can still see occupied seats. You're not gonna be able to say, oh wait, that one is only ten years old! You just don't have that much time or information. You're not assessing age, gender, size. You're assessing presence, or not presence. That's it. That's all you can do in that situation.
Closing thoughts... this is exactly what the bad guys want. They want us, the military, to kill civilians. Here's a completely made-up, but terribly likely scenario as to what happened: bad guys get together, and tell one of their low-ranking recruits to walk around a courtyard with some friends for a couple days. The army notices, and sends a gunship to have a look. See what there is to see. This has happened many times, and usually its an ambush. So if you see hostiles, go ahead and shoot 'em. Low-ranking recruit and his buddies are fodder. They don't know why they were told to go there. The bad guys know the gunship will shoot at them, and probably hit some other folks. That's what they want. This time, some other folks turn out to be reporters for Rueters. Bonus! It worked even better than they hoped this time.
Oh wait, then a van with kids drives up to try and help the wounded reporter? Bonusx2!!! It can't get any better. The bad guys couldn't have planned it any better.
I will say the pilots language and attitude was not professional, and is not typical. But I think they were acting as they thought best, and as they were trained to. As for the cover up and what not, that's above my pay grade.
Too much of a condemnation. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:My View as a former Bradley gunner and Infantry (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Even the Nazis got this right! (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Video (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:How are we supposed to understand this? (Score:5, Interesting)
... 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:Sad, but this is war people (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Video (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Think before you comment... (Score:4, Interesting)
oh fuck off (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Video (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, I recall being amazed by my Dad's stories of this sort of arrangement on Guam in WWII. We had taken the airfield and most of the island but Japs still held/hid in the jungle. There was a de facto boundary that would be demarcated by the bodies of US soldiers who crossed it. The bodies usually had a single bullet in the head.
One of the Japs would lay down past the end of the airfield, and watch the B29s taking off real close up. One time one of his pals thought it would be funny to open the bombay doors and take a shot (albeit a tough one) at the spectator. He was severely reprimanded for upsetting the status quo. We had the operation we needed on the island (bombing the sh*t out of Japanese homeland and ships in the neighborhood).
Disgusting (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Video (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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:America! (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Video (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:C'mon! Let me shoot! (Score:3, Interesting)
So what was the hostile threat that led them to shooting up the people assisting a wounded person?
Re:Video (Score:2, Interesting)
Last I checked, Brits didn't use gunships in Northern Ireland.
Re:Video (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:1, Interesting)
Even if the van was somehow misidentified as a hostile vehicle: At that point the driver and his helper were occupied with helping a seriously wounded person. The gunner was simply intent on killing. Listen to him saying "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." He's practically begging to kill a wounded person.
And beside the killing, there's all this:
03:23 All right, hahaha, I hit [shot] 'em...
04:31 Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards.
04:36 Nice.
04:44 Nice.
04:47 Good shoot.
04:48 Thank you.
10:11 Oh yeah, look at that. Right through the windshield!
10:14 Ha ha!
18:29 I think they just drove over a body.
18:31 Hey hey!
18:32 Yeah!
18:37 Maybe it was just a visual illusion, but it looked like it.
18:41 Well, they're dead, so.
36:53 There it goes! Look at that bitch go!
36:56 Patoosh!
37:03 Ah, sweet.
37:07 Need a little more room.
37:09 Nice missile.
37:11 Does it look good?
37:12 Sweet!
Goddamnit, it's not a video game!
Re:Video (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Video (Score:3, Interesting)
- 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 [army.mil]
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 [wikipedia.org]
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
"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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Also came across this site:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php [mypetjawa.mu.nu]
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.