Video Allegedly Shows U.S. Soldiers Shooting Dead Civilians in Iraq

[SigO]

The vehicle in question was not an ambulance. It was not marked as such. It was a type often used by insurgents, ie any civilian pattern vehicle.

And a type used by more non-combatants.  Still not a legitimate military target unless it poses a direct threat.  The responsibility is on the engaging force to determine that a vehicle poses a legitimate military threat.

If a Canadian LAV stops to render aid to a wounded Canadian soldier, it is neither more nor less an ambulance than that vehicle was. It is still a legal target, and neither more nor less than an unmarked vehicle clearly supporting insurgent activity in an area where engagements were ongoing.

I didn't see a 25mm Bushmaster on the Bongo.  By your logic, every civilian vehicle should be considered a target.  We are not given carte-blanche to engage every civilian vehicle because it looks like something an insurgent might use.  And you're assuming that the vehicle is supporting "insurgent activity," which is a stretch in this instance, as it appears that they are simply rendering aid to the injured.  Given the proven potential for engagement of civilians, we similarly cannot assume that every injured person on the battlefield is an insurgent.

Neither the vehicle struck nor the people in it enjoyed any special status or protection.

Nor should they need it, as they are non-combatants, who are protected by Article 13 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

What "obvious breaches of the LOAC"?

The ones that I alluded to in my original post, particularly a failure of DISTINCTION.  Also, the engagement of civilians also breaches the principle of RECIPROCITY, as it offers the enemy an avoidable IO opportunity.  Tactical mistakes can have STRATEGIC implications, as we have clearly seen in this case.

What made this any more worthy of investigation than any other combat action?

The fact that it has the potential to undermine public support for the mission, which is critical to strategic success in Afghanistan.

Had it not been for the journalists' deaths or the children's injuries, there was nothing remarkable about this.

Exactly.  But the fact is that non-combatants were killed, thus an investigation is required.

Had the presence of journalists or children been known, it is extrememly unlikely that they would have been fired upon. Had they been fired upon anyway, there would have been grounds for an investigation.

Not knowing is not an excuse for breaches of the LOAC.  My point here is that whenever an incident occurs that has the potential to become public, and if viewed through the coloured lens of the media, the potential to negatively affect public support for the mission, it MUST be investigated.

Only when there was reason to do so. I see none based upon the video.

Then your bias has blinded you.

Given that any combat footage could become public, should there be an investigation into every single engagement? That is ludicrous. There would be as many investigators as combat troops. Down to what level should NIS (or the US equivalent) and lawyers be embedded?

Clearly not, and to offer such an argument is ridiculous.  I have been very clear as to why I feel this incident required investigation, and was responding to a post authored by someone who suggested that no questions should be asked. 

Who swept this under what rug?

You need not consciously sweep something under the rug to be accused of doing so.  It's all about optics.  Being proactive and transparent will avoid the manipulation of such information by the media.

Yes, and I played a part in several such decisions. I was constantly and acutely aware of my responsibilities.

I'm sure you did, and I thank you for your service.  That said, I think it clearly creates some personal bias to support the guy at the coal face (a legitimate position, I agree), but when dealing with media spin and potential breaches of international law, one needs to approach the situation more impartially (and in the case of the former, to attempt to anticipate the media reaction when deciding what course of action to take post-incident by applying a negative bias to discern the worst-case scenario as interpreted by the media).

As, I would offer, were all of the people involved in this engagement.

That's where we disagree, at least insofar as that regardless of the knowledge of their responsibilities, there was a certain demonstration of lack of application of the principles of the LOAC (by both the crew and the higher HQ who authorized the attack).

 

[vonGarvin]

That's where we disagree, at least insofar as that regardless of the knowledge of their responsibilities, there was a certain demonstration of lack of application of the principles of the LOAC (by both the crew and the higher HQ who authorized the attack).

Hello SigO
I disagree with you in the bolded part.  Not that there was or wasn't a breach of the LOAC, but rather that based on one video, without proper context, you make the determination that there was a "certain" breach.  I cannot make that assertion, one way or another.  As well, look up further in this thread.  The incident was in fact investigated, and it was determined to be a "good kill" by the investigating authorities.

 

[SigO]

Hello SigO
I disagree with you in the bolded part.  Not that there was or wasn't a breach of the LOAC, but rather that based on one video, without proper context, you make the determination that there was a "certain" breach.  I cannot make that assertion, one way or another.  As well, look up further in this thread.  The incident was in fact investigated, and it was determined to be a "good kill" by the investigating authorities.

I appreciate your difference of opinion, and acknowledge that there is a danger in drawing too much from a video.  As I said, my post was a response to someone who had suggested that the chain of command should blindly support these individuals without question, and that no investigation should have been conducted.  The fact that one was actually completed (or not) didn't influence my post.  I was simply highlighting the responsibility that the chain-of-command has, and why I felt an investigation was warranted. 

 

[NazTheEternal]

Not sure if you guys have heard of the book called "The Good Soldiers" by David Finkel, but he saw this footage right after it happened and apparently was present in the AO at the time...

He is interviewed by Neal Conan on NPR, it's a really interesting read as it talks about the situation that day and what the Allied forces had to deal with...

Have a read... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125630795

 

[Loachman]

From the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/11/AR2010041101820.html

Defense chief backs troops on Apache attack video

Reuters
Sunday, April 11, 2010; 11:00 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A video showing U.S. Apache helicopters killing 12 people, including two Reuters news staff, is painful to watch but an investigation into the attack was very thorough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.

"It's unfortunate. It's clearly not helpful. But by the same token, I think -- think it should not have any lasting consequences," Gates said of the 2007 videotape when interviewed on the ABC News "This Week" program.

The U.S. forces involved were in combat, he said, and were operating in "split-second situations."

The stark helicopter gunsight video of the July 12, 2007, attack has been widely viewed around the world on the Internet since its release on April 5 by the group Wikileaks, which promotes leaks to fight government and corporate corruption.

Some international law and human rights experts say the Apache helicopter crew in the footage may have acted illegally. The video includes an audio track of a helicopter crew conversation. Many have been shocked by the images and some of the fliers' comments.

"It's obviously a hard thing to see. It's painful to see, especially when you learn after the fact what was going on. But you -- you talked about the fog of war. These people were operating in split-second situations," Gates said.

The U.S. military said an investigation shortly after the incident found that U.S. forces were unaware of the presence of news staff and thought they were engaging armed insurgents, mistaking a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The Reuters staff killed in the attack were photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chamagh, 40.

"We've investigated it very thoroughly," Gates said on ABC. The military's Central Command said last week it had no plans to open a new investigation.

David Schlesinger, Reuters editor-in-chief, said: "I urge the secretary of defense to meet with me to help ensure a tragedy like this never happens again. We need to have transparency, accountability and an acknowledgment of the vital role journalists play in telling the story of war."

Asked by ABC whether the release of the video would damage America's image abroad, Gates said: "I don't think so."

"They're -- they're in a combat situation. The video doesn't show the broader picture of the -- of the firing that was going on at American troops."

Wikileaks said it obtained the video from military whistleblowers and posted it at http://www.collateralmurder.com.

Amnesty International called on Wednesday for an independent, thorough and impartial investigation into the incident shown in the video.

(Writing by Susan Cornwell, Editing by Howard Goller)

 

[SeanNewman]

While I will be the first one to defend the US Military most of the time, keep in mind that it is the same organization that gave a slap on the wrist to one person for the My Lai Massacre of ~500 people, and gave a few extremely lenient punishments for those responsible for Abu Gharib.

Not exactly a strong record to punishing those who have done wrong in the past, even when cases were far "easier" to determine wrong from right than this.

 

[Loachman]

And the rank of the CF member who got the heaviest sentence following the Somalia incident was...?

 

[SeanNewman]

And the rank of the CF member who got the heaviest sentence following the Somalia incident was...?

Very good point.

The best counter I can think of is that the CF has certainly changed its stripes on how fast it is to investigate and charge any sort of potential ethical wrong-doing...potentially due to lessons learned from Somalia.

 

[GAP]

I would think more lessons have been learned from watching American incidents and how fast they deal with them....mindsets are similiar as have been the lessons.....although they have a lot more simply because of size and probabilities....

 

[tomahawk6]

The US military has more thn its share of bad apples and when they screw up they get punished. This event caught on video was taken out of context and had 20 mintes edited out of it,to create the very impression that Petamocto has been going on about. Take this opportunity to not jump to conclusions the next time.

 

[SeanNewman]

...,to create the very impression that Petamocto has been going on about...

That's a bit below the belt.  From the very first post I made on this topic, I stated that likely nobody on this board was there had all the details and anything that followed from anyone's posts would be in that context.

In fact, all I said was that they simply might have to answer some questions about the second engagement.

Your post above makes it look like I'm leading a Salem LOAC Hunt or something.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The US military has more thn its share of bad apples and when they screw up they get punished.

It appears the train is just leaving the station in that direction - this from Wired.com:

Federal officials have arrested an Army intelligence analyst who boasted of giving classified U.S. combat video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to whistleblower site Wikileaks, Wired.com has learned.

SPC Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad, where he was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. A family member says he’s being held in custody in Kuwait, and has not been formally charged.

Manning was turned in late last month by a former computer hacker with whom he spoke online. In the course of their chats, Manning took credit for leaking a headline-making video of a helicopter attack that Wikileaks posted online in April. The video showed a deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad that claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.

He said he also leaked three other items to Wikileaks: a separate video showing the notorious 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan that Wikileaks has previously acknowledged is in its possession; a classified Army document evaluating Wikileaks as a security threat, which the site posted in March; and a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing “almost criminal political back dealings.”

“Hillary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning wrote.

Wired.com could not confirm whether Wikileaks received the supposed 260,000 classified embassy dispatches. To date, a single classified diplomatic cable has appeared on the site: released last February, it describes a U.S. embassy meeting with the government of Iceland. E-mail and a voice mail message left for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on Sunday were not answered by the time this article was published.

The State Department said it was not aware of the arrest or the allegedly leaked cables. The FBI was not prepared to comment when asked about Manning ....

More on link

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from NPR:

Pvt. Bradley E. Manning, who was arrested in May, has been charged with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 92 ("failure to obey order or regulation") and 134 ("general article"), for his alleged involvement with WikiLeaks, "a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public."

The U.S. military alleges he leaked tens of thousands of State Department cables and two sensitive videos.

Manning, who was based at Contingency Operating Station Hammer, in Iraq, is charged with:

    ...wrongfully introducing a classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007, onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system.

    ...wrongfully introducing more than 50 classified United States Department of State cables onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system.

    ...wrongfully introducing a classified Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system.

    ...wrongfully adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer.

(....)

Full charge sheet here (Scribd.com).

 

[HavokFour]

Pentagon Eyes Accused Analyst Over WikiLeaks Data​

WASHINGTON—Military investigators are checking computers used by Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst charged this month with leaking classified information, to see if he is the source of thousands of military documents published Sunday by WikiLeaks.

The material released by WikiLeaks relates entirely to the war in Afghanistan, while Pfc. Manning was stationed in Iraq. But investigators are trying to determine what material he was able to get access to and what material he transferred.

Read more...