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

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and just the fact that a boatload of experienced, and inexperienced, people cannot come to a conclusion then I will always side with those 'in the show', ...........and not the naked cereal eaters.

 

[armyvern]

Every war movie/ documentary I've ever seen [which is the extent of my experience under fire] seems to have casualties being pulled out while taking fire......

I am far out of date but don't "CasEvac people" need to be so marked?

That's what I thought.

Usually too, in war zones (and that is what we're speaking of here), don't members of the press clearly mark their vehicles as "PRESS" and wear vests or other outer clothing that is marked with the word "PRESS" making them clearly identifiable and visable as a non-combattent? You'd think that that would be SOP --- especially in areas of non-conventional warfare where the insurgents like to dress like the civilian populace in order to easily blend in. One would think that there would be high interest in clearly indicating that one was not "involved in the fighting" especially when 'hanging about' (ie in a group circle) in such a zone with pers who are clearly porting their arms.

 

[SeanNewman]

... I will always side with those 'in the show'....

I grant you that most of the time people "in the show" usually do the right thing, but they also commit war crimes like Auschwitz, My Lai, Abu Gharib, and Somalia as well.

It is one thing to give them the benefit of the doubt if there is just a situation in question (like the example of the ANP guy holding an RPG on a rooftop where of course that soldier would be justified), and another altogether to just blindly assume everything a soldier does overseas must be right.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well, this spiral has just about hit the bottom of the regurgitated matter drain.

Time to sum up folks.

Tic, toc, tic..........

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[George Wallace]

I grant you that most of the time people "in the show" usually do the right thing, but they also commit war crimes like Auschwitz, My Lai, Abu Gharib, and Somalia as well.

It is one thing to give them the benefit of the doubt if there is just a situation in question (like the example of the ANP guy holding an RPG on a rooftop where of course that soldier would be justified), and another altogether to just blindly assume everything a soldier does overseas must be right.

Why don't you just drop it.  You are rambling all over the grid.  Everyone seems to be countering your diatribes with; may I quote you?......"It is one thing to give them the benefit of the doubt if there is just a situation in question."  Seems to me that this is exactly what everyone is telling you.  Take the blinders off and put yourself on Receive for a change.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm only going to sum up by stating that ONE video from ONE Helicopter does not show the whole picture.  One does not see the context in which the combat was taking place (eg: was that an insurgent SOP?  Do US rules of engagement allow to engage in this situation?)

As an entity, the US Army is pretty good at policing itself.  Not perfect, but pretty good.  I'm fairly certain that the entire engagement was given a complete AAR, and that this video only shows but one side of the story.  A very select, myopic view of the story.  Yes, it's gruesome when people get shot with 30mm.  War is, as I have stated, a failure in humanity, and in its essense, people die horrible ways.  My great uncle was gassed in 1918, and died on 29 November 1920 from those wounds.  Two years.  These fellas were shot to pieces, and I totally admit, having seen this myself, it's not very pleasant.  And let us not forget that they tracked dude, not engaging him, saying words to the effect of "if he goes for a weapon" or something like that.  If they had murderous intent, they would not have hesitated to fire on him at that time.


And I state all this, not nude and eating cereal, but still warm, comfortable, etc.  I agree that situations such as this must go under the microscope, lest we become like our enemy, but we are not the judges, all sanctimonious.  Yes, the press is having a field day with this because of the latent Anti-US theme out there, but as with anything you see, don't judge a book by its cover.  There is definitely more to the story.

Now, in memory of Michelle Lang, who lost her life while riding with combatants in a war zone, I say to wikileak: where is your outrage over HER death?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Lad, that's why the concenus around here is you're a putz of the highest order. You snip out a fraction of a post and run with it like a 5 year old with scissors.....

I will always side with those 'in the show'

Someone with some ethics might put the first part of my post in with it.

..and just the fact that a boatload of experienced, and inexperienced, people cannot come to a conclusion then

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All done. 

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Tomahawk 6 will be along shortly with new info. Reopened.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[SeanNewman]

Could you please post a link to the new info?

I scanned the news websites and didn't see anything on their front pages.

Thank you.

 

[tomahawk6]

Wikileak cut 20 minutes of video from their "official" video so that they could make a political point.

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/2--Sworn%20Statements%20.pdf

What was on the video? Here's a key bit from a sworn statement about that days firefights which might shed some light:

While team was providing security for H26 at the first engagement area H26 informed the team that they were recieving small arms fire from the S/SW and wanted to team to recon the area for AIF. CZ18 then located 5xAIF with AK-47's and 1xRPG. Team was given clearance to engage by H26. I then observed a child and some other noncombatants in the vicinity of the AIF so decided to hold off on the engagement until the non-combatants were clear. After the non-combatants were clear CZ18 the engaged the AIF with 20x30mm. There were 2 possible WIA and I observed the individuals run into a large multistory building. The team then searched the area for more AIF. CZ19 reported a red SUV that has possible AIF in it and team followed and observed the vehicle but could not get PID on any weapons. The team then returned to the engage

ment area.
This is not shown on the video, but the next segment in the statement is where the video seems to picks up -- the engagement of Mahdi Army terrorists holed up in a building with 3 hellfire missiles:
Upon arrivai I observed building was a 4 story building that looked abandoned and half finished and possibly still under construction. We then asked H26 for clearance to engage the building with hellfire missiles. H26 granted the team clearance to fire. The team proceeded to engage the building with 3 hellfire missiles. CZ18 fired 1xK2 and 1xN missiles. CZ19 fired 1xN missile. There were approximately 10 AIF KIA during this engagement. Team then did BHO with CZ03/04 because the team needed to refuel at the FARP.
When children were observed near AIF (anti-Iraqi Forces) they chose to hold fire --> Not shown on video.

A vehicle that might have carried AIF in it was not fired on --> Not shown on video.

Mudville Gazette has a good post on this topic. The children that were wounded by the Apache were rushed to a US hospital for treatment.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/033539.html

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/images/actualvan.jpg

 

[UoTJustin]

"At a news conference at the National Press Club, WikiLeaks said it had acquired the video from whistle-blowers in the military and viewed it after breaking the encryption code. WikiLeaks released the full video as well as a 17-minute edited version.

On the day of the attack, United States military officials said that the helicopters had been called in to help American troops who had been exposed to small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades in a raid."

17 min version  - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0


Source NYT

It seemed like a pretty important news story and the unedited video is 40 mins long. The question posed by it is, should they have engaged? (We can only speculate about the extenuating circumstances but prima facie was it the right thing to do given cost/benefit?)

Is this kind of engagement necessary as a part of a winning strategy? or does it hurt a counter-insurgency to carry out risky attacks like this with possible heavy civilian casualties?

I welcome everyone's answers. Thanks.

 

[1feral1]

Mate there is already a dirty great big thread on this matter.......

Regards,

OWDU

 

[Fusaki]

Right here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/92953.0.html

 

[UoTJustin]

My mistake. Can a mod delete this thread please?

 

[SigO]

Lets see wasnt it Hizbollah that first used ambulances to ferry weapons and men about in Lebanon and I would suspect the same happened in Iraq. Thats a violation of the Geneva convention. So is fighting without uniforms. Killing prisoners is also a violation. Blowing up civilians is a violation of the Geneva Convention. When I grew up I was taught personal responsibility and I will bet everyone else here at army.ca was as well. You drive a van into a battle you risk getting killed. Ignore a checkpoint and you run the risk of getting killed. All this is in the context that a US convoy was being engaged by insurgents a short distance from this location. One of these days we will have munitions that can distinguish bad guys from civilians. Until then if you are going to play with fire dont cry when you get burnt.

The mis-use of ambulances by one group is no license to negate our responsibilities as soldiers under the Geneva Convention (which you quote, so I assume some level of familiarity with the document).  To agree whole-heartedly with others in this thread, the first engagement can certainly be defended, but engaging those rendering aid, whether to an ally or an enemy, certainly contravenes our obligations under the LOAC and the Geneva Convention (particularly Article 12), as those individuals had been neutralized and were no longer posing a threat (hors de combat).

I definitely agree that associating with insurgents is a dangerous business, and that those reporters were certainly aware of the risks involved with that affiliation.  That said, I think we have a professional responsibility to be critical of obvious breaches of the LOAC, and there are certainly a number of things that fall into that category here.  Mistakes happen in the fog of war, but if we dismiss them outright, we miss a valuable introspective opportunity to evaluate our procedures and minimize collateral damage in the future. 

I think it's also important to address the issue of balanced coverage.  It's unfair to cast a journalist that embeds with an insurgent force as a sympathizer, as journalists have an obligation to provide balanced coverage.  If they embed only with friendly forces, or accept military news releases without question, they are not doing their duty.  While I don't believe that we intentionally hide information from reporters, nor do I think the insurgents are right, I cannot fault a journalist for getting both sides of a story, and doing so should in no way make the journalist a target.  It should be up to the consumer of the news to decide who they feel is right, based on balanced coverage available in all forms of media.

My humble opinion, for your consideration.

 

[SigO]

Under the circumstances as depicted, and based upon personal experience, I do not believe that they would have to justify any of their actions in that engagement.

I would be surprised if anybody in their chain of command would have sought justification from them, or from anyone in any of the higher HQs viewing their video feed during the engagement, as a result of the engagement itself.

Interesting.  Regardless of the results of whatever inquiry into this event was conducted, I believe that we have a professional responsibility to at least investigate.  If this were a Canadian incident there is no doubt that the chain of command would ask questions (as they do in all such cases). 

We do investigations as the chain of command for a number of reasons:  1) to ensure we seize opportunities to improve TTPs; 2) to ensure that, should something like this become public, we can seize the initiative and situate the estimate with regards to public opinion; and 3) to ensure that no breaches of international law go unpunished.

When we try and sweep critical incidents like this under the rug, we risk not only the injury of the incident itself, but also the subsequent negative optics in the court of public opinion where such actions may be viewed as a cover-up. 

To say that questions should not be asked, or justification not sought, is to abandon the core of what it is to be a member of the Profession of Arms.  All loyalty to my colleagues who work at the "Pointy End," but our military Ethos places a great deal of responsibility on those who make life and death decisions, regardless of whether the object of those decisions is enemy, friendly or civilian.

 

[Loachman]

The mis-use of ambulances by one group is no license to negate our responsibilities as soldiers under the Geneva Convention (which you quote, so I assume some level of familiarity with the document).  To agree whole-heartedly with others in this thread, the first engagement can certainly be defended, but engaging those rendering aid, whether to an ally or an enemy, certainly contravenes our obligations under the LOAC and the Geneva Convention (particularly Article 12), as those individuals had been neutralized and were no longer posing a threat (hors de combat).

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.

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.

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

That said, I think we have a professional responsibility to be critical of obvious breaches of the LOAC, and there are certainly a number of things that fall into that category here.

What "obvious breaches of the LOAC"?

If there were any, somebody would have acted upon them. It's not like this video feed was only seen by one or two people. It typically goes to several headquarters, is analysed by intelligence personnel at a couple of levels, and reports, including pertinent imagery, go up. Everybody who saw it could have raised doubts if they had any. I would suggest that they had far better knowledge of their ROEs than you have, far more experience of patterns of enemy activity in their area, and far more knowledge of what was going during the engagements in question.

Mistakes happen in the fog of war, but if we dismiss them outright, we miss a valuable introspective opportunity to evaluate our procedures and minimize collateral damage in the future.

The insurgents should definitely do that. They might, then, decide not to take their kids to work.

and doing so should in no way make the journalist a target.

They weren't specifically targetted. They were hanging about with people who were. That sucks for them, but it was not the fault of the AH64 crew.

Interesting.  Regardless of the results of whatever inquiry into this event was conducted, I believe that we have a professional responsibility to at least investigate.

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

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

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.

The AH64 has thermal imagery, not X-ray vision.

If this were a Canadian incident there is no doubt that the chain of command would ask questions (as they do in all such cases).

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

We do investigations as the chain of command for a number of reasons:  1) to ensure we seize opportunities to improve TTPs; 2) to ensure that, should something like this become public, we can seize the initiative and situate the estimate with regards to public opinion; and 3) to ensure that no breaches of international law go unpunished.

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?

There is enough review of these feeds as they are received and afterwards as it is. There are on-site analyses for intelligence and related purposes afterwards, where possible.

When we try and sweep critical incidents like this under the rug, we risk not only the injury of the incident itself, but also the subsequent negative optics in the court of public opinion where such actions may be viewed as a cover-up.

Who swept this under what rug?

our military Ethos places a great deal of responsibility on those who make life and death decisions, regardless of whether the object of those decisions is enemy, friendly or civilian.

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

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

 

[SeanNewman]

Not going to answer to the entire post, but I believe the LOAC violations he is speaking of are specifically the parts entailing combatants vs lawful combatants, and what is or is not a legitimate enemy target.

Both of which have already been covered in the last few pages.

Nobody says the vehicle is an ambulance and deserves special status, the primary question arises if whether or not two guys carrying someone away, presumably to provide care, is a legitimate legal target.

People have defended the pilot because he said he saw guns and that we do not have the entire context, which have merit.

People have defended that they were guilty by association, and that it's stupid to not shoot an insurgent who can get better to fight you again, both of which do not have merit and there are specific rules against shooting people using that as your defence.

 

[brihard]

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.

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.

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

A civilian van with no apparent weaponry either mounted or displayed by its occupants is manifestly different from a LAV with its various obvious weapons and military nature. I do not believe your analogy holds any water. An armoured fighting vehicle is clearly a military target, adn is manifestly different from what appears to be a Toyota van.

I believe that article 18 of the 1st Geneva convention remains in effect, protecting the role of civilians in rendering aid to any and all wounded regardless of nationality or legal status. Further, I do not believe it appropriate or sound - legally or strategically - to assume that any unmarked vehicle involved in rendering medial aid to an enemy is a military threat. I think the onus remains on coalition forces to justify a civilian target as a legitimate threat, and not on any other party to demonstrate that such a vehicle or target was not a threat. If we are now demanding the civilians in the battlespace prove they are not a threat, as opposed to assuming they're not until they give us reason to believe they are, we are treading dangerous ground, legally, ethically, morally and strategically.