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

[GAP]

A lot of assumptions going on here....

It looks like a CasEvac in retrospec, but did it at the time and with the history of insurgents being helped clean up ambush sites by their buds in the past. We're talking literally seconds to make a decision, and one was made.

Internet warriors aside, unless you were there, it's all gobsmack!

 

[SeanNewman]

...but go ahead and get the last word in anyway.

Yes actually I will, it's very important for me to go down on record to state that I am against violations of the Law of Armed Conflict so I can use it as part of my defence at Nuremburg when all you guys are getting strung up.

 

[vonGarvin]

I love to read folks making  "justified" decisions about other peoples live-threatening situations while they are sitting naked in front of a screen eating a bowl of cereal.........

Oh, great.  The recent upgrade includes Spy Satellites on Army.ca members now?

And for the record, I'm not nude.  I am wearing socks, after all  >

 

[wannabe SF member]

Below is the official report. It includes film shot by the "journalists" and weapons the bad guys had been armed with.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA

Thanks T6, that report sheds a lot of light on the story.

 

[vonGarvin]

t6: the site has been deemed "NSFW" by The Man.  I'll have a look at it later.

 

[tomahawk6]

Here is the direct link to the CENTCOM FOIA from the FOIA Reading Room.

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View=%7b41BA1AAF%2d785A%2d481A%2dA630%2d12470AFCD6FD%7d

 

[vonGarvin]

Thanks


Edit to add: my stupid computer won't let me in.  It freezes up. I have stuff to finish at work, then I'll look later, but thanks again!

 

[brihard]

I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if this issue was addressed...however:
If you were driving your van (with children inside, apparently) around a dangerous city and you just witnessed a bunch of people being lit up silently, would you just drive there and start putting bodies in your van?
I wouldn't. Common sense would dictate something just went down and the area is (still) dangerous.
That being said, what is it with this conception that if you shoot someone, and they're dying, that you are not allowed to shoot them again if they are 'escaping'?
As far as I know ( I know little), if you are armed or attempting to flee, you are grounds for termination.
Those guys were clearly together and they were not marked as being medical (neither them nor the van) so they were open season.
In that video, it doesn't seem that all the members of the first group are armed, but by proxy, they are a threat.
Second group trying to aide the first? They are a threat.
Regardless of how the pilots spoke (cause none of us speak like that on a daily basis or anything, right?) I think they did nothing wrong.
That's my 2 cents.

Noted.

As an aspirant leader of men in this military, would you care to elaborate for me under what circumstances the engagement of unarmed individuals performing a CASEVAC on an injured, unarmed man are legally justified, with reference to applicable laws and treaties? There is no reverse onus on lethal force. You must be able to demonstrate that it was justified when asked; otherwise you're sunk.

Regarding 'just driving up and putting bodies in the van'- how far can you drive in three and a half minutes? Because that's roughly how much time elapsed between the cessation of the initial engagement and the van arriving on scene. It's entirely plausible that the individuals arrived on scene coincidentally - it did occur on a public thoroughfare, after all- saw an injured man, signs of a clear recent fight, and decided to pick up the single evident wounded man and get him the hell out of there. None of that strikes me as particularly anomalous.

At no point after the arrival of the van was any individual identified holding or handling a weapon. At no point did the men from the van perform any actions that would violate conventional protections of medical responders. As no point was there any positive indication that they were doing anything wrong. The apache reported back - and this is clear in the transcript -

Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.

We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.

An impression was conveyed that the van was involved in picking up weapons and bodies, and this was not the case. They were picking up the (sole?) remaining wounded individual who showed signs of life.

That being said, what is it with this conception that if you shoot someone, and they're dying, that you are not allowed to shoot them again if they are 'escaping'?

Which is he? Dying or escaping? The two appear to me to be contradictory. In any case, he was not 'escaping', he was being evacuated and tended to by civilians. Consequently, article 18 of the first Geneva convention would appear to be applicable. Google it. Article 12 of the same convention is important too. The whole 'no killing unarmed wounded' thing.

Those guys were clearly together and they were not marked as being medical (neither them nor the van) so they were open season.

They were not 'clearly together'. And no, they were not marked as medical, but you'd best be careful declaring 'open season' on civilians. With respect, you have a lot to learn.

 

[vonGarvin]

At no point after the arrival of the van was any individual identified holding or handling a weapon. At no point did the men from the van perform any actions that would violate conventional protections of medical responders. As no point was there any positive indication that they were doing anything wrong. The apache reported back - and this is clear in the transcript -

An impression was conveyed that the van was involved in picking up weapons and bodies, and this was not the case. They were picking up the (sole?) remaining wounded individual who showed signs of life.

I take it that you were there?  Or that you saw what they saw from the other chopper?  I agree that from this video it appeared that they were NOT picking up weapons.  But that was one camera, one angle.  I would certainly not condemn these pilots for shooting.  For all we know, bongos arriving on scene to police up the area was a known insurgent SOP, not to render medical aid, but to conduct a recovery mission.  I don't know either.  But I am certainly not going to say things such as "at no point did the men from the van perform any actions that would violate conventional protections of medical responders."  I will instead err on the side of the US Army (as a whole) who would prosecute these pilots if they were suspected of war crimes. 

I will not bend over to wikileaks and their slanted "objective" coverage of things, until maybe they post a video of Michelle Lang getting blown up, and dedicating that video to the members of her family.

 

[SeanNewman]

And it goes back to the original point that most have been making about not being there = not having all the facts.

The core concern I have is not that the pilots are/are not guilty of anything, but that they will likely need to be prepared to justify why they felt they or ground forces were threatened by the "CasEvac" engagement.

That's what juries are for; anything on this board is just 30mm opinion.

 

[Loachman]

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.

There may have been questions asked once the video became public, but there is nothing out of the ordinary in the video itself.

 

[SeanNewman]

... and based upon personal experience,...

The personal examples I have seen involved a commander who went out of his way to ensure that every strike was justified and inside the rules of lawful combat. 

You might get it right 19/20 times, but that one time you get it wrong will create 10x more enemies for you in the long run than you killed correctly the other 95%.

I'm all for using every asset to protect our troops, but that doesn't mean we can indiscriminately shoot at everything we feel like and claim that it's "nothing out of the ordinary".

 

[Loachman]

And what was indiscriminate?

I saw no indication, based upon the video, that anything failed the same taste test that applied to us. I was extremely thorough in my work in theatre, by the way, and have not the slightest doubt about any of the decisions that I made.

Also, as has been pointed out, this video is one but one isolated record of that engagement. Without those other records, there is no context.

Your "10x" factor is rectally extracted, and fails to take into account those who might be dissuaded from helping insurgents in future.

I am glad that you are not in a position to influence tactical decision-making.

 

[SeanNewman]

Of course the 10x figure is a guesstimate. 

How can you possibly gauge a percentage of how you would feel if someone killed your father or wife if you knew they weren't involved in any wrong doing?

How can you measure how you would feel if someone drove an armoured convoy through your field if those crops were your livelihood?

Lastly, you do not know me personally so you are in mo position to judge what kind of decision maker I am anymore than I know or don't know about you. 

If you would rather a tactical commander shoot first and ask questions later in every tactical decision they are faced with then fill your boots.

 

[bdave]

I will begin by saying that there is much I do not know and sometimes I play devil's advocate so that I may learn. In this case I do believe what I say/write. I will answer to the best of my abilities.

Noted.

As an aspirant leader of men in this military, would you care to elaborate for me under what circumstances the engagement of unarmed individuals performing a CASEVAC on an injured, unarmed man are legally justified, with reference to applicable laws and treaties? There is no reverse onus on lethal force. You must be able to demonstrate that it was justified when asked; otherwise you're sunk.

The intent was to kill the man, not injure him. This man, once having recovered, would have likely returned to the battle field as a treat. What is the point of shooting someone, only to let them "respawn" (so to speak)?
They did follow the rules, which states you cannot attack an unarmed individual. I'm sure you've noticed the pilot(s) talking to themselves going "pick up a weapon, buddy".
The pilots felt that this group were (or would become) a threat. This can be done either by brandishing weapons or helping enemy combatants (regardless of whether you are armed yourself or not). This is my belief, whether this is legally correct or not I have no idea. I still haven't learned the legal matters of armed combat.
I would read up on them but I am currently in exam period and do not have much time to spare.
I will give a more satisfactory answer when I am done with my exams.

Regarding 'just driving up and putting bodies in the van'- how far can you drive in three and a half minutes? Because that's roughly how much time elapsed between the cessation of the initial engagement and the van arriving on scene. It's entirely plausible that the individuals arrived on scene coincidentally - it did occur on a public thoroughfare, after all- saw an injured man, signs of a clear recent fight, and decided to pick up the single evident wounded man and get him the hell out of there. None of that strikes me as particularly anomalous.

I wouldn't know. They may have been watching from a distance and decided to wait. Regardless, aiding an enemy combatant puts you in the same category. I see this akin to an American running around in Nazi Germany wearing a Nazi uniform and being killed by allies, or running around with ammunition boxes. There were many ways to interpret who these people were when they pulled up in a van. The pilots felt that this group were (or would become) a threat.

At no point after the arrival of the van was any individual identified holding or handling a weapon. At no point did the men from the van perform any actions that would violate conventional protections of medical responders. As no point was there any positive indication that they were doing anything wrong. The apache reported back - and this is clear in the transcript -
An impression was conveyed that the van was involved in picking up weapons and bodies, and this was not the case. They were picking up the (sole?) remaining wounded individual who showed signs of life.

Not quite. It is initially states that the van is there to POSSIBLY pick up bodies and weapons.
It is then reaffirmed that the van is there to pick up the bodies only. At no point is there a mention of "they are armed" or that they were picking up weapons.
The van is indicated as a black bongo truck.

Which is he? Dying or escaping? The two appear to me to be contradictory. In any case, he was not 'escaping', he was being evacuated and tended to by civilians. Consequently, article 18 of the first Geneva convention would appear to be applicable. Google it. Article 12 of the same convention is important too. The whole 'no killing unarmed wounded' thing.

Both. He is escaping in the sense that he is getting away. We do not know if they were civilians or not.
I interpret article 18 as only applying to hospitals and if it does apply to medical personnel, it is clearly stated that they must be marked. While it is true that unarmed combatants may not be targeted if they are incapacitated, they clearly were not aiming for him or else they would have killed him before hand.
As for the van, I have no clue. There must be something I am missing. It was clearly stated that they were unarmed and only there for the bodies. However, they were given permission to engage. All things said and done, we do not know if the van that pulls up has already been identified as belonging to enemy combatants.

They were not 'clearly together'. And no, they were not marked as medical, but you'd best be careful declaring 'open season' on civilians. With respect, you have a lot to learn.

I take it back. They weren't clearly together and I did not mean civilians are open season. I meant because they were (so I thought at the time) together AND unmarked (hence reaffirming my belief that they were "enemies") they were open season.
I do not condone in any shape or form the attacking, maiming, incapacitating or killing of any innocent civilian, bystanders and what have you.

 

[Loachman]

How can you possibly gauge a percentage of how you would feel if someone killed your father or wife if you knew they weren't involved in any wrong doing?

How can you possibly gauge a percentage of how you would feel if your son or daughter came home dead or wounded because somebody failed to engage a vehicle involved in supporting obvious insurgent activity?

Whoever was in that particular vehicle made choices, and suffered the consequences of their decisions. They were in an area of combat operations, and providing support to the opposition.

How can you measure how you would feel if someone drove an armoured convoy through your field if those crops were your livelihood?

I spent three years in Germany. I would suspect that the reactions would cover the same spectrum. We paid out a lot of Deutschemarks in those days. Some were happy, some not so much, but none of those people were trying to kill my buddies or me, so what's your point, besides distraction?

Lastly, you do not know me personally so you are in mo position to judge what kind of decision maker I am anymore than I know or don't know about you.

I've read a couple of your posts. They're a fairly good indicator.

If you would rather a tactical commander shoot first and ask questions later in every tactical decision they are faced with then fill your boots.

And I indicated a preference for that where? I would rather somebody in possession of all of the information (which none of us here are, including you) available made the best decision after weighing the facts as known, not leap off to unsupportable conclusions.

I actually stopped more engagements than I participated in, but in each and every case I had far more information available than you have regarding this one, and unlike you I will not judge this engagement as right or wrong.

And despite your earlier (and, indubitably, future) protestations to the contrary, you are implying that this was a flawed and indiscrimate engagement despite no evidence of that.

 

[SeanNewman]

Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to reward the pilot or justify his actions.

If I am the only one marching out of step here on this thread then I can more than live with myself for that.

Bad people planting an IED deserve to die according to the rules of war.  Nothing I have seen demonstrates the CasEvac people were any threat, other than the pilots themselves saying they were.

Anyone who defends violations against the Laws of Armed Conflict does not deserve to wear the uniform nor represent the actions of Canada.

If you can look at that video and not see anything wrong going on, you have severely distorted views of what is expected of you in the profession of arms.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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?

 

[Fusaki]

If you can look at that video and not see anything wrong going on, you have severely distorted views of what is expected of you in the profession of arms.

I think you have a distorted view of counter-insurgency.

It's one thing to light up a ambulance with a big red cross painted on the roof.  It's quite another to light up an unmarked van that drives into an ongoing firefight to rescue wounded insurgents.  I don't see anything morally or tactically wrong with anything in that video.

 

[1feral1]

Speaking from experience, I'd bet a month's deployment pay that inside that van was wpns and related material for their cause, and those involved in the operation of said vehicle were insurgents. Thats just how they operated then, and I am sure even now.

Even today bombs killed 35 in the city, the violence, and the internal hatred they have for each other is alive and well.

I would have no problems engaging the van.

Regards,

OWDU