Rangerland Forum Information

[Rocha]

WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

Thought this would be an interesting topic. I'm sure there will be extreme reactions of both condemnation and defense, but I don't come away from this with either. I certainly don't think these soldiers are without blame and should be reviewed and maybe dismissed or relocated, but I also think the situation is as much to blame as the soldiers. What you likely have are paranoid, overworked, under-trained kids who think their lives might be in danger. I don't think that excuses their itchy trigger fingers and cavalier attitude, though. But again, both of those are probably more a product of their training than anything else.

This is, of course, assuming this video is presented accurately. The people who made this video obviously have an opinion on the incident, but if the video is unaltered, it is what it is.

I also thought this was worth a post to get a glimpse of what real war looks like rather than those neato laser-guided bombs we see on TV or un-violent shots of troops playing cards in their barracks.

[Andy from the LE...]

Sometimes I think it should be a rule of war that you have to see somebody up close and get to know him before you can shoot him. ~M*A*S*H, Colonel Potter

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953

[ultimate steve]

im going to file this under "shit happens." is it unfortunate if they were civilians? yes of course, but they are also living in a fucking warzone.

[TheAnaconda]

What disturbs me more than the actual footage, is the reactions of some of the soldiers. Specifically the ones laughing and cracking jokes and going "come on, come on" while waiting for the ok to shoot the van. It sounded like my friends and I playing Call of Duty. But I guess that kind of dehumanization can be expected when your flying silently above the people and shooting them on a TV screen.

[Kusand]

but they are also living in a fucking warzone.

You know, I'd buy this if you said "they live in a flood plain/tornado alley/fault line," but I don't think living in a war zone was their original plan.

"Sweetie, I know, occasionally heavily armed men fly in and shoot at other armed men. But the school district is supposed to be top notch!"

[xcheck24]

The AP confirmed the video is authentic from an anonymous source in the defense department.



And the times confirmed it's authenticity too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/mi...baghdad.html?hp

[gkrangers]

Hopefully nobody I know was behind the trigger.

This post has been edited by gkrangers: Apr 6 2010, 09:37 AM

[Rhino]

I agree about the dehumanization element, but I also think the author of the video is being a bit disingenuous, either by accident or design. The 'civilians' that got shot appeared very much to be setting up an ambush. (Presumably against the 'element' of Bradley (APCs?) coming down the road. Is it outside the realm of possibility that the reporters were traveling with a band of insurgents to see their side of the war? Especially considering Reuters is not an American news agency. As for the children wounded in the van, they would have been clearly visible in the front seat from ground level (though probably not so well from the air). To me that smacks of cover/camoflauge for the group. Do I wish that engagement (and probably a hundred more that we don't know about) had not played out that way? Certainly. I acknowledge there may have been overreaction by the American troops and the eagerness to kill these people demonstrates a conditioning and detachment from normal behavior that is frankly frightening, but that is how they are trained. I fear for their assimilation back into society when their tour is done.

I guess my point is that this situation is not nearly so black and white (no pun intended) as it has been painted and way more gray than is being acknowledged (by either side.) The sad reality is that the 'rules' of war are probably blurrier now than at any point before and there may be no good way to handle this type of scenario.

[The Great Dane]

im going to file this under "shit happens." is it unfortunate if they were civilians? yes of course, but they are also living in a fucking warzone.

Yeah, fuck 'em. Fuck them for having a dictator like Saddam and forcing us to invade.

Do you think the soldiers' actions can be excused to the point of not prosecuting them?

[Beamer]

The "come on, come on" didn't seem abnormal. They thought these guys were picking up insurgents and weapons, ie thought that if they didn't get these guys they'd eventually kill Americans. Of course they were in a hurry to get clearance to shoot before they got away.

The flaw here was misidentifiying cameras as weapons and civilians as targets. An enormous flaw, but it wasn't due to callousness. You couldn't see clearly that they were cameras. You certainly couldn't tell there were children in that van.
I only watched half, though. My computer is basically dead and doesn't even buffer properly anymore...

[Beamer]

Oh, wait, apparently they comment on the kids?

That changes a lot.

[Rhino]

Oh, wait, apparently they comment on the kids?

That changes a lot.

They commented on the kids while mopping up. They wanted to send them to to a US base for medical treatment but were denied permission from higher up. Somebody said, basically, "well that's a shame but that's what happens when you bring your kids to a battle."

[jmnyr14]

it's way too easy to sit here, safely on our asses, and judge what goes on in this video and what goes on in this war in general. but those men have volunteered their lives for this country and for me to sit and judge them based on this video does them all a disservice because NONE of us have a clue what the context of this video is. we don't know what information they had on that specific location. we don't know what their commanding officers have told them about this specific mission. we don't know what it's like to be there and be faced with the possibility of death every second of every day. we don't know how they've been trained and how that's affected their psychology towards the "enemy." we don't know jack shit, i'm sorry, that's just my opinion on it.

[leetchie69]

it's way too easy to sit here, safely on our asses, and judge what goes on in this video and what goes on in this war in general. but those men have volunteered their lives for this country and for me to sit and judge them based on this video does them all a disservice because NONE of us have a clue what the context of this video is. we don't know what information they had on that specific location. we don't know what their commanding officers have told them about this specific mission. we don't know what it's like to be there and be faced with the possibility of death every second of every day. we don't know how they've been trained and how that's affected their psychology towards the "enemy." we don't know jack shit, i'm sorry, that's just my opinion on it.

Still does not make it right.

[jmnyr14]

Still does not make it right.

The point I was trying to make is that we don't have the right to label any of their decisions as right or wrong because that would require an ability to place ourselves in their shoes which is unfathomable. Yes, it's not right for innocent civilians to die. But, it's not right for us to judge those men for doing it, in my opinion. This is war people, not a game of checkers. Sometimes things go wrong. I'm sure this isn't the only time something horrible has happened in the midst of a war. And that's not to say that I don't care that civilians died, because that (if it's accurate) is awful. But, those men were doing what they thought at that moment was the right thing to do. I am incapable of judging their decisions, because I haven't the slightest clue what it's like to be in that situation and be forced to make those decisions. I say, if you are brave enough to volunteer, and you're forced to make these decisions, sometimes you'll make the right decisions and sometimes you'll make the wrong decisions. How dare I condemn those men when they make a wrong decision, when I am not even man enough to make them in the first place.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

The point I was trying to make is that we don't have the right to label any of their decisions as right or wrong because that would require an ability to place ourselves in their shoes which is unfathomable.

While I do realize what your point is, and I did read your whole post, you do realize that this means you take serious issues with our current legal system, at least as far as juries are concerned.

By your very logic that you laid out, lets say we have a juror who is an 18 year old male who is very wealthy and very well off and is still living under the protection of their parents. Then we have say a 35 year old, homeless and poor mother of a 2 year old child who is homeless and while getting into an altercation at a grocery store accidentally injures a patron while getting caught trying to steal some food for her child.

In this scenario, the 18 year old has no right to pass judgement on the woman because it is virtually impossible for that 18 year old to be put into that womans shoes?

This post has been edited by SorryaboutthatWhoa: Apr 6 2010, 01:52 PM

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

And NO, I'm am NOT comparing soldiers to homeless mothers, I'm using it as an example to better understand your thought process.

[ideserveabeer]

While I do realize what your point is, and I did read your whole post, you do realize that this means you take serious issues with our current legal system, at least as far as juries are concerned.

By your very logic that you laid out, lets say we have a juror who is an 18 year old male who is very wealthy and very well off and is still living under the protection of their parents. Then we have say a 35 year old, homeless and poor mother of a 2 year old child who is homeless and while getting into an altercation at a grocery store accidentally injures a patron while getting caught trying to steal some food for her child.

In this scenario, the 18 year old has no right to pass judgement on the woman because it is virtually impossible for that 18 year old to be put into that womans shoes?

I see where you are going with that but nothing that happens in a warzone is comparable to anything we can experience in real life.

[jmnyr14]

By your very logic that you laid out, lets say we have a juror who is an 18 year old male who is very wealthy and very well off and is still living under the protection of their parents. Then we have say a 35 year old, homeless and poor mother of a 2 year old child who is homeless and while getting into an altercation at a grocery store accidentally injures a patron while getting caught trying to steal some food for her child.

In this scenario, the 18 year old has no right to pass judgement on the woman because it is virtually impossible for that 18 year old to be put into that womans shoes?

I'm thinking you disagree with what I said, so you created a new example to better demonstrate your disagreement. That's fine, I totally understand that. Especially with topics like these, people are going to disagree. BUT, homeless and poor mother of 2 still has to abide by the governing laws of the state, which an 18 year old male is capable of determining. Soldier overseas, serving our country defending our freedom, volunteering their lives... you get where i'm going. We can't just judge them based on the governing laws of the state, we can't just look to a law and judge wether or not this person is guilty. If you disagree, I am 100% fine with that, but this example here really isn't doing much for me.

18 year old juror "judging" a homeless mother of 2's attempt at shop lifting leading to an altercation at a grocery store is one thing. Young to middle aged Rangers blogger "judging" a soldier's actions overseas mid-fucking-battle. These two things are just drastically different man.

[ideserveabeer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0040600750.html

This guy was there that day.

Some quick highlights:

More context -- you're seeing an edited version of the video. The full video runs much longer. And it doesn't have the benefit of hindsight, in this case zoom,ing in on the van and seeing those two children. The helicopters were perhaps a mile away. And as all of this unfolded, it was unclear to the soldiers involved whether the van was a van of good samaritans or of insurgents showing up to rescue a wounded comrade. I bring these things up not to excuse the soldiers but to emphasize some of the real-time blurriness of those moments.


It's certainly difficult to hear the conversation that went on. On the other hand, I remain in touch with many of the soldiers from that battalion, including one who picked up and held one of the wounded children, and he has been having a difficult time ever since he made the discovery. I won' go into details without his permission, but I can assure you that in his case he is haunted.

What's helpful to understand is that, contrary to some interpretations that this was an attack on some people walking down the street on a nice day, the day was anyting but that. It happened in the midst of a large operation to clear an area where US soldiers had been getting shot at, injured, and killed with increasing frequency. What the Reuters guys walked into was the very worst part, where the morning had been a series of RPG attacks and running gun battles.

And a comment from MN:

The transcript seems to capture American troops at their worst -- they seem heartless, cruel. And yet one can't help but also notice the men on the ground sprinting with the bodies of the children, racing to get them to a hospital.

This post has been edited by ideserveabeer: Apr 6 2010, 02:34 PM

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

I've gotta be honest, I'm not even sure where I stand on the video, I don't have enough info to judge.

What I take issue with is the idea that we are not allowed to judge or criticize soldiers simply because we are not or have not been a soldier ourselves.

The military is an extension of our government. We live in America and one of the things this country is based on is the fact that we have the right to question our government and how it does things.

The actions the military takes are a direct reflection of the politicians who we vote for, and come election time ends up being part of our decision making process.

No one ever says that we can't judge presidential candidates on their decisions because we've never had to sit in the oval office and get that phone call. To the same extent no one forced any political figure into those positions either, they volunteered to be political figures, and then ran in elections asking people to vote them in.

It's completley voluntary, as is the military. I think civilians are completely justified in watching this video and forming an opinion.

The thought of a society that blindly allows it's military to do whatever it wants without critique or input is a very scary world IMO.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

Also, my initial reaction to the video, and I still feel this way, it certainly seemed to me like something fishy was going on on the ground.

So take that for what it's worth. I'm not condemning the soldiers, I just don't think it's right to say that anyone who isn't a soldier really can't pass judgement because they aren't soldiers.

That line of thought goes against everything those soldiers are fighting for in the first place.

[ideserveabeer]

I've gotta be honest, I'm not even sure where I stand on the video, I don't have enough info to judge.

What I take issue with is the idea that we are not allowed to judge or criticize soldiers simply because we are not or have not been a soldier ourselves.

The military is an extension of our government. We live in America and one of the things this country is based on is the fact that we have the right to question our government and how it does things.

The actions the military takes are a direct reflection of the politicians who we vote for, and come election time ends up being part of our decision making process.

No one ever says that we can't judge presidential candidates on their decisions because we've never had to sit in the oval office and get that phone call. To the same extent no one forced any political figure into those positions either, they volunteered to be political figures, and then ran in elections asking people to vote them in.

It's completley voluntary, as is the military. I think civilians are completely justified in watching this video and forming an opinion.

The thought of a society that blindly allows it's military to do whatever it wants without critique or input is a very scary world IMO.

You question the government, you question the military, the Generals, the guys making the decisions 20 miles away. But for the soldiers in the heat of the moment, life and death, I can't pass judgement on them. And read that link I posted above, that guy was there that day.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to go off on a rant, and this isn't actually aimed directly at jmnyr, but I've hard these kinds of arguments before and they've always bothered me.

Every time I hear arguments like this it reminds me of Nixons famous "I'm saying when the president does it, it's not illegal." line.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

You question the government, you question the military, the Generals, the guys making the decisions 20 miles away. But for the soldiers in the heat of the moment, life and death, I can't pass judgement on them. And read that link I posted above, that guy was there that day.

Read my post that came after the one you quoted.

[jmnyr14]

You question the government, you question the military, the Generals, the guys making the decisions 20 miles away. But for the soldiers in the heat of the moment, life and death, I can't pass judgement on them.

this.

[ideserveabeer]

Read my post that came after the one you quoted.

I did. And I don't think you're saying anything wrong or whatever, it's your opinion. But as I said, I can't blame the guys who are in the firefight. That was a known hostile area. Now I can' defend their comments about "it's their fault..." but as that guy said from Minnesota, the other end of that is the American soldier carrying those children off to get help. Not only carrying, but running off with them. People are quick to point out the bad in people, in Americans, and ignore the good stuff. Was that soldier just doing his job? Sure. But he easily could have picked the kid up, slung him over his shoulder and walked over to safety. And if he did, he'd be all over the internet as an ugly American.

And if I'm in that chopper and they tell me to fire, I'm firing.

This post has been edited by ideserveabeer: Apr 6 2010, 02:52 PM

[jmnyr14]

ideserveabeer, you are typing exactly what i'm thinking, just ten thousand times clearer and better.

[Giac]

The thought of a society that blindly allows it's military to do whatever it wants without critique or input is a very scary world IMO.

No one is talking about letting the military "blindly do what it wants." Our military is specifically set up to keep that from happening, because the military isn't autonomous, but rather takes its marching orders from our civilian leadership.

WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

This first sentence of the video description told me all I needed to know about the organization which put the video out and their opinion on the matter.

It's a shame the Reuters reporters were killed, but they're in a war zone, not at a cotillion, fercryin'outloud. The military makes a very concerted effort to embed the news media with our units to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and we don't keep them from going where the actions is -- far from it. But if they're embedded with our units, we can make a concerted effort to provide for their safety while they're out there. If the reporters opt not to go that route, and are out there on their own ("off the reservation," so to speak), the military cannot be held responsible for what happens to them in what amounts to a battleground.

It's also a shame that civilians were killed, but given the soliders orders and what they knew of the situation at the time it occured, passing judgment on their actions in hindsight is unfair, in my opinion; not because we can't know what it's like unless we've been there, but because we don't know all the circumstances surrounding how this incident came to take place.

I have no doubts that my confidence in the military's ability to investigate the incident fairly come from my long association with the Marines, but the people who look at these incidents critically during these investigations usually have battlefield experience themselves, and have some working knowledge of what it's like out there. This is not to say that people outside the military cannot or should not be involved in the investigation process, but personally, I trust the judgement of someone who's "been there, done that" a lot more than someone who has no clue what it's like. I also trust them not to whitewash these kind of things, but to hold people accountable when their actions violate the rules of engagement.

"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

This post has been edited by Giac: Apr 6 2010, 03:11 PM

[xcdudesquadloves...]

I've gotta be honest, I'm not even sure where I stand on the video, I don't have enough info to judge.

There's so much going on in this situation so I completely agree with this. I have no idea what to think.

Also, I may have miss this, but were the soldiers who carried the injured girls off American soldiers? If so how the hell did they get to her so quickly knowing there's an Helicopter firing at the van? I may be missing something, but the fact that American soldiers are so close to a helicopter firing at what seems to be insurgents a mile away in the air seems a bit fishy. I'm not trying to say something I just wanted to know what people thought so it could be cleared up.

[gougers]

"We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."

That was General Stanley McChrystal, supreme commander of United States forces in Afghanistan, late last month - during one of the virtual "town hall" meetings held with US troops every two weeks, as reported in the New York Times.

McChrystal added, "To my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it."

I find it hard to blame the soldiers in this case. A soldier's job is to kill the enemy. When he cannot discern who is the enemy, it makes his job impossible to execute faithfully. This goes to the heart of the Powell Doctrine, at least as I understand it, which was born of the Vietnam War. Go in with overwhelming force, accomplish your goals, and get out. We do not seem to have learned anything. Occupying foreign countries and combating insurgencies is a messy, messy business. If you want to "defend our freedoms," do so against an existential threat. Neither of these wars fulfill that definition, so I don't feel we have any legitimate reason to be there. But then I'm an old-school isolationist, so I would think that.

[Paul Smachetti]

What disturbs me more than the actual footage, is the reactions of some of the soldiers. Specifically the ones laughing and cracking jokes and going "come on, come on" while waiting for the ok to shoot the van. It sounded like my friends and I playing Call of Duty. But I guess that kind of dehumanization can be expected when your flying silently above the people and shooting them on a TV screen.

There's also the issue of the desensitization that occurs over time when exposed to death on a daily basis.The humor and cavalier attitiude is part of the coping mechanism they use to get through it .It's similar to what ER doctors and nurses go through in large urban area hospitals.

[xcheck24]

What bugs me about this isn't the video itself (although the way it is portrayed shows an obvious bias by Wikileaks, like using the words "massacre"), but rather that the answers some people like Reuters have been searching for had to come out like this. I understand it's a war and things are classified and not every bit of information can be distributed. But this incident was questioned and people were looking for answers. In a highly contentious war, it would have been better for the administration to come out and tackle this head-on.

And I certainly don't think it's a cover up, like Wikileaks is portraying it (they've used that word several times on Twitter today), but this whole incident could have been handled better.

[Ebase]

I find it hard to blame the soldiers in this case. A soldier's job is to kill the enemy. When he cannot discern who is the enemy, it makes his job impossible to execute faithfully. This goes to the heart of the Powell Doctrine, at least as I understand it, which was born of the Vietnam War. Go in with overwhelming force, accomplish your goals, and get out. We do not seem to have learned anything. Occupying foreign countries and combating insurgencies is a messy, messy business. If you want to "defend our freedoms," do so against an existential threat. Neither of these wars fulfill that definition, so I don't feel we have any legitimate reason to be there. But then I'm an old-school isolationist, so I would think that.

I find your dismissal here problematic. If the video is indeed not a spliced, and disingenuous portrayal then our pilots were wrong. Unfortunately, I can't see any reference with the Powell Doctrine which harks to a macro view of mission objectives as it pertains to commitment in warfare.

We could argue the lack of implementation of the Powell Doctrine before the war, but once the US was engaged in an asymmetric war the only thing we can garner from the doctrine was that it was right.

As part of air supremacy as it pertains to counter-insurgancy operations requires a zero margin for error. If there is ANY question then the shot must not be taken. I am not suggesting that the pilots were in some way cavalier but I do question whether there was any reason to take shot when it was taken. Was it imminent that the shot be taken when it was? I don't know. They certainly seemed to have all the time to be sure. In hindsight, a more careful survey of the area and the situation might have been prudent. But I am not the expert here on what is or is not the right move just a layman's opinion.

I am no expert on rules of engagement either and what the rules were during that engagement? But I also saw no fog of war here either. I also saw no distortion of assessment by the gunner in order to get a chance to squeeze a few off.

As far as laughing, why not? You see your enemy and you have an awesome and disproportional weapons system. Its a mission that you train for time and again. And frankly, I am not sure I wouldn't get a little giddy. It is a pretty impressive piece of equipment and perhaps in some way it is a little bit like a video game. And maybe while that might be disconnecting, the impersonal nature of certain of our weapons does make it in some way less then the rifle to rifle. So be it. Welcome to the 21st Century. It just is the next evolution in warfare. They have no illusions of what they just did. There were guys on the ground who were close enough to the blood and guts and they appreciate every moment that those pilots are circling overhead laying that firepower down on anyone intent on hurting them. Perhaps it isn't the weapon's system making the warfare impersonal or video gamish. Perhaps it is the video game becoming too realistic to actual modern war with no one actually dying.

War happens and I would hope that the superiors who looked at this determined a proper course of action that would minimize the odds of a repeat.

I also think that any wrongful death adds as fodder for an insurgency whether or not it is connected. As for the humvee running over the body. Well, I kind of found that funny as well. By my account, here I am jamming to the scene of a fight and I inadvertently ran over an insurgent? whooops!!! They are my enemy and shit happens. From their perspective they ran over the corpse of their adversary. On a mature level I would kind of hope that better respect would be paid to the body of my enemy. On an id level, I just would hope I didn't spill my coffee when it happened.

[ultimate steve]

i think when its you over there, its a lot different than being the person behind the computer screen hundreds of miles away watching it on youtube and having opinions. its the same type of thing with cops and the bad rep that they get sometimes. if you arent living it, you will never fully understand it. singling out one event from the comfort of your computer desk and passing judgement without even having any clue what it feels like to go to sleep every night and hope that you wake up in the morning in one piece while you serve and protect a country where almost nobody even appreciates what youre doing. the whole situation is fucked up. if it were me, in a place where you never know who has a fucking bomb strapped to their chest, i would care a whole lot less about injuring civilians and a shit ton more about making sure i stay alive, even if that means some innocent civilians are going to die as a result.

[ideserveabeer]

There's so much going on in this situation so I completely agree with this. I have no idea what to think.

Also, I may have miss this, but were the soldiers who carried the injured girls off American soldiers? If so how the hell did they get to her so quickly knowing there's an Helicopter firing at the van? I may be missing something, but the fact that American soldiers are so close to a helicopter firing at what seems to be insurgents a mile away in the air seems a bit fishy. I'm not trying to say something I just wanted to know what people thought so it could be cleared up.

Apparently there was a fire fight there earlier, so the troops were in the area. Again, here is a direct quote from a reporter who was there that day:

What's helpful to understand is that, contrary to some interpretations that this was an attack on some people walking down the street on a nice day, the day was anyting but that. It happened in the midst of a large operation to clear an area where US soldiers had been getting shot at, injured, and killed with increasing frequency. What the Reuters guys walked into was the very worst part, where the morning had been a series of RPG attacks and running gun battles.

[Mike B.]

I think the video is clearly skewed and taken out of context, and we are not getting the full story here. It is meant to paint the servicemen involved as callous cowboys, when the other information that's coming out doesn't support that conclusion.

That said, I really object to the notion that members of the military are entitled to some sort of deference for their actions. The rule of law does not permit everyone to carry around a "context" card that enables them to engage in illegal or immoral behavior simply because outsiders "don't know what it's like." SATW used the analogy above of someone being poor or disadvantaged in this country. You could make a very plausible argument that being poor or homeless in this country is an equally severe trauma (and an even more prolonged one) than serving in a war zone is, and yet, in our justice system, there is no deference given to that condition. A person's experience might go to mitigate the punishment, but it does not get them out of culpability for a criminal act.

[jmnyr14]

nobody here is trying to give our military a free pass to "engage in illegal or immoral behavior," we're only saying that in instances like this, like what is portrayed in this video, we have the advantage of hindsight and the comfort of our homes, wheely chairs and computers, not to mention the zoomed in clarity of that video's edited footage. in other words, we cannot judge them in this instance. that doesn't mean we believe as soon as you enter the military you can do whatever the hell you want, illegal or immoral. we're not saying that at all. look, if somebody catches someone in the military just killing civilians for no good reason, than that person deserves punishment. but, someone in the military in a helicopter, being told by his superiors that those tiny men on the ground are holding guns, they've killed your brothers in arms, and your mission is to eliminate said enemies, only to find out later that they've made a horrific error and mistook a group of civilian reporters as enemy targets.... we can't judge them.

come on, we're not that dense. none of us are saying that people in our military are granted immunity 100% to do whatever the hell they want. it just so happens that in this situation, we haven't the right to judge because of the circumstances.

i can't believe we're not in agreement on this, it seems pretty clear. those men were doing EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IF WE WERE THERE: FOLLOWING ORDERS

[King Henrik]

I tell ya what....take this info from me. My job is to sit behind a M240H machine gun mounted on a Blackhawk and fly over cities about 100-300 feet above ground level.....and try to discern who is friendly and who is enemy. Yes, before missions we have intelligence (human and non-human) on what the area is like and the threat level and all that jazz. BUT....that doesnt always make it cut and dry. These people don't wear any type of uniform, they blend in very well with "innocent" civilians and non-taliban. The rules of engagement has also made our hands pretty much tied behind our backs and generally lets us only fire upon anyone only after they've unleashed a volley of lead on us....the other day we were escorting medevac aircraft to an LZ to pick up patients (we have guns they don't) and some kid pretended he had a rifle or an RPG and looked like he was aiming it up at me (you know how you put your arms to make it like you have a machine gun) I almost shot the kid because at that split second I didn't know what he had (or didn't have). That's the kind of stuff we have to go through every day every mission--most of the time in Iraq and Afghanistan you DON'T know who the enemy is, and trusting people who say or act like they aren't the enemy can bite you in the ass. Usually, if there's any shadow of a doubt, you assume they are the enemy because that's the game they're playing out here--they blend in with normal people and hide and are very very sneaky. So please do not judge this situation just by viewing the video. Take it from someone who's been flying in a combat zone and come across shit just like this--the picture is FAAAAR from clear 99 percent of the time. And yes, it sucks, but civilians and innocent people do die. It's a fucking war. And, coming from an aviation guy, exhaustion and bleary eyes do come into play at the end of a long mission day. Anybody that doesn't spend every day for a week or so flying 8 or 9 hours straight wouldn't understand that.

[Mike B.]

I've already agreed that this video is suspect, and likely doesn't represent the situation fully or clearly. There would need to be a much more in depth presentation of the circumstances before any blame is assigned. I'm objecting to the larger notion which some of you seem to be advocating, that you can't objectively judge the conduct of people in war. Of course you can. Our legal system is predicated on the notion that courts, civilian and military, review the facts of an act and determine the legal culpability. These courts are presided over by judges, and sometimes they review these facts in wheely chairs in offices. Again, does everyone who is under severe trauma or stress get to carry around their frame of reference with them?

I also think that part of the distaste with this clip is the prevailing notion amongst many Americans that the war in Iraq is wholly unjust. That shouldn't affect the judgment on the actions of these particular servicemen, of course, but when people see this clip, it just adds to the feeling of remorse over senseless death and violence that has been piling up since 2003.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

I've already agreed that this video is suspect, and likely doesn't represent the situation fully or clearly. There would need to be a much more in depth presentation of the circumstances before any blame is assigned. I'm objecting to the larger notion which some of you seem to be advocating, that you can't objectively judge the conduct of people in war. Of course you can. Our legal system is predicated on the notion that courts, civilian and military, review the facts of an act and determine the legal culpability. These courts are presided over by judges, and sometimes they review these facts in wheely chairs in offices. Again, does everyone who is under severe trauma or stress get to carry around their frame of reference with them?

Ditto. This paragraph is pretty much exactly how I feel, to a T, from beginning to end.

[ideserveabeer]

I've already agreed that this video is suspect, and likely doesn't represent the situation fully or clearly. There would need to be a much more in depth presentation of the circumstances before any blame is assigned. I'm objecting to the larger notion which some of you seem to be advocating, that you can't objectively judge the conduct of people in war. Of course you can. Our legal system is predicated on the notion that courts, civilian and military, review the facts of an act and determine the legal culpability. These courts are presided over by judges, and sometimes they review these facts in wheely chairs in offices. Again, does everyone who is under severe trauma or stress get to carry around their frame of reference with them?

Well if I was sitting on some sort of military court, I'd say they did nothing wrong. These guys were told to shoot, so they shot. I'd do the same thing. Unfortunate circumstances, but they did what they were told. It's not like they fired into a school of children. It was a bunch of guys milling around in a part of town where there was hostile fire.

This post has been edited by ideserveabeer: Apr 7 2010, 11:25 AM

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

Well if I was sitting on some sort of military court, I'd say they did nothing wrong. These guys were told to shoot, so they shot. I'd do the same thing. Unfortunate circumstances, but they did what they were told. It's not like they fired into a school of children. It was a bunch of guys milling around in a part of town where there was hostile fire.

You're completely missing his point. He's not even disagreeing with you. The argument myself and Mike B have brought about is almost entirely independant of this incident.

[jmnyr14]

america, fuck yeah. coming again, to save the mother fuckin' day yeah.
america, fuck yeah. freedom is the only way yeah.
terrorists your game is through cause now you have to answer to
america, fuck yeah.


*edit: i am not a moron and i am well aware that this song is mocking America and it's World Police policies.


This post has been edited by jmnyr14: Apr 7 2010, 11:46 AM

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

america, fuck yeah. coming again, to save the mother fuckin' day yeah.
america, fuck yeah. freedom is the only way yeah.
terrorists your game is through cause now you have to answer to
america, fuck yeah.

I'm not entirely sure where this post was going, but if it was meant to be a rally cry, you do realize the song is actually mocking America and it's World Police policies correct?

[jmnyr14]

I'm not entirely sure where this post was going, but if it was meant to be a rally cry, you do realize the song is actually mocking America and it's World Police policies correct?

chill out, sorry for being silly. i'm bored at work, cut me some slack okay?

I'm objecting to the larger notion which some of you seem to be advocating, that you can't objectively judge the conduct of people in war.

I really don't think any of us are advocating this. We're saying that in this instance, we can't judge them. We're not saying this is universal to all actions made by our military. We're saying that in this case, the topic of this thread, the video above, we're unable to judge them.

Nobody here is stupid enough to believe that our military deserves immunity and has the right to do whatever they want without punishment. We're saying that in THIS CASE, we can't. But for the love of god, nobody here is saying that "you can't objectively judge the conduct of people in war." We're saying that in this case, we can't. I can't make that any clearer, and the irony is that I think we're all in agreement; we are just misinterpreting what each other are saying when we're all saying the same thing:

1. in this case, we can't judge them because of reasons already stated
2. just because point #1 exists, it doesn't mean that we are incapable of judging the conduct of people in war in general.

[Puckforbrains]

We live in a world that has walls...and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns.

[Papagolash]

What I find hilarious was the zoom in on the van to show the children. Really? I mean really? No way in hell watching the original video can you tell of really anyone in the van at all, nor can you when they do the "ohhh they said they checked for kids but HERE THEY ARE!" zoom bullshit. Even with the zoom going and them saying they're kids you can't even make out anyone sitting there, till someone moves an arm. Only reason you see the slight arm movement is because you're looking for it, and even then you can't make it if it's a kid or not. Fucking stupid.

[The Great Dane]

I wonder if the reactions around here be different if the soldiers involved hadn't been American? Is war still war, when you haven't any national pride at stake? When it isn't your boys doing the killing?

Say, if this was a video of Pakistani soldiers blowing away some Indian civilians in the Kashmir region. Feel different?

[Puckforbrains]

I wonder if the reactions around here be different if the soldiers involved hadn't been American?


Say, if this was a video of Pakistani soldiers blowing away some Indian civilians in the Kashmir region. Feel different?

Say, if this was a video of Iraqi soldiers blowing away some American civilians (your kids) on American soil. Feel different?