Shame on WikiLeaks: Framing Lawful Engagement as Anti-American Propaganda (Part One)
As the 2nd BCT conducts their search operations, they encounter small arms fire and the deadly missiles known as rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs. Similar attacks had been going on all morning, and the streets were eerily absent of civilians — a telling sign in these neighborhoods, where children play soccer in the streets when they know it is safe.
Soldiers on the ground had just reported contact with the enemy, when the two Apaches located a sizable group of military-aged men sauntering through a nearby neighborhood. The pilots and gunners of the helicopters circle the group from 800 meters away, well within the range of their weapons, but outside the range where the group might easily notice them.
The pilot in the trailing Apache notices a group of men, and the camera focuses on them just before a pair of Mahdi Army scouts slip away on a moped. The crews call out their confirmation of visible weapons in the group, and the camera clearly captures at least one man carrying an AK-pattern assault rifle, and another beside him carrying a RPG launcher with a live rocket locked in place. A third man cradles another rocket under his arm.
Two men, whom we later discover are a Reuters cameraman and his driver, are mixed in with the gang as familiars — wearing the same kind of clothes, their slung cameras appearing as yet more weapons to helicopter crews with already clearly identified targets.
As they circle, the gang of journalists and terrorists group at the corner of a building. The photographer takes one step around the corner into the alleyway and crouches — pointing his camera’s large telephoto lens at a U.S. Humvee parked just a few hundred yards away. The pilots, fearing an attack on the U.S. vehicle (and one mistakenly seeing what he thought was the flash of a rocket launch), swing around the building and open fire on the tightly clustered militiamen, cutting them down in a spray of concrete, dust, and blood.
Two men sprint out of the cloud. One escapes cleanly. Another is cut down with finality in a second burst of fire.
The pilots circle, and another man emerges running from the dust and debris, and is struck down, wounded.
This is the first of three engagements for Crazy Horse 18 and Crazy Horse 19 that morning in the slums of New Baghdad. The pilots, primarily tasked with saving American and Iraqi lives from insurgent action, are now accosted by WikiLeaks for failing to discern camera-carrying journalists from militants. WikiLeaks would judge these pilots murderers for following the rules of war, and destroying an enemy force without first interviewing the armed group to discern intent. Their charges of impropriety ring hollow.
The further hot air and rhetoric of WikiLeaks will be addressed in Part Two.
The moral responsibility for civilians killed in combat rests solely with the party that makes the combat necessary — in this case, that would be the Mahdi Army who was waging a war of their own against American troops and Iraqi Sunnis alike.
To place the blame on the Americans is to say that the right to destroy those seeking to destroy you is negated by the presence of any “innocent civilians”. Such a notion would grant to evil an unlimited license to kill — all it has to do is keep “human shields” mixed in with its members and it is safe from any retaliation.
This is not to say that American soldiers should kill civilians gratuitously — they should not, and efforts should be made to keep civilian casualties as low as the circumstances permit. But that does not mean the Mahdi army has the right to run wild on a killing spree simply because they keep “innocent civilians” close by.
The Mahdi army — not America’s troops — bears the moral blame for this.
Spot on per usual Bob.
The two journalists were embedded with Enemy Non-Authorized Combatants . . . this a clear case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Reuters discusses the attitudes of the jounalists on the Reuters Website, attributing the individuals with “bravery and dedication”, further making it clear that the individuals knew and understood the risks involved with their actions. Weapons were clearly visible in the gunship camera footage. What is the purpose of , such weapon carrying individuals? Carrying a firearm, AK-47, perhaps is not alone sufficient to designate the Iraqi’s as Combatants . . . since the use of AK-47′s maybe viewed as “defensive” and certainly that area of Baghdad was a known as an unsafe area. The RPG is absolutely NOT a defensive weapon . . . and thus, by that aspect changed the group from defensive to offensive, period.
It may be only due to the desire of the journalists to view the conflict through the “Eyes of the Iraqi” . . . and certainly their death was tragic . . . but what was the purpose of the “photo op”? Were photos of Iraqi action againist US troops being staged? That does seem to be a “thing” that is done frequently.
Helicopter gunship only “800 meters away” hum . . . is that stupid or just not paying attention?
Wkileaks–an apparent bastion of naivete where they believe that the US Military is criminal unless omniscient; and that it’s immoral to kill enemy combatants until they have actually fired the grenades they’re carrying. Reuters journalists didn’t realize it was dangerous to hobnob with people trying to kill our people? What a bunch of morons.
The willful, intentional targeting of women and children by our enemies is always excused. Random missiles into residential neighborhoods. Suicdal explosions killing anyone who just happens to be on that subway car when the doors open. School children. Wanton cold-blooded murder by beheading a bound, non-military, non agressor, civilian captive. This is how they operate, and nary a peep of indignation from the left
But no one asks the obvious: If these “cameramen” were cozy enough with Mahdi Army terrorists to walk non challont with them in the midsts of heavy urban combat, maybe..just maybe… they WERE THERE TO HELP THEM, hoping to capture some great propaganda footage for their Pro-jihad DVDs?
In any case, who the f*%k cares….ask anyone these days about Ernie Pile…They wont know who he is…risks of death comes with the territory when covering a war zone, so if you run with the bulls….
Any atrocity commited by musilm fanatics, no mater how cruel, vile and unjustified, is deemed mere “resistance” to opression. Typical “what else can you expect, they are so powerless?” appologies always follow, explaning and rationalizing their behavior, as if its all, somehow, our fault.
We act as if they are simply children, lashing out in tantrums, and we the West are to blame…clearly it is our bad parental/coping skills that failed to anticipate, and prevent these eruptions of violence among those that cannot be expected to control themselves.
Why does the left always hold our side to an impossibly higher standard of perfection when it comes to combating these animals?
Could it be, THEY are the ones practicing the “soft racism of low ecpectations” when calibrating acceptable norms of civilized behavior?
While WE hopelessly expect them to hold EVERYONE to the same standard?
“WikiLeaks”
Americans who work for this organization are traitors and should be treated accordingly.
Foreign nationals who work for this organization are enemies and should be treated accordingly.
Reporters travelling with enemies of the United States are called “targets”.
Truth is treason, in the empire of lies.
When did lies become the truth?
What you term “lawful engagement” is the same kind of “lawful engagement” that Israel does with regard to the Palestinians. The ‘law’, with respect to this situation, is just “what they can get away with”. The term “lawful” does not mean moral or ethical, as you would try and imply that it means. It does NOT change the fact that the military who cowardly and sadistically target people from an asymmetrical technological position, are being immoral, unethical and cowardly. And, it’s NOT anti-American (a primitive dialog) any more than people who don’t like the unethical and immoral things Israel does to the Palestinians are ‘anti-Semetic’… what you are saying is that you are not allowing anyone to challenge in any way, behavior that is immoral and unethical … that anything is allowed. That makes you as psychologically sick as the people who are doing the killing, doesn’t it, because you promote it as ‘ok’.
I’m waiting with bated breath for your diatribe against those who purposely target innocents with car bombs, IEDs, suicide bombings, etc. etc. But I won’t hold my breath….
I keep forgetting, to the useful idiots of the left. Palestinians have cart-blanche to kill Jews, in any way they want, at any time or place they want. When Jews defend themselves, they are guilty of genocide, no matter how much care they take, no matter how frequently the put their own lives in danger to protect non-combatants.
It’s the same with American troops.
It does NOT change the fact that the military who cowardly and sadistically target people from an asymmetrical technological position, are being immoral, unethical and cowardly.
I love it when the blubbering Luddites weigh in. Killing terrorists with advanced technology is unethical, immoral, sadistic, and cowardly. Okay, my Cro-Magnon friend. What we’ll do to regain our moral superiority is fight the way our brave enemies fight. We’ll kidnap the enemy, tie him up, and behead him with a knife. We’ll blow him up with IEDs, making sure to deliberately kill as many innocent civilians as possible.
We’ll also use rape and torture to keep the neighborhoods in line, and we’ll extort money from them on pain of death.
And we’ll do it all on foot, renouncing the advanced technology that makes our actions so repugnant to people like you. Think of how tiny our carbon footprint will be when we start fighting like our enemies!
It’s not that I am against technology at all. I would feel the same if American’s were being targeted. Look, I was in Vietnam, in combat, in the late 1960′s. There is no HONOR in this type of warfare, and too many innocents get killed, that’s all.
Take you shovel somewhere else disgusting fake vet.
Sounds like you’re taking too much chem …. jdk. Nope … not a fake vet. You have no idea, since you don’t know me.
War is not about “honor.” Its about winning. Its about breaking the enemy’s will to resist.
Likewise, the “innocents” are not our problem. If the enemy want to protect them, they need to keep them off the battlefield, rather than trying to hide behind them.
Josh Stieber, who is a former soldier of the army company in the video, says that the acts of brutality caught on film and recently released via Wikileaks are not isolated instances, but were commonplace during his tour of duty. He said: “A lot of my friends are in that video,” says Stieber. “After watching the video, I would definitely say that that is, nine times out of ten, the way things ended up. Killing was following military protocol. It was going along with the rules as they are.”
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/09
There is always honor in destroying those who wish to kill you and your family.
It was beyond lawful to kill the people in that video, it was also fully moral and ethical. It would have been a lapse to NOT kill them or to even hesitate. The weapons shown in the video were going to be fired at Americans or friendly Iraqis, and even if not that day, some other day.
Val,
I’m going to assume that your comments were made out of ignorance, not spite.
There are in fact, laws of war. They are codified in the Geneva Conventions. You can easily find and read them on the Web. If you are not intellectually curious enough to do that, here is the short version:
1. The Reuters reporters knowingly chose to place themselves with a group of armed insurgents/jihadis/freedom fighters – whatever you want to call them. The armed men are legal targets under the laws of war, and do not have to initiate fire or be warned that they will be fired upon. The “reporters” knowingly placed themselves in harm’s way – and they were harmed.
2. The armed group were unlawful combatants. In other words, they were not identifiable as combatants. They wear no uniform or obvious identifying symbol, such as an arm band or such. In similar fashion to enemy Soldiers dressing as civilians, the usual punishment for caputured is death, generally by firing squad. However, the US has knowingly chosen not to go down that path.
3. The “rescue vehicle” was also a lawful target. Why? Because it was not properly marked. In Arab countries, the usual symbol is the Red Crescent – the Red Cross will also suffice. In “zoom mode” it is still not easy to tell that there were children in the front seat – it’s only easy because the Wikileaks editors made it so with zoom, circles, and captions. That is not the case when you are over half a mile away looking at a small TV screen.
4. The engagement was executed within the Rules of Engagement in effect at that time. Wikileaks helpfully provided a copy of the ROE on their site. You can look it up.
Val, you mean the same time of lawful engagement the Israelis undertake when cowardly hamas thugs fire rockets at schools then go hide under the burkas of the women?
You’re a disgusting lying coward. Crawl back under your rock.
Tell you what, Einstein!
You talk to your terrorist buddies and tell them to carry spit-wads instead of RPG’s and AK-47′s and I will demand that our military use water pistols. That should satisfy your symmetrical force concerns.
Also, if your traitorous reporters will carry Kodak Brownies, there would probably be no reflection from the lens to initiate preemptive strike action by the Americans.
Sorry, but when a journalist is embedded with combat troops (ours or theirs) and gets killed by the enemy, nobody is entitled to call that death a “murder.” He knew the job was dangerous when he took it. Fortunes of war.
Reuters’ behavior elsewhere, but particularly in Israel, Lebanon and the Gaza strip has removed all possibility of sympathy from me. They have repeatedly aided and abetted the vilest sort of monster and routinely villified the righteous, innocent and law-abiding for political purposes.
If more of their people met a similar fate, there would be less dis-information spread around. In my opinion, the journalista deserved what they got!
BTW – Anyone who watched the long version, there is a minute where a shrouded figure escorts a child to the black van and they both vanish in a camera vantage shift. It seems to me there is no further firing on the van after that. Is this the little girl who was injured? Who escorts a child to the scene of such carnage? What the heck is up with that?
I thought that our aviators acted with aplomb and decorum. And, in addition, were generous to a fault. After all, they made a point of allowing one of the jihadists to crawl off though still alive. Unfortunate tactical mistake. Sorry about the Reuters reps. Would have prefered someone form CNN or MNBC, but life is not perfect.
I have seen this and about 6 hours of other tapes from Apache engagements (my best friend and West Point classmate commmnded an Apache battalion in Iraq in 2006.
In this case the Apache engaged armed fighters that appeared to prepare to fire on ground troops, as had been occurring in this area all day. To me, morally and legally allowed. Standard operating procedure is for e legal officer to be co-located with the approving commander to let him know it is legal. You hear the Apaches request permission to fire and likley a JAG officer was sitting next to the commander telling him it was legally justified, if you can believe it.
War is terrible. We are fighting to win (kill the enemy), not scare or discourage someone from fighting. We have technological superiority and use it. All reporters are at risk when embedded with fighters.
Sir,
Please continue with your analysis; what about engaging the van with the white top? I was a Marine, and they taught me that we had a duty to care for the wounded, friend or foe. Is it different in the Army? I was taught we never target enemy who are out of combat due to injuries. What am I missing here? I thought you had to have a display of Hostile Action or Hostile Intent before you can engage any type of combatant.
I watched when it was first released, and wasn’t surprised to see that WikiLeaks had to actually prime viewers by giving their spiel before actually showing the video. So I skipped it. When I watched the video and listened to what the soldiers were saying, everything made perfect sense. I couldn’t figure out what the problem was, aside from the fact that WikiLeaks didn’t give any context for what they were showing.
Then I went back and looked at what they wrote first. I kinda laughed at it, because the video is pretty self-explanatory when you watch it. But the fact is, it’s not funny. It seriously reminded me of those two guys from Loose Change going up against the editors of Popular Science concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center. WikiLeaks comes off as this bunch of pot-smoking dudes who think they know what they’re talking about, but don’t. So they’ve got to come up with some excuse to make their story stick, when it’s obvious the facts don’t back them up.
Hell, I know bad things happen in war, and I was perfectly willing to accept that the soldiers had made a mistake in this case. It wouldn’t be unprecedented. But then I watched, and saw that it was a perfectly legal (and despite Val above, perfectly moral) response to these guys. The worst you could say was that the soldiers were mistaken. Not “murder,” but manslaughter. But these guys were *clearly armed.* Even the WikiLeaks people admit that. If this is the *worst* example of behavior they can come up with, then our soldiers are very much the professionals I imagine them to be.
“It does NOT change the fact that the military who cowardly and sadistically target people from an asymmetrical technological position, are being immoral, unethical and cowardly.”
That is an interesting point of view.
So the charge being leveled here is the big bad Americans aren’t “fair” by using air superiority to splash the bad guys?
Do you know who the Mahdi Army is? Do you know what they do? Are you aware of what this part of Baghdad was like in 2007? Would you like to lecture the families of fallen Iraqis and Coalition soldiers about your concept of “fairness” and “bravery” when you would demand they lay down and die to satisfy your misplaced sense of fairness and ethics?
War sucks. It sucks even more if you are opposite the US. That is reality.
What else is reality is that the US is one of the very few countries that actually worries about hitting the right targets and goes to the trouble of recording and reviewing incidents like the one bent and depicted here.
Bob,
Reuters has a history of using Terrorist supporting Sunni media as “Darwin Award” winning journalists. See this Winds of Change blog post from Aug 2003 on the death of Palestinian Reuters stringer Mazen Dana
“The Penalty for Stupidity is Death”
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003932.html
To quote one of the commentors at that blog post:
“…the No. 1 rule of engagement for covering conflicts involving American forces is quite simple. Don’t Point Things At American Forces In Combat Areas.”
The Winds post also makes this point about the international media’s and particularly Reuters management’s multi-decade long criminal negligence in embedding their journalists inside terrorist organizations:
It has been well known since 1982 that electronic news gathering equipment looks like a rocket propelled grenade launcher through military gun sights. This was demonstrated when a CBS news crew set up to cover an Israeli column advancing towards Beruit in an orchard after the Israeli column had been ambushed a number of times by PLO RPG crews.
The CBS crew was turned to raw hamburger by Israeli firepower as soon as the Israelis came in range. There was a big stink by the international journalistic community until the Israelis produced a side by side picture of a news crew with a camera and an RPG crew through an Israeli tank sight.
After that you saw a lot of long range telephoto pictures of Israeli troops.
and
Any news organization that puts its reporters with camera’s near American troops in combat outside of the embed program should be sued by the relatives of the dead cameramen for criminal negligence.
I’m not sure I’d be so quick to condemn Wikileaks for posting this – it clearly vindicates the forces involved (even in the edited version) and demonstrates the unreasonable nature and general lunacy of their critics. Overall, a good thing.
Are reporters embedded with the enemy not legitimate targets? Many have clearly established they are supporters of the enemy and will do anything to smear US forces.
“It does NOT change the fact that the military who cowardly and sadistically target people from an asymmetrical technological position, are being immoral, unethical and cowardly”
Um, the point of having a strong military is to be able to “target people from an asymmetrical technological position”; it dramatically reduces casualties and even enables people like you to spew your sanctimonious idiocy. If you want to go back to swords and spears, start the primitive dialog without me.
There will always be civilian fatalities when one group hides behind women and children.
“It does NOT change the fact that the military who cowardly and sadistically target people from an asymmetrical technological position, are being immoral, unethical and cowardly.”
Any war can be avoided by simply surrendering to the people who use drug addicts and mentally handicapped teens to carry suicide bombs into crowded markets.
Michael Yon has adequately documented who are the cowards here.
Val defends those who raped, murdered, beheaded, and disemboweled a CARE worker in Fallujah. All from the comfort of a relatively anonymous computer somewhere. And he/she conflats Israel’s occasional response to daily rocket and mortar attacks with attacks on armed men in civilian clothes preparing an ambush for legal combatants (uniforms, officers, etc.) in a War Zone. Two separate types of action against those who plot murder and lay in wait.
Sure, they’re both justified acts in my mind; but I’ve actually read the Rules of War and understand that there will always be people like Val whose tender sensibilities prohibit them from doing anything but feeling guilt for the freedoms provided by brave men’s blood.
Perhaps if Val were to actually read the Proceedings of the Hague and Geneva Conventions and try to understand what actually is the relevant International Law regarding National Self Defense and Prohibited Conduct in a War Zone, they would just sit down, STFU, and let the people courageous enough to protect us all just do their jobs…
You may have probably already seen it, but the Jawa Report has an excellent roundup including the investigation into the incident. They clearly identify the AK and RPG held by insurgents around the cameramen, and even how the aircrew misidentified the camera as an RPG. Looks like the Reuters guy was embedded with insurgents firing on US troops.
ROE notwithstanding, have to admit I found the video troubling, because:
1.) they continued to shoot at the unarmed after the armed had fled,
2.) there seemed to be no actual intel that the unarmed were justified targets, and
3.) they shot up the van while loading wounded, which turned out to have two children in it.
“Shooting at unarmed…” Were there weapons on the ground? What’s to keep these unarmed from picking them up? Were these unarmed men trying to surrender?
“No actual intel…” Whoopity do da. There’s camera footage. You object that they US troops are not pre-scientient? You object that they do not have a time machine so they can clarify intent?
“… that turned out to have children in it.” Oh, boo-hoo. Wasn’t the shooting already going on when the van arrived? The blame falls on the driver of the van, not on the US troops.
What you are feeling is moral cowardice. An inability to take a risk with moral consequences. Well, you are trying to get people killed by paralyzing them when they need to take action to survive.
Good commentary. There was no question in my mind after watching the short video that the US elements involved acted in general accordance with the ROE. There was no question in my mind that the group of Iraqis were armed, acting suspiciously, and a potential threat to US ground elements. There was no question in my mind that the mini-van that enterd the scene shortly after the fire incident was there as an enemy dust-off mission to save the wounded, if any were to be found. There was no way US air elements could have known that children were in the van prior to US ground forces arriving on scene.
The description of this incident by Wikileaks is fraudulent and a flat out disgrace. What is wrong with the people at Wikileaks? I simply cannot understand.
Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA
There’s an important point that needs to be emphasized. Right at the moment when the helicoptor fires you can see the entire group bunched tightly around the camera wielder. They are all looking at the digital photograph (of a US humvee) that the AP cameraman just took. Some of those people have RPG’s and AK’s. The AP cameraman is sharing intel with the Mahdi Army fighters who are setting up an attack. The AP cameraman is participating in an attack on US troops.
I think the soldiers were well within their rights to fire on that group of men. They had weapons or things that looked like weapons that they were pointing in the wrong places.
The only point in time where I felt they acted inappropriately is when the van pulls up with the two kids and they try to help the injured people. I could be ignorant to the rules of warfare but is it really acceptable to shoot at unarmed targets? I’m not just wondering just because there’s kids in the van but to shoot people rendering aid, I don’t really know the rules it just seems unnecessary.
Unarmed combatants are fair game. An enemy who is “hors de combat” (out of the fight due to wounds) is not. Hence when the guy is down and out, the Apache stops firing. When the van shows up to take him away (presumably to fight another day), they light ‘em up. Perfect accordance with both the law of war and ROE.
The US ground guys were on the scene in a couple more minutes, and if the wounded guy had stayed put, he’d probably have lived (as a prisoner). That’s the rules, and it’s a very tough program.
Those that appear to be un-armed are that way for one of three reasons.
1) They have no weapons.
2) They weapons but the weapons are hidden.
3) they have no weapons on them, but weapons are nearby ready to be grabbed.
Only the first is not a danger to our troops.
It is impossible to tell which category an apparently un-armed person in a combat zone is. It is not safe for our guys to assume everyone who is un-armed is actually a category one, non-combatant.
Finally, what the heck is someone who is truely unarmed doing rushing into a combat zone.
Dear Hed:
Next time you go into combat, please make sure you take your lawyer with you. Best of luck to your surviviorws. Hed, as in dickhed????
Carla,
The article is predicated on the ROE. That’s legalism. I said, outside of ROE, I found aspects of the video troubling, hoping the subsequent discussion would answer some of those concerns.
You impute to me a legalistic mindset that is in complete 180 contradiction to the preceeding discussion. But when you argue ad hominem, I guess that’s all you have left.
I realize there’s a whole context for the participants, and I wanted to understand why my admittedly civillian take on the scenario might not comport with the realities of the fight.
In fact, Steve actually made a great point about the camera being used for targeting, which takes the photographer from observer to combatant.
Sadly, this is how modern warfare is conducted. And people who travel with the enemy risk being treated like the enemy.
Um, when in all of the history of human warfare have the people traveling with the enemy not been treated the same as the enemy? It’s usually an accurate assumption that if you travel with them, you are providing aid of some sort, material, political or otherwise.
The US government started this war. The US government is a violent, unethical socialist entity that steals from its own people in order to pay the salaries of the people that did this. I have no sympathy for the killers in the video and will make no apologies for them. If you sing up to fight for the US government, you are signing up to take orders from socialists and you are an enemy of the American people.
You sound like those people beneath contempt who show up at the funerals of American soldiers with signs thanking God they were killed. There is no point in wasting reasonable discussion on people who think as you do. Your sickness is a filter that prevents communication.
I appreciate the more in depth reporting this post provides when compared to the wikileaks version. I understand that many readers here believe the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified due to the 911 attacks, and threat of WMDs. I don’t know that we can ever eradicate all terrorist threats, however, and I am inclined to believe that continued war (it has been 8+ years now) has decreasing benefits.
The incident in question is important because American public opinion may shift away from support of the war if the brutality, justified or not, is shown to them more often.
Personally, I am in favor of bringing all our boys home now. The war is too expensive. For the price we have paid so far we could have given every innocent man, woman, and child Iraqi citizen almost $20,000. If we let the oppressed among them move here they would have shown their gratitude by becoming productive citizens, as many Iraqis who have been able to immigrate have done.
Also, all our soldiers could be at work building and making things rather than breaking them and tearing them down. It could help with economic recovery.
I hope that more videos like this are leaked, and that the American public does shift against war support. I only hope that condemnation of soldiers, who have been voluntarily putting their lives on the line, does not follow. The politicians and their bad decisions are to blame, not the soldiers.
End the war now.
Bring our boys home.
ndsnow@gmail.com
The Iraq war has been an unprecedented exercise in Corporate Welfare and Big Government, an imperialist venture which had little to do with anything that might actually benefit the American people.
If you are a Libertarian, then you cannot oppose Wikileaks and must support its noble aims.
Wikileaks is an agent of democracy, revealing that which governments hide from people, it is therefore a force for good.
Why were they shooting at a van with children in it? Why were they shooting at the people who aided the wounded man?
We know that Blackwater mercenaries raped Iraqi girls in their “man camps”, and that it was all paid for by the US taxpayer. We also know that the Pentagon has done nothing to hold defense contractors and individuals to account, because the Pentagon is run by alumni of those same defense contractors. Mercenaries are scum, pure and simple, arguably worse than the Islamic terrorists, because at least the terrorists believe in a cause, mercs just kill for money. What does it say about us that we hire them?
For that reason, I would disregard any statements the Pentagon puts out, given its track record of lying, and of stealing US taxpayers money.
I wasn’t aware that the cause of libertarianism was best served by telling blatant lies.
Gary says “Wikileaks is an agent of democracy, revealing that which governments hide from people, it is therefore a force for good.”
I’d be a lot more inclined to believe that if they made equal efforts to expose what _hostile_ governments and quasi-governments hide from their people. For example, can we count on WikiLeaks to expose Hamas or Taliban actions against armed fighters – or civlians – that aren’t on their side?
Anyone that claims to be on the side of Truth needs to be on the side of ALL Truth. Therefore, if the American government does something that is morally or legally dubious, let them tell us. But if they fail to tell us about similar or worse actions by government or quasi-governments that are hostile to the United States, it strongly suggests to me that they are NOT a friend of Truth but just looking to criticize the United States.
If WikiLeaks is outraged by actions like the video footage that is the main topic of discussion here, are the equally outraged when North Korea beheads its own citizens for practicing Christianity in their own homes? If not, why not?
Gary, I truly hope that you suffer a miserable ending to your pathetic life – a cancer of some sort may siffice. In fact, I will wish for it every day of my life from this point forward
Tyler, your response is typical of we can expect from socialists of all stripes.
Tyler520, Focus on wishing good things for yourself and imagine nice green fields, flowers and birds with the sun in your face. Much more peaceful.
New media, the new mainstream online, includes both blogs and indeed wikileaks. What we all have to remember is that the new media is no different from the legacy “mainstream” (ie old mind control) media- the moment that new media sources go from dialogue between equals to attempting to be sources of infallible information- time to find a new source of information. Infallibility belongs with G_d not with humans.
Seeing this video really pissed me off. They could have done the same thing with a 1000 lb bomb and been more effective.
That helicopter gunner deserves the medal of honor!
“War is a dirty affair where innocents die and evil men sometimes triumph.”
Does a guy like you ever wonder what the world would be like if good men failed to make war?
Did you never ever hear of a good war?
Bistro
A world in which good men refuse to make war, is a world in which bad men control everything.
Useless death of a useless war … Great Work and Kudos for Wikileaks !
For all those who can’t stop worshipping Patriotism and can’t question anything … you are just like Obama zombies right version
Anyone who disagrees with you, is just an unthinking zombie.
how liberal of you
HED:
The purpose of shooting at enemy combatants is to kill them. If a ‘newsperson’ is dumb enough to wander around a zone of battle with a bunch of armed men, and he becomes a casualty….TS. The guys is the copters thought that they had a legitimate target. They were circumspect. They made a decision and acted on it. That is what they are trained to do. They acted correctly I’m distraught that you are troubled. Fortunately, I’ll never have to depend upon you to defend me. Best you stay in your safe little bubble.
WikiLeaks claims to be obtaining classified information and they are releasing it to try and hurt the United States, and to aid our enemies.
That makes them spies and (if they’re Americans) traitors.
The members of this group ought to be rounded up, tried before a military court and immediately executed.
There are several violations of the laws of war in this video, including the failure of combatants to wear a fixed distinctive sign, and mingling with civilians whilst conducting offensive operations. Shooting ‘em is not a violation. Apparently Reuters thinks their personnel deserve special protections when they embed with insurgents. They don’t. In fact, the most telling thing about this video is that Reuters is choosing sides (and it isn’t our side).
The guy with the RPG and the cameraman apparently staging a propaganda shot for the insurgents are combatants by any reasonable definition. So are the guys around them. The aircrew apparently missed the RPG and misidentified the camera, but they got the basic idea exactly correct. If they’d known the sneaky one was a journalist they probably wouldn’t have fired, but that’s an ROE issue. If one of our combat cameramen were killed in a similar engagement, there wouldn’t be a lot of whining about nonexistent “war crimes” or “murder.” Nor should there be a lot of sympathy for those with even less cause for complaint.
That’s the thing I don’t get- we know that there have been reuters and other journalists injured or killed by attacks on american troops and there’s not a peep. Embedded with militants- gee, the evil US killed a reporter, how dare they didn’t identify them! Embedded with a US unit, and well, TS. It was so obvious they were with a military unit, of course they were going to get shot at/blown up by an IED, etc.
Some free advice to Wikileaks:
You might send a coded message to your “embeds” that from 800 meters away, it is probable that a flash of light from your camera lens WILL BE DEEMED TO BE A WEAPONS SCOPE! Make your last photograph a good one! We may be able to get you a posthumous award!
This is why the rules of civilized war require combatants to wear identifiable uniforms. Irregulars put innocent civilians at risk.
Any doubt you had about the political bias of wikileaks should be settled. The founder of wikileaks is a convicted hacker. His name is Julian Assange. Credible journalists should probably do an expose of this person and his scam of a website.
Remember Saddam? If a political leader is to be hanged for 148 Iraqi deaths–what about another leader who has verifiably caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? I’m speaking of George W. Bush. And lets not forget that the USA put that evil prick, Saddamn, in power — so aren’t they also responsible for at least the 148 deaths? They … See Moresold him the helicopters he used to gas the Kurds. And now Obama is deploying more troops onto the crime scene.
I suppose this further illustrates my point: It does not matter who the figure head of the Mafia is–Bush, Obama, Joe blow–the government always gets in. The government–the system–is inherently evil. And it sickens me to see people morally support this rotting monster (let alone hand over their freedom and healthcare to this monstrous system).
Murdering innocent civilians is equivalent to going to war with someone who has attacked you and continues to threaten further attacks.
As to the claim that 100′s of thousands of Iraqi’s have died, that lie was exposed long ago. Not that the usefull idiots won’t continue to drag it out from now till judgement day.
What Mike Smith said.
Yeah, yeah, right — whenever something like this happens, the “wrong” side always reverts to pointing to the Palestinians or Arabs in general as being much worse and not getting nearly the blame when they do bad things. BS – if you want to portray yourself or your country as being noble and civilized, you better act that way unless you want to end up as a poster for cynical hypocrisy. When a country has such overwhelmingly superior air power and can kill at will, that’s an awful lot of power and hence an awful lot of responsibility (Peter Parker’s uncle was right), which makes this a major fail.
Clearly identifiable bad guys, getting ready to attack US forces are killed, and you consider this a failure?
Says a lot about your world view.
BC: So those countries that do not claim to be ‘noble and civilized’ get a free pass? The less civilised you claim to be the more savage you are allowed to be? Is this the bigotry of low expectations?
Part of the argument about this incident involves the Rules Of Engagement (ROE). A noble and civilized country like the USA has an ROE which appears to have been adhered to – the video provides the proof of one of the Apache pilots chafing at his ROE to neutralize what he thinks is a threat to nearby ground forces or his own helicopter. Were he not constrained by an ROE, he may have continued the attack on a wounded (and helpless) enemy; it was only when they perceived that this wounded person was being carried off the battlefield by enemy forces (not Protected emergency medical services) that the attack was resumed.
So, BC, do you have an ROE for the Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF): you know, the ones that were carrying AK rifles and RPG launchers and grenades? Does their ROE (if any) allow their forces to shoot Coalition soldiers who are not armed? Are places of worship protected from being used as firing points or as targets? Are they allowed to fire on ambulances and personnel clearly marked with ICRC or Red Crescent markings? Are they required to carry arms openly, wear uniforms or be clearly marked to differentiate them from civilians? Are they allowed to ignore the Hague and Geneva conventions in their ROE? Do you have a copy of the AIF ROE so you can share it with us?
War is not a joust, where you select your best champions, pitting one against one, each with equal weapons. War is about applying military forces to achieve a political end, with some limitations of actions to prevent savagery, excessive civilian deaths or unnecessary damage to land or infrastructure. The rules of war have been formulated to limit unnecessary destruction and death, not mandate equal military forces, equal deaths or provide ‘balance’ where there is a disparity with forces or technology. Some claim that the rules of war mandate a proportionality of damage and death on both sides: this is not correct, the rules require that the damage or death be proportionate to the military advantage achieved by the action. It means you can’t level a city to kill one sniper. It doesn’t mean you are only allowed to send one man into a city to fight this sniper either. It doesn’t mean you can’t kill this sniper until he has killed one of your own troops. Usually, the more overwhelming force used against a defender, the lower the total casualties of both sides since the outmatched defender usually realises that he will not win this battle and will take measures to leave the battlefield or surrender in addition to the superior forces suffering fewer casualties.
Every so often, a youth points a toy gun at a policeman in an aggressive manner and is shot for his stupidity when the policeman is unable to determine the perceived threat as not real. The policeman operates under a set of ROE: he doesn’t shoot people because they might be carrying a concealed weapon and might be planning to use it against him. He engages a threat based on his perception of threat to him or other people, based on this ROE and the behaviour of possible threats to him. If he abides by the ROE and the threat turns out to be not an actual threat, but still a legitimately perceived threat to life, then the policeman is not charged with murder, nor lynched by the relatives of the deceased (or wounded). His adherence to the ROE is his protection. The policeman is not required to be shot before he can fire on a perceived threat to himself or other people.
Would you prefer that the USA use the tactics of the AIF, instead of having a ROE and requiring its armed forces to adhere to it?
To Bill: so you’re saying that if a country makes up a set of rules for combat — for *itself* — and gives it an official term like “Rules of Engagement,” then everything is cool as long as long as *its* soldiers approximately, more or less, follow along with it, regardless of how bloody and destructive the final outcome is? This might, maybe work among countries of approximate resources and firepower, but not between a country with absolutely dominant firepower and total control of the skies and an enemy needing to use guerrilla warfare to achieve any sort of combat result. It gets back to the hypocrisy issue: if Islamic soldiers were caught on video killing wounded or defenseless American soldiers, you know that conservatives at the least would be using that as proof to the inherent savagery of Islam; but when Americans do it from a helicopter, it somehow becomes a common sense police action to ward off potential threats. That’s nothing but colossal, hypocritical BS. The high road is the high road — either take it or STFU if you’re actually on the same road as everyone else, regardless if they are traveling in Toyota pickups, and you’re in low flying helicopters.
Yes, you are partly right: the ROE is a set of rules a country/organization is allowed to make up for itself that its forces should comply with and which complies with customary international law and treaties. The key part is that the rules have to follow certain restrictions, and are not unrestricted and arbitary as you imply. If this ROE contradicts international law, then troops are duty bound not to follow those parts which are outside this law, and those responsible for issuing that ROE would be liable to prosecution for war crimes. This ROE is generally considered secret since disclosure would allow once side to develop tactics that exploit the other side’s ROE. Since wikileaks has apparently also published the ROE in force for this time and place, you can probably read it and you’ll be able to point out where it contravenes international law so we can begin prosecutions. You are implying that the USA regularly breaks its own ROE: do you have proof that this is sanctioned by the government and military? I seem to remember that the USA military has investigated and does investigate claims of military personnel breaking this ROE – why do you think it does not? Why do you think there is an after action report on this particular incident, apparently with photographs of the dead with weapons strewn around if not to provide proof of what went on, should allegations of illegal acts come about?
I’m still waiting for any ROE for the AIF that you might have.
War is not about ‘fairness’ in battle. I’ll repeat myself: War is not a joust. The ‘little guy’ is not given a free pass because of an imbalance in forces or technology. You may think it is immoral. You may think this is unlawful. You may think this is wrong. Just because you don’t like it does not make it illegal or wrong.
“enemy needing to use guerrilla warfare”: So they are allowed to ignore international law because they are disadvantaged? Do they get a free pass to kill innocent civilians, or cause innocent civilians to be killed because they choose to ignore international law? If you have a disagreement with your local police, you don’t have a right to poison their water supply since they have more guns than you do. Or are you OK with the notion that anything is justifiable if you are disadvantaged enough?
The ‘High Ground’ that the USA has is its ROE and operates under the laws of warfare, which is more moral than the ROE which the AIF appears to have. The proof of their adherence to this ROE is on the wikileaks video. Being indistinguishable from armed AIF and appearing to act aggressively as a lawful target makes you stupid and dead; it does not make require that the US forces act like a paper target just because they have an overwhelming force they are able to bear.
The “ROE” bit is BS — acts of atrocity become common in any large theater of war when things get old, down and dirty, and ROE becomes wink-wink. And typically that stuff gets covered up as a matter of policy.
The much bigger issue here is whether we are truly the good guys here, and if so, are we actually acting like we are?
“WikiLeaks claims to be obtaining classified information and they are releasing it to try and hurt the United States, and to aid our enemies.
That makes them spies and (if they’re Americans) traitors.
The members of this group ought to be rounded up, tried before a military court and immediately executed.”
You’re sick, buddy. Truly mentally ill. WikiLeaks does what it does because they think someone did something wrong — that’s all it amounts to. They’re whistle blowers trying to fix something they see as unethical, not traitors. Agree or disagree, that’s your right. But accusations like that show that you’re an unstable individual.
If you actually believe that anyone who asks questions about the conduct of the military should be put to death after a formality of a trial, you’re about as un-American as it gets.
Nope. Not sick at all.
Just don’t like traitors, or enemy propagandists.
Wacking them out would be a service to humanity.
Yeah,
So in your mind were all those Boston Tea Party members traitors too? You are UN-American and borderline fascist. Go turn up Rush and veg out.
I will make a final, similar general statement now. If the shoe were on the other foot, and it was Israelis picking off Americans on the ground, like playing a video game, many of those who think it’s ok just because it’s the US in the air would not feel the same way. I posted a statement above from one of the US Army folks in that group, who was picking off these people, who admitted that it was unbridled brutality … of course many of you would destroy everyone earth if you could, for political reasons, because you are an ignorant, stupid individuals who are still learning how to walk without dragging your knuckles on the ground. As a human being, taking a permanent position of brutality toward others, no matter what the reason, shows exactly what kind of person you are not. I’m not going to bother to respond further to any of you, or this issue. I think that NORMAL people don’t like brutality from any source, but ‘arguing’ that point with idiots is a waste of my time. If you are anyone who thinks that causing death as a way of life is sensible, good luck with your pathetic future.
All you right wing idiots are funny, talking about the rules of engagement. I am not sure about this but didn’t your boy Bush declare a victory on that carrier? Oh I forgot, we can say we won the war but still be involved in the war. I thought our job in Irag was to POLICE the civilian population until the Iraqis could defend themselves. WE are pulling out this summer aren’t we??? I ask if we are still at war, what are we trying to do, what is the goal? Is it kill the evil Al Quieda? Then I ask why aren’t we in Somalia still or other African nations that harbor so called terrorists? The military in this instance did murder innocent civilians. What the hell is the guy saying that “all he needs to do is pick up a gun” or ” I think he just ran over a body.” Come on, pull your head out of your a@@. The term baby-killer comes to mind.