The problem with active military

[IntLibber]

They're reporters. It's what they do. It's risky, and they accept that risk. I'm not pissed because a war reporter got killed by friendly fire, I'm pissed because a bunch of civs got killed by friendly fire, and then the US government lied about it. Since several Canadian military troops have been killed by US fire, it hits rather close to home. What else is being covered up because the truth is embarrassing?

I guess that's a pretty concise summary of your view. The rules change in a war.
I disagree. Gunner's don't get to lie to their superiors so they can fire on a target. The military doesn't get to lie to the general population to keep their support.

Evidently you don't know shit about the laws of war. Those of us who actually have done a tour or two will educate you as to how the Geneva Conventions (which you evidently have never perused) are written.

a) failure to wear identifiable uniforms insignia makes you an unlawful combatant and subject to summary execution on the battlefield in extremis, or otherwise, war crimes trial before military tribunals.
b) hiding in and among civillians, wearing civillian clothing, is a war crime subject to summary execution on the battlefield in extremis, or otherwise, war crimes trial before military tribunals
c) shooting civillians as collateral damage while targeting unlawful combatants hiding among them/ using them for human shields is NOT a war crime by lawful combatants doing the shooting, those deaths are the responsibility of the unlawful combatants wearing civvies and hiding among civillians.

Ergo, terrorist / taliban in rag-head and other tribal wear toting AK-47 hiding among local civillians is the war criminal merely by doing that. An Apache can lawfully, under the Geneva Conventions, fire upon the taliban in such a situation, and any civillians killed by the Apache are considered victims of the Taliban by the conventions.

[MSimon]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/col ... d-anything

There are a couple of things to note in the video. First, Wikileaks characterizes the attack as the U.S. military casually gunning down Iraqis who were innocently gathering on the streets of New Baghdad. But the video begins somewhat abruptly, with a UAV starting to track a group of Iraqi males gathering on the streets. The voice of a U.S. officer is captured in mid-sentence. It would be nice to know what happened before Wikileaks decided to begin the video. The U.S. military claimed the Iraqis were killed after a gunbattle with U.S. and Iraqi security forces. It is unclear if any of that was captured on the strike footage.

[JohnSmith]

IntLibber, you're correct that I've never read the Geneva Conventions. I also don't care about them. What some guys somewhere decided was lawful and unlawful has no bearing on what I think is right and wrong. And as I've said, again and again, I don't care near so much about the actual attack as the fact that statements were made that directly contradict the video.

Simon, that every other source I've seen refers to that video as being from the gunship. Why do they it's a UAV?

[Diogenes]

From mypetjawa.mu.nu there is this:



UPDATE II: I made some screenshots for the naysayers. Beginning at 3:36 you can clearly see two men holding weapons. This guy at 3:43 has an AK-47. You can see it more clearly as he swings it but here's a screenshot that shows it.




This screenshot is at 3:35. This guy is definitely carrying a weapon. In motion it looks like it might be a rifle, but from the profile angle snapped below it looks like an RPG.




A few seconds later at 3:50 he puts the weapon down. The weapon is long enough that it's comes up well beyond his waist and it certainly has the width of an RPG. Or at least from this angle it looks that way.




The person than goes behind a building, out of view. A few seconds later someone is down on the ground behind the same building. At 4:06 he starts to pick up whatever he has laid down on the ground.




Continued at http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

[Diogenes]

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2 ... lefts.html

There are two versions, long at short, available at WikiLeaks' Twitter page, and there's a website as well, with links to "Collateral Murder." And Glenn Greenwald's orgasmic tweets are here, here, and here (for starters). Greenwald's been active in getting WikiLeaks public, for example, "The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters." MSNBC extremist-hack Dylan Ratigan also tweets, and the network has a item up already, "U.S. pilot seen firing on people in Iraq." And radical feminist Charlie Carpenter has a post up entitled, "Precision Targeting at Work." (Via Memeorandum.) These folks, anti-Americans all, have long pushed a delegitimation campaign against the U.S. and American foreign policy.

I'll first note that WikiLeaks online infrastructure is questionable. The Collateral Murder page barely loads, if at all, but WikiLeaks claims to be raising hundreds of thousands for the effort, so why not launch with enough servers to handle the load? Plus, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' editor, is Australian, and a key activist in the global left's movement for international war-crimes trials against Bush administration civilian and military officials. In a piece at communist Alexander Cockburn's CounterPunch, "The Anti-Nuclear WANK Worm," Assange's bio reads:

Julian Assange is president of a NGO and Australia's most infamous former computer hacker. He was convicted of attacks on the US intelligence and publishing a magazine which inspired crimes against the Commonwealth.

That's him at this Al Jazeera broadcast, "Video of US attack in Iraq 'genuine'":

[bcglorf]

This video is terrible, but it's what happens in war. The military 'cover-up' basically consisted of stating the soldiers did what they were supposed to do, and would be expected to do the same if they are in that same situation again.

The Apache was called in because the ground forces where already under fire and had called in air support. The Reuters own investigations into the deaths of their reporters confirmed that more than one of the men the reporters were with were armed. It's a tragic accident, but the victims here were just in exactly the wrong place at the wrong time. The gunner on the Apache had a job to do to protect his guys on the ground and did the best that could be expected of him to identify the group that had been firing on the ground forces, right down to correctly identifying the AK-47's, but possibly misidentifying a camera as an rpg. Though some witness accounts claim the men with the reporters did have a grenade launcher as well.

All in all, America has done much worse in Iraq.

[MirariNefas]

Why did they shoot the van? And why were they so darn bloodthirsty? While the wounded guy was dragging himself along the ground they were actually rooting for him to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him some more.

They may not be war criminals, but at least some soldiers there were, simply, bad people.

[cuddihy]

Why did they shoot the van? And why were they so darn bloodthirsty? While the wounded guy was dragging himself along the ground they were actually rooting for him to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him some more.

They may not be war criminals, but at least some soldiers there were, simply, bad people.

you're a jerk. Why don't you move somewhere where you're not under the protection of me and my friends?

[MSimon]

Why did they shoot the van? And why were they so darn bloodthirsty? While the wounded guy was dragging himself along the ground they were actually rooting for him to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him some more.

They may not be war criminals, but at least some soldiers there were, simply, bad people.

you're a jerk. Why don't you move somewhere where you're not under the protection of me and my friends?

Bravo

[MSimon]

While the wounded guy was dragging himself along the ground they were actually rooting for him to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him some more.

You mean they can't shoot unless someone has a weapon in hand?

So much for out of control.

I'm going to go a little farther out and say you are an idiot and we Americans are going to vote out the criminals this November.

America and its allies beat the snot out of Saddam. We defeated (with the able assistance of the Iraqi Army) the insurgency in record time (these sorts of things usually take 10 years) thus giving Iraqis the country they wanted. And we are scheduled to leave as asked.

Saddam was killing 3,000 to 7,000 of his people each month. And you are hand wringing over reporters hanging out with targets? Spare me.

And now. Cue up the blood lust music:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... aiser.html

[bcglorf]

While the wounded guy was dragging himself along the ground they were actually rooting for him to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him some more.

You mean they can't shoot unless someone has a weapon in hand?

So much for out of control.

I'm going to go a little farther out and say you are an idiot and we Americans are going to vote out the criminals this November.

America and its allies beat the snot out of Saddam. We defeated (with the able assistance of the Iraqi Army) the insurgency in record time (these sorts of things usually take 10 years) thus giving Iraqis the country they wanted. And we are scheduled to leave as asked.

Saddam was killing 3,000 to 7,000 of his people each month. And you are hand wringing over reporters hanging out with targets? Spare me.

And now. Cue up the blood lust music:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... aiser.html

Good post, too bad context is completely lost and wasted on bleeding hearts, they are utterly immune.

[Diogenes]

Why did they shoot the van?

However, the video clearly shows that the vehicle in question bore no markings of a rescue vehicle at all, and the men who ran out of the van to grab the wounded man wore no uniforms identifying themselves as such. Under any rules of engagement, and especially in a terrorist hot zone like Baghdad in 2007, that vehicle would properly be seen as support for the terrorists that had just been engaged and a legitimate target for US forces.

And why were they so darn bloodthirsty?

While they didn’t grab weapons before getting shot, the truth is that the gunships didn’t give them the chance to try, either — which is exactly what they’re trained to do.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/05/v ... war-zones/

[Skipjack]

a) failure to wear identifiable uniforms insignia makes you an unlawful combatant and subject to summary execution on the battlefield in extremis, or otherwise, war crimes trial before military tribunals.
b) hiding in and among civillians, wearing civillian clothing, is a war crime subject to summary execution on the battlefield in extremis, or otherwise, war crimes trial before military tribunals
c) shooting civillians as collateral damage while targeting unlawful combatants hiding among them/ using them for human shields is NOT a war crime by lawful combatants doing the shooting, those deaths are the responsibility of the unlawful combatants wearing civvies and hiding among civillians.

The Germans were hanged as war criminals for acting exactly by those laws against partisans. I guess some people are samer than others...
Still, I totally love this. The US has to learn the hard way that
A) And occupation is not a walk in the park
B) It is even harder when you have to deal with partisans (nowadays called terrorists).
C) It is not easy to separate civilians from partisans.
D) It can make you pretty angry some times when partisans kill your comrade next to you and then the coward is hiding among the civs. Makes you want to take it out on those bastards, doesnt it? They are all in bed with the enemy anyway, arent they?

I hope you learn your lesson guys. I sure do. Maybe next time you make an anti Nazi movie, you look into the mirror first.

[JLawson]

a) failure to wear identifiable uniforms insignia makes you an unlawful combatant and subject to summary execution on the battlefield in extremis, or otherwise, war crimes trial before military tribunals.
b) hiding in and among civillians, wearing civillian clothing, is a war crime subject to summary execution on the battlefield in extremis, or otherwise, war crimes trial before military tribunals
c) shooting civillians as collateral damage while targeting unlawful combatants hiding among them/ using them for human shields is NOT a war crime by lawful combatants doing the shooting, those deaths are the responsibility of the unlawful combatants wearing civvies and hiding among civillians.

The Germans were hanged as war criminals for acting exactly by those laws against partisans. I guess some people are samer than others...
Still, I totally love this. The US has to learn the hard way that
A) And occupation is not a walk in the park
B) It is even harder when you have to deal with partisans (nowadays called terrorists).
C) It is not easy to separate civilians from partisans.
D) It can make you pretty angry some times when partisans kill your comrade next to you and then the coward is hiding among the civs. Makes you want to take it out on those bastards, doesnt it? They are all in bed with the enemy anyway, arent they?

When the 'partisans' aren't at all concerned with how many of their own people they kill - indeed, they're instead targeting them wholesale and would apparently have no compunction at all about using hostages and human shields - you've got to wonder about their motives.

Iraq's becoming a democratic country. The people are taking control of it - not the dictator-wannabe types. Those are realizing their only chance is to take control through violence, and each day that Iraq rebuilds their opportunites get less and less. Their only real tactic is through intimidating the people - but the people have had enough of the Saddam-like strong-man, and are ready to join the world. They don't see these 'partisans' as being heroic freedom-fighters, but folks who'd drag them back into the nightmare years of Saddam.

[Skipjack]

When the 'partisans' aren't at all concerned with how many of their own people they kill - indeed, they're instead targeting them wholesale and would apparently have no compunction at all about using hostages and human shields - you've got to wonder about their motives.

The partisans in WW2 were no bit better. They massacred civilians left and right and even blamed it on the Germans. My grandmother lost so many of her friends in Marburg. She was warned by her maid and took the last train that made it out of the town to Austria. She lost everything there. True story. Of course those partisans were made into heroes after WW2, just because they fought the Germans. Makes the point that you can find plenty of assholes on all sides, but nobody ever judges the winners.