View Full Version : WikiLeaks publishes apparent negligent attack on civillians in Iraq video
Wikileaks has today published classified US military video of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter murdering people on a Baghdad street in 2007.
The footage shows those on the street seemingly minding their own business until being fired upon. Worse perhaps is that among the people was a Reuters journalist who made the mistake of pointing his camera at the helicopter, a move the pilot mistook as a militant lining up an RPG.
In the second scene, having shot a pile of people, the helicopter then fires on a van that arrives on the scene in an attempt to rescue one of the survivors.
The body count for the day included around a dozen people, and several children were also injured.
The US military initially claimed after the attack that all the dead were “anti-Iraqi” forces or “insurgents,” despite there being two Reuters journalists among the dead.
The footage below in disturbing, and before hitting play we emphasize that we’re not joking when we say that.
Inquisitr Site (http://www.inquisitr.com/68914/wikileaks-publishes-collateral-murder-in-iraq-video/)
Link to Youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0)
This video IS shocking. I discourage people with high levels of sensibility to watch it, as people are killed in the video.
This caught my eye in the Paradox OT Forums. While I am on the fence on this one, as that is a warzone and soldiers have to take quick decisions, I'm pending towards that this is a gross neglicence that costed the lives of several innocent people.
Curious thing is also that this video is still classified, and it was just leaked (A few days ago) to an humanitarian transprancy agency called Wikileaks, which I had no idea that it existed until now, by an annonymous source. In its site, you also find many other leaked cases on many countries, including one which caught my eye of an attempt by CIA to attempt to wreck the site's credibility.
The thing which made me heavily pend towards negligence was when they attacked the van which had come to help one of the few people still barely alive after the attack.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-06-2010, 02:29
I don't understand at all the thinking behind shooting up the van :(
I wish the video makers would let it speak for itself though. When you zoom in and clearly label a blur as "children" you aren't showing what the soldiers could see.
PanzerJaeger
04-06-2010, 07:29
I don't understand at all the thinking behind shooting up the van :(
Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.
The question seems to be whether this was a tragic accidental killing of two journalists and several innocents as WikiLeaks and the editors of the video contend, or the killing of two journalists imbedded with insurgent forces as the military contends. An examination of the supposedly unedited video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&feature=related) at around 19:00 seems to confirm that there was an RPG involved.
In any event, Reuters and the US military seem to be in agreement (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36182383/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/) that there were armed men in the group.
Reuters stated that its photographer and his driver "had gone to the area after hearing of a military raid on a building around dawn that day, and were with a group of men at the time. It is believed two or three of these men may have been carrying weapons, although witnesses said none were assuming a hostile posture.
"The U.S. military said the helicopter attack, in which nine other people were killed, occurred after security forces came under fire," Reuters stated at the time.
According to a July 19 summary of the investigation, obtained by The Associated Press, U.S. troops acted appropriately.
Reuters employees were likely "intermixed among the insurgents" and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.
"It is worth noting the fact that insurgent groups often video and photograph friendly activity and insurgent attacks against friendly forces for use in training videos and for use as propaganda to exploit or highlight their capabilities," the document concludes.
More tragic then it's shocking
pevergreen
04-06-2010, 10:34
I blame the first guy that mistook the camera for an RPG. Once seen, hard to unsee, especially when you figure you could die...
Itchy trigger fingers, nothing more.
al Roumi
04-06-2010, 10:39
Apparently the Pentagon now considers "wikileaks" a threat to national security... Does that mean they'll send in another couple of attack helicopters?
rory_20_uk
04-06-2010, 11:38
If they thought the van was there to evacuate the wounded, that's a warcrime. If they thought it was reinforcements that is an unfortunate error.
The Military appears to be of the opinion that even if they knew it was a camera it was still a valid target... :inquisitive:
In terms of recruiting for the Taliban, it was very successful all round.
~:smoking:
Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.
That may be true, but then the Apache helicopter was still in plain sight and circling around the area where they just attacked. It would have been pretty stupid for an unmarked van to just come by a recently attacked site where there is an American attack helicopter flying-by and loading up people who were attacked if they were insurgents. Likewise, the soldiers should have seen there were children in the van (In the front seat, if I'm not mistaken.)
When there is a terrorrist attack (Like the usual market bombings), the first thing willing citizens do is start loading wounded into their vehicles to transport them to the hospital as quickly as possible. That seems pretty much to be the case of a van who just happened to be around and heard an attack, came to the site and saw a badly wounded man and was about to transport him to the hospital.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-06-2010, 13:40
Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.
So? Let them collect the wounded man.
The question seems to be whether this was a tragic accidental killing of two journalists and several innocents as WikiLeaks and the editors of the video contend, or the killing of two journalists imbedded with insurgent forces as the military contends. An examination of the supposedly unedited video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&feature=related) at around 19:00 seems to confirm that there was an RPG involved.
The WikiLeaks video seemed to be pushing a "this was an evil massacre from the start" angle. It is clearly tragic however you look at it though.
al Roumi
04-06-2010, 13:50
Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.
So? Let them collect the wounded man.
Indeed; even if they were insurgents, and the man-with-the-van were an insurgent medic, are you telling me that it is US army doctrine to target enemy medics?
Banquo's Ghost
04-06-2010, 14:06
Indeed; even if they were insurgents, and the man-with-the-van were an insurgent medic, are you telling me that it is US army doctrine to target enemy medics?
Strictly speaking, medics in a combat zone should be displaying the red cross (or crescent) for them to be afforded legal protection.
rory_20_uk
04-06-2010, 14:17
That is true if we were talking about a war zone, which this isn't.
Civilians always have legal protection.
Vladimir
04-06-2010, 14:17
Strictly speaking, medics in a combat zone should be displaying the red cross (or crescent) for them to be afforded legal protection.
They have to meet other criteria as well. If Buba and Earl want to fight against the gov'ment and use Earl's truck as an ambulance, they aren't afforded any special protection.
Kekvit Irae
04-06-2010, 15:17
I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47.
Kagemusha
04-06-2010, 15:43
As far as i understand those two apaches clearly recogniced that no one was shooting at them. Its terrible to listen how the gunner begs for the pilot to get the green light from the commander in ground to open fire at the van,while the men coming out of the van are clearly moving towards the wounded and no one is shooting at the gunships.
Vladimir
04-06-2010, 17:00
The language is pretty harsh. No need to be rude. But seriously, there's nothing like the lack of context to make me mad. The section they show may be "uncut" but we don't know the events leading up to the shooting. I don't trust Wikileaks and they're hypocritical. It appears that a gunship just happened to be flying around and decided to take our a bunch of people. To the ignorant and naive it looks like big bad USA is at it again. I don't know how someone could think this is helicopter gun footage; it is clearly a fixed wing aircraft. You'll also notice how the gunner didn't fire on the wounded man. He wasn't told to do so, he made the decision himself. It looks like he adhered to the rules of engagement. It also looks like the gun camera isn't calibrated to the weapon.
Another issue of armchair generals, lack of context, and emotional outrage. In summary: Bad guys spotted, rules of engagement followed, van is shot when trying to pick up bad guys. Yes it's a "50,000 foot view" but it accurately describes the situation. I've grown as numb to these politics as some have grown numb to killing. Both are dirty business.
Kagemusha
04-06-2010, 17:31
The language is pretty harsh. No need to be rude. But seriously, there's nothing like the lack of context to make me mad. The section they show may be "uncut" but we don't know the events leading up to the shooting. I don't trust Wikileaks and they're hypocritical. It appears that a gunship just happened to be flying around and decided to take our a bunch of people. To the ignorant and naive it looks like big bad USA is at it again. I don't know how someone could think this is helicopter gun footage; it is clearly a fixed wing aircraft. You'll also notice how the gunner didn't fire on the wounded man. He wasn't told to do so, he made the decision himself. It looks like he adhered to the rules of engagement. It also looks like the gun camera isn't calibrated to the weapon.
Another issue of armchair generals, lack of context, and emotional outrage. In summary: Bad guys spotted, rules of engagement followed, van is shot when trying to pick up bad guys. Yes it's a "50,000 foot view" but it accurately describes the situation. I've grown as numb to these politics as some have grown numb to killing. Both are dirty business.
Well if you are educating other people.Maybe you should have noticed that there were 2 gunships and at times it is the first gunships camera that pics up the firing of the other gunships on its view. If you listen to the initial conversation leading to the gunships opening fire. Gunships spot group of men. They report their sightings to the ground commander some distance away and ask for permission to fire. Ground commander gives a green light and the gunships open fire. After a while gunships report to ground commander approaching the area that a van arrives with possible hostiles and after repeated requests the commander gives green light to firing at the van.
The initial spotting and reaction of the gunships can be explained by they are being over enemy territory and under pressure. Thus making a hasty conclusion about the group of men.
The second request to attack the van is unacceptable based on the facts that no one fired a shot against the gunships and the gunships observed the van for quite some time before opening fire.But this isnt the first or last time civilians are killed in wars.
Vladimir
04-06-2010, 17:54
More education to follow:
Measure the time it took between the sound of the gunfire and when the bullets reached the ground. It's silly to think that the gunship needs to be threatened directly. Even if they could see it it's likely thousands of feet in the air!
The gunner clearly followed the rules of engagement regardless of your personal feelings. We can always disagree with those rules but they aren't made up on a whim. The military has lawyers who specialize in this area.
You're thinking about the chess piece not the quadrant or the rest of the board. Civilians are always killed in wars and insurgents are almost always civilians (have fun with those sentences).
gaelic cowboy
04-06-2010, 18:04
The real problem at the end of the day is the fact the army wont hold up it's hands and say a simple sorry we got it wrong we made a mistake under pressure.
Kagemusha
04-06-2010, 18:04
More education to follow:
Measure the time it took between the sound of the gunfire and when the bullets reached the ground. It's silly to think that the gunship needs to be threatened directly. Even if they could see it it's likely thousands of feet in the air!
The gunner clearly followed the rules of engagement regardless of your personal feelings. We can always disagree with those rules but they aren't made up on a whim. The military has lawyers who specialize in this area.
You're thinking about the chess piece not the quadrant or the rest of the board. Civilians are always killed in wars and insurgents are almost always civilians (have fun with those sentences).
I dont understand why you are supposed to know my sentiments? Are you empath of sorts? If you had any knowledge about optics. You would understand it that the gunships were low and at times the targets were horizontally out of their sight. That doesnt give the one watching the tape any hint what their distance to their targets was. From the radio conversation it seems quite clear that the gunships had a line of sight to the ground forces below as they were directing them to the area the group of men were. But you dont have any way to measure their distance to their targets. So please stop educating me if you dont know anything about what you are saying.
Vladimir
04-06-2010, 18:12
Clearly you're emotional and I don't have people skills. However, it does make me smile when you suggest that those people fire an AK-47 at a plane thousands of feet in the sky. Again, we don't have context, you're making assumptions, and essentially there is nothing to see here.
Kagemusha
04-06-2010, 18:45
Clearly you're emotional and I don't have people skills. However, it does make me smile when you suggest that those people fire an AK-47 at a plane thousands of feet in the sky. Again, we don't have context, you're making assumptions, and essentially there is nothing to see here.
You dont comprehend that would the choppers be thousends feets at the sky.They would have a birds view on the target? Which they dont have the gunner is talking to the pilot as the crowd disappears behind a building. Second you cant see a single flash coming out from rifle barrels from the crowd.In matter of fact you cant see a single rifle in the crowd. Last i cant understand how i have to be emotional because i disagree with you? Because i hate freedom, for questioning actions of US military service men?
While certainly tragic I can understand why the aviators did what they did. They saw a large group of men, they looked armed, in order to prevent some ambush on US ground pounders they engaged. A few minutes later a van pulls up and starts recovering bodies, the pilots obviously think these are the insurgent QRF and engage. The Apache crew was definitely quick to engage, this being 2007 the ROE was still lax and what they did was well within it. A non-uniformed enemy makes target ID difficult to do, mistakes can and will be made.
As for the lack of threat to the Apaches, in Iraq they fly a few hundred feet from the ground, it allows them to have some aspect of surprise because when you fly high the enemy can see and hear you from much farther away. I've responded to Apaches that have found people digging in IEDs, moving around after curfew and so on, all because they fly low and fast (for a helo).
All this does not however serve to excuse their action, they made a terrible mistake. WikiLeaks is right to publish the footage despite the protests of the Pentagon, this does hurt our war effort and will probably be another recruiting call for more of our enemies but it should be public because I value truth a bit more than pride or this war.
The real problem at the end of the day is the fact the army wont hold up it's hands and say a simple sorry we got it wrong we made a mistake under pressure.
Exactly!
Well, part of the problem is that saying sorry destroys the credibility of a military (Who is always noble and brave and "almost" never wrong), and doesn't do much good.
ajaxfetish
04-06-2010, 22:14
The real problem at the end of the day is the fact the army wont hold up it's hands and say a simple sorry we got it wrong we made a mistake under pressure.
Agreed. Of course a military under pressure is going to make mistakes. While the gunner definitely seemed trigger-happy and the attack on the van completely unjustified, I've never been in a war zone getting shot at, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Not accepting responsibility for those mistakes that can and will be made, however, is imo unacceptable. Good that this is out, I think.
Ajax
I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47.
Well, they didn't, they thought it was an RPG, which makes it all okay, no wait, worse, because people always wave RPgs around with one hand and everybody knows RPGs are just 20cm long.
Itchy trigger finger is a good point indeed considering the conversation, the pilot/gunner literally says to the command: "come on, let us shoot!", they also call the guys down there bastards and blame them for the two children who got injured, say it's their own fault for bringing kids to a combat zone, which I guess wasn't a combat zone until the military started shooting.
Personally, I find this pretty disgusting, quick decisions didn't play a role here, as kage says, there was noone shooting at the helicopter, they asked for permission to fire all the time, so clearly they should have had enough time to realize that noone was about to fire an RPG at them, yet they didn't, they seemed all concerned about killing everybody down there quickly. They belong in a court IMO.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-07-2010, 02:36
Well, they didn't, they thought it was an RPG, which makes it all okay, no wait, worse, because people always wave RPgs around with one hand and everybody knows RPGs are just 20cm long.
Itchy trigger finger is a good point indeed considering the conversation, the pilot/gunner literally says to the command: "come on, let us shoot!", they also call the guys down there bastards and blame them for the two children who got injured, say it's their own fault for bringing kids to a combat zone, which I guess wasn't a combat zone until the military started shooting.
Personally, I find this pretty disgusting, quick decisions didn't play a role here, as kage says, there was noone shooting at the helicopter, they asked for permission to fire all the time, so clearly they should have had enough time to realize that noone was about to fire an RPG at them, yet they didn't, they seemed all concerned about killing everybody down there quickly. They belong in a court IMO.
I see no excuse for shooting up the van when they guys tried to pull the wounded guy into it, but didn't the video say that they had weapons, were shooting at the helicopters, and one of them had an rpg round (found afterwards)? That's what I remember hearing.
The "callous" comments made are what I think people would have to say as a defense of their own psyche in a war situation.
Anyway, wikileaks should have leaked the video and left it at that. You can't complain about the government trying to keep the video out of your hands when you edit it like that.
Clearly you're emotional and I don't have people skills.
:laugh4: mind if I borrow that
PanzerJaeger
04-07-2010, 04:13
So? Let them collect the wounded man.
Why would they do that?
I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47.
I don't mean to question your obvious expertise in long range target identification, but if you examine the video posted at 3:40, there clearly looks to be a man with a weapon. Further, at 4 minutes in, it very much looks like a man with an RPG is crouching and peering around the corner. It even startles the pilots.
Even from a video as heavily edited as that, I'm still not convinced that the pilots erroneously saw weapons that weren't there. Also curious is the fact that the video mentions nothing about the other men. If they had weeping widows and children, surely the propagandists editors would have utilized them. This, along with the conclusions from the military and Reuters, leads me to believe these journalists were most likely imbedded with insurgent forces and their deaths, while tragic, are par for the course in that line of work.
Shaka_Khan
04-07-2010, 08:02
We can think of the gunner's side of the story while we disagree with his decision.
The problem is, would the Middle East, particularly the families and the news agency of those journalists believe the gunner's side of the story? Take note that this happened in 2007. The Middle East knew what happened to those journalists for 2 years without hearing about the explanation for it.
The "callous" comments made are what I think people would have to say as a defense of their own psyche in a war situation.
I've been thinking about that, but is it really the point of that war? Is it right to go there to protect the innocent people from all sorts of horrible things and then turn into a monster yourself?
A soldier without any compassion is just a killing machine, I found it quite telling when he was wishing for the guy crawling on the ground to pick up a weapon so he could shoot him (what he did later anyway when the van arrived), no regard for human life at all, in fact I could envision the taliban saying the same things after killing americans, so what exactly makes these soldiers better again?
Why would they do that?
Because some people help those who are in need of help, it's called human compassion, it may be surprising to you but it also exists in the middle east.
I don't mean to question your obvious expertise in long range target identification, but if you examine the video posted at 3:40, there clearly looks to be a man with a weapon.
Yeah, I saw the guy carrying the tripod for the camera, too...
Further, at 4 minutes in, it very much looks like a man with an RPG is crouching and peering around the corner. It even startles the pilots.
Oh yes, the guy kneeling around the corner holding this 20cm long RPG in one hand who then disappears behind a building in the next second, that's clearly enough evidence to warrant killing 8 people...
I didn't hear anyone being startled either, I'm probably too hardass and not caring enough about those poor soldiers in that gunship, 2km or so away from the scene.
Even from a video as heavily edited as that, I'm still not convinced that the pilots erroneously saw weapons that weren't there.
Yeah, sure, but oh what fun they had when the HMMWV drove over a body, I'm sure they're good christians and all that.
Louis VI the Fat
04-07-2010, 12:04
When you are trained for a long time in something, you'll want to put it into practise.
I do wonder, are these people overtrained in shooting, and undertrained in refraining from shooting?
From this distance, with this weaponry, the people shot do not look like people. They do not bleed, they do not scream, they do not die. They are 'elements', to be erased with the push of a button. I find the language of the soldiers very discomforting.
War is war, and requires detachement of the soldier from empathy with the opponent. His orphaned kids can not be the overriding sentiment in pitched battle. One can take this detachment a level too far, cultivate it through language, physical detachement from the battlefield.
I find the use of dehumanised words such as 'elements' even more dangerous than words that relish in actual blood and gore. ('Haha - did he just drive over that dead body?') The latter requires the acknowledgement of the opponent as a human being, who bleeds, suffers, knows humiliation and pride. The former does not, and is therefore even more dangerous.
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
As for is/isn't/is too an AK-47/RPG: the one thing that debate shows, is that the military patrols in such a manner, from such a distance, that this can't be established with any accuracy, but will shoot.
In that light, it isn't all that important what the exact nature of the people shot in this video turns out to be. The method itself is a recipe for civilian casualties. If not in this instance, then someplace else.
HoreTore
04-07-2010, 16:52
The method itself is a recipe for civilian casualties. If not in this instance, then someplace else.
That's what dem lousy hippies say all the time!!
....Like the commander of the US troops in Afghanistan.... A clear case of hippie, next we'll see him form a drum circle.
PanzerJaeger
04-07-2010, 18:10
Because some people help those who are in need of help, it's called human compassion, it may be surprising to you but it also exists in the middle east.
Yeah, I saw the guy carrying the tripod for the camera, too...
Oh yes, the guy kneeling around the corner holding this 20cm long RPG in one hand who then disappears behind a building in the next second, that's clearly enough evidence to warrant killing 8 people...
I didn't hear anyone being startled either, I'm probably too hardass and not caring enough about those poor soldiers in that gunship, 2km or so away from the scene.
Yeah, sure, but oh what fun they had when the HMMWV drove over a body, I'm sure they're good christians and all that.
I don't understand how you could possibly be that righteously indignant with such a vague and ambiguous command of the facts surrounding this incident and the context in which it occurred. Goebbels did say something to the effect that the best propaganda cuts through rational thought in to raw emotion.
HoreTore
04-07-2010, 18:12
I don't understand how you could possibly be that righteously indignant with such a vague and ambiguous command of the facts surrounding this incident and the context in which it occurred. Goebbels did say something to the effect that the best propaganda cuts through rational thought into raw emotion.
Do I smell a Goodwin?
Strike For The South
04-07-2010, 18:28
When you fight behind civilians, some are bound to get killed.
The insurgents use these tactics b/c they hafto, any rational person assumes any civilians miling around the insurgents make get mistaken for insurgents themselves. It should come as no surprise what happens when you go into a firefight in an unmarked van and have men unload out of it.
“I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47”
Happened to me after Iraq. I saw weapons everywhere (camera as a small weapon). And I was in France, in the festival of jazz in Vienne (near Lyon, not Austria).
The fact is when you are in a war zone (or just come back) your brain links all to war and danger (or food).
So, I watch this video.
What I find disturbing is the will for the pilot and the gunner to see weapons…
Then yes, the RPC is clearly not one. In black and white.
Now due to Iraq luminosity and the fact that the observers did not have black and white vision (I don't know), a black long object could have been suspect.
Then, because their mid was set on “insurgents” they interpreted all the others movements as dangers or help to insurgents.
“As far as I understand those two apaches clearly recogniced that no one was shooting at them”
That is not a reason not to engage potential enemies in a war. In fact it is what you do in ambush… A trained insurgent would take cover again a Apache if he has not AA weapons…
“it is clearly a fixed wing aircraft”: ? Can you developp on this assertion?
“In summary: Bad guys spotted, rules of engagement followed, van is shot when trying to pick up bad guys”. Err, excepted that the dad guys were not bad guys, weapons were not weapons and rescuers were just nice people trying to help… That is a ground point of view…
“Well, they didn't, they thought it was an RPG, which makes it all okay, no wait, worse, because people always wave RPgs around with one hand and everybody knows RPGs are just 20cm long” And even it was a RPG, it wouldn’t have been a menace as RPG are not AA, so in order to be use against choppers you have to be on a roof if you don’t want to be burned by the flame made by the rocket (around 5 metres) when launched…
“Further, at 4 minutes in, it very much looks like a man with an RPG is crouching and peering around the corner.” Err, no, it doesn’t on the black and white film I saw. Again, I don’t know if it is how the gunner/pilot see it, of if it as the colour and light…
“I'm still not convinced that the pilots erroneously saw weapons that weren't there”. Well, if the comments match the film, yes they saw weapons where it was none.
I saw a lot of weapons in fighting situations and angles (not for above) and I can’t see any thing which could be bigger than a light pistol in the hands of the men on the ground…
And knowing that all men in Iraq had/have weapons I don’t understand the haste of the pilots to engage, but I don’t know the tactical situation and the rules of engagement in this particular zone…
“From this distance, with this weaponry, the people shot do not look like people. They do not bleed, they do not scream, they do not die. They are 'elements', to be erased with the push of a button. I find the language of the soldiers very discomforting.” Yeap, and that is the difference with the US grunts running to evacuate the children…
Do you imagine what the infantrymen’s reaction when they saw the result? How did they feel? How you feel when you realise what a mistake it was? The smell of the blood, the heat, the sand, the flesh spread every where…
When you fight behind civilians, some are bound to get killed. That is actually Karadzic defence in The Hague... I don't think it will work for him...
Seamus Fermanagh
04-07-2010, 21:58
Such a defense would only work if the preponderance of evidence shows that such civilian deaths were NOT the norm -- but merely a sad byproduct.
I always have trouble second guessing these things for the same reason I have trouble second guessing cops on the beat.
Did they see what they wanted to see? Did a climate of constant anxiety lead them to this? Was this film edited to excise weapons that were present in the hands of a few.
Or are they like the chopper gunner in "Full Metal Jacket" who just didn't care, shot them all, and offered the advice that you didn't need to "lead" women and children as much.
Tactically, firing from such a crowd is a perfect terrorist tool. They want hatred of the suppressor force, can't shoot back on an even footing anyway, and really don't care about the lives of those killed so long as the larger cause is served.
I hope Kukri, MRD, and some of our "old sweat" soldiers can speak to this. The USA fights pretty much all of its conflicts with this as a dominant condition (since the rare instances when we've been allowed to face a "conventional" opponent in the field with few civilians about have resulted in quick and lopsided US victories in the last 30 years we can expect folks NOT to oblige us). How do you train troops to address these situations? How do you effectively institutionalize such training?
The basic model for suppressing an insurgency is well known -- we did it very successfully for decades from 1880 through WW2. So what has changed and how do we get back to that level of success?
I don't understand how you could possibly be that righteously indignant with such a vague and ambiguous command of the facts surrounding this incident and the context in which it occurred. Goebbels did say something to the effect that the best propaganda cuts through rational thought in to raw emotion.
Why? Of course I don't have all the info but if this was a superhot combat zone why were those eight guys casually walking on the street?
And apart from that, go tell the pilot and gunner they should have weighed their arguments better and considered a bit more of the circumstances before pulling the trigger on more than 8 innocent people.
Louis VI the Fat
04-07-2010, 22:32
The basic model for suppressing an insurgency is well known -- we did it very successfully for decades from 1880 through WW2. So what has changed and how do we get back to that level of success?What happened was WW2, and the moral lessons learned.
It is not hard at all to defeat an insurgency. See: British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian Empires. It is just a matter of what you are prepared to do.
PanzerJaeger
04-08-2010, 03:21
Why? Of course I don't have all the info but if this was a superhot combat zone why were those eight guys casually walking on the street?
And apart from that, go tell the pilot and gunner they should have weighed their arguments better and considered a bit more of the circumstances before pulling the trigger on more than 8 innocent people.
Even while admitting to not having all the facts, you've packed in as many unproven assumtions into two sentences as possible.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-08-2010, 03:35
What happened was WW2, and the moral lessons learned.
It is not hard at all to defeat an insurgency. See: British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian Empires. It is just a matter of what you are prepared to do.
I wasn't advocating a return to the "glory" days of the Belgian Congo or Spanish Cuba. I had in mind the generally successful -- and surprisingly non-brutal, non-lethal to civilians -- efforts by the USA in Nicaraugua, Haiti, Vera Cruz, and (though a number of brutal incidents shamefully mar this record) much of the occupation of the Phillipines. Now, it is easy to suggest that we were behaving immorally in our high-handed assumption that we had a right to intervene in those places at all, but the tactics employed were reasonably successful and did not generate the localized hatred we seem to garner today. It should be noted that "shock and awe" featured little in this model, and even when used was restricted to the early phases against a clearly identifiable armed "bad guy." Why would it not work now?
Sasaki Kojiro
04-08-2010, 05:27
http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html
Here's the transcript of the video. Some things I didn't catch watching the video in the OP. Generally you get more of an impression that there was fighting in the are and several groups of insurgents--they shoot missiles at another group at the end of the transcript.
Here's good article by the New York Times that goes a bit into the psychology of soldiers in general while discussing this tragedy.
Psychologists Explain Iraq Airstrike Video (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?ref=world#)
Even while admitting to not having all the facts, you've packed in as many unproven assumtions into two sentences as possible.
So did the pilots, the difference is that I created a forum post with it and they created a bloodbath, is that so hard to get?
Seamus Fermanagh
04-08-2010, 13:04
So did the pilots, the difference is that I created a forum post with it and they created a bloodbath, is that so hard to get?
I believe that PJ is suggesting that they should be held morally/ethically responsible for a series of mistakes under trying conditions, whereas you appear to be suggesting that they are culpable for willful murder (sounds like 2nd degree the way you phrase it, not pre-meditated 1st degree).
I believe that PJ is suggesting that they should be held morally/ethically responsible for a series of mistakes under trying conditions, whereas you appear to be suggesting that they are culpable for willful murder (sounds like 2nd degree the way you phrase it, not pre-meditated 1st degree).
Well, on SimHQ I was somewhat convinced that one of the guys may have actually had an RPG instead of a tripod, in that case they might have been insurgents, but I'm still not really convinced, in a warzone it would be wise even for civilians to peek around a corner, especially when there is a firefight in the vicinity. And if carrying AKs isn't illegal then yeah, you don't shoot guys for carrying handguns in the US without a warning, do you?
Now concerning the pilots, I don't know whether it was murder, more like they saw what they wanted and then had fun killing these people, yes it's horrible to imagine you just killed eight people but if you cannot live with that, don't sign up to become a chopper gunner, sometimes realizing what you are actually doing might help you not to kill the wrong people.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-08-2010, 21:31
Well, on SimHQ I was somewhat convinced that one of the guys may have actually had an RPG instead of a tripod, in that case they might have been insurgents, but I'm still not really convinced, in a warzone it would be wise even for civilians to peek around a corner, especially when there is a firefight in the vicinity. And if carrying AKs isn't illegal then yeah, you don't shoot guys for carrying handguns in the US without a warning, do you?
How is carrying an AK in a combat zone, with fighting nearby, a question of legality? You are acting like none of them were insurgents, not just the photographers.
PanzerJaeger
04-09-2010, 00:09
sometimes realizing what you are actually doing might help you not to kill the wrong people.
That is an unfounded assumption that is not at all supported by any of the information available, be it the military's investigation, Reuter's comments, or even WikiLeaks itself, whose founder admitted that there were armed men in the group. While it is certainly a shame that these reporters were killed, if they were imbedded with insurgents, then their fate is no one's fault but their own. Do keep in mind that you are watching exactly what these people want you to see, nothing more and nothing less.
How is carrying an AK in a combat zone, with fighting nearby, a question of legality? You are acting like none of them were insurgents, not just the photographers.
That is an unfounded assumption that is not at all supported by any of the information available, be it the military's investigation, Reuter's comments, or even WikiLeaks itself, whose founder admitted that there were armed men in the group. While it is certainly a shame that these reporters were killed, if they were imbedded with insurgents, then their fate is no one's fault but their own. Do keep in mind that you are watching exactly what these people want you to see, nothing more and nothing less.
The thing is that I didn't see any of them shooting at US troops. There are civilian contractors in Iraq patrolling the streets with AKs, should a gunship gunner shoot them, too and assume they would be insurgents just because they carry AKs on their shoulder? There was also a reporter who was embedded with just that kind of mercenaries. I don't see how carrying a gun in a combat zone makes you an insurgent, I thought you were all about self defense in the US? If that really was an RPG, well, that's not for self defense and that makes it a lot more likely they were insurgents, but my last comments were mostly assuming it wasn't an RPG. Which I still find hard to say from the video.
And yes, wikileaks only lets me see what they want me to see, just like the US army so who guarantees me that they didn't just cut the gunner some slack?
If I'm not allowed to comment without 100% of all the info then we can just stop opening new threads...
Louis VI the Fat
04-09-2010, 01:35
Do keep in mind that you are watching exactly what these people want you to see, nothing more and nothing less.Which is still a good deal more than what the US government released, which was some reports absolving their own from all blame.
If this was a textbook counter-insurgency operation, why was the full video not released? That would've ended all speculation.
It's still Wikileaks that is responsible for providing us with the fuller picture of what happened, even if by forcing the truth with an edited video. Let's not reverse propaganda and whistle-blower.
PanzerJaeger
04-09-2010, 01:47
The thing is that I didn't see any of them shooting at US troops. There are civilian contractors in Iraq patrolling the streets with AKs, should a gunship gunner shoot them, too and assume they would be insurgents just because they carry AKs on their shoulder? There was also a reporter who was embedded with just that kind of mercenaries. I don't see how carrying a gun in a combat zone makes you an insurgent, I thought you were all about self defense in the US? If that really was an RPG, well, that's not for self defense and that makes it a lot more likely they were insurgents, but my last comments were mostly assuming it wasn't an RPG. Which I still find hard to say from the video.
If it were common practice for US gunships to open fire on random groups of civilians just walking around their neighborhoods, armed or otherwise, knowledge of such merciless ROEs would have certainly emerged after 7 years of war with the number of reporters present in the field. The fact that such a scandal has not occurred leads me to believe that there was a specific reason that this particular group of people was targeted on that day.
The video provides no information on who those people were, what they were doing, or the larger context of the military operations in which the gunships were involved. Such information is key in making any sort of judgment about the pilot's actions.
If I'm not allowed to comment without 100% of all the info then we can just stop opening new threads...
Good point. :smiley:
Which is still a good deal more than what the US government released, which was some reports absolving their own from all blame.
If this was a textbook counter-insurgency operation, why was the full video not released? That would've ended all speculation.
It's still Wikileaks that is responsible for providing us with the fuller picture of what happened, even if by forcing the truth with an edited video. Let's not reverse propaganda and whistle-blower.
I don't believe it is common for the military to release such videos, most likely for this very reason. An investigation was conducted. Is there any evidence that it was handled improperly?
I don't believe it is common for the military to release such videos, most likely for this very reason. An investigation was conducted. Is there any evidence that it was handled improperly?
Yes, a leaked video that supposedly has two guys with RPGs but the investigation claimed they found one RPG.
I think the investigators are terrorist-loving commie supporters and planted a non-RPG at the scene!
And no, I don't think US gunships do that all the time, but I don't think that the heroic and patriotic deeds of the majority of soldiers should serve as a shield for the black sheep to hide behind.
IF they were black sheep, maybe it's just my perfectly fine eyesight and my love for people who want to kill me getting in the way of seeing that RPG, the US should spend more money on updating their optics perhaps, would make things a lot easier once we can start arguing about the fine print on that sticker on the RPG.
The thing is that I didn't see any of them shooting at US troops. There are civilian contractors in Iraq patrolling the streets with AKs, should a gunship gunner shoot them, too and assume they would be insurgents just because they carry AKs on their shoulder? There was also a reporter who was embedded with just that kind of mercenaries. I don't see how carrying a gun in a combat zone makes you an insurgent, I thought you were all about self defense in the US? If that really was an RPG, well, that's not for self defense and that makes it a lot more likely they were insurgents, but my last comments were mostly assuming it wasn't an RPG. Which I still find hard to say from the video.
Civilian contractors do not and have not patrolled streets in Iraq, they have provided security for convoys and work sites and inside bases. They also tend to coordinate with the military so that their presence is known should they need help.
Carrying a gun in a combat zone doesn't make you an insurgent but it certainly doesn't help your standing as an innocent civilian. If there's shooting or combat or something most people bunker down in their homes or flee the area, they don't start patrolling the streets. This is why it was a big thing when the Sunni tribes started kicking out Al Queda in Iraq and trying to provide their own security; after this started the US sent people to live and work with the tribal security so that their was some sort of legitimacy and coordination.
As for it not looking like an RPG, bear in mind that the distinctive part of the stereotypical RPG is the conical warhead which is not universal. There are many different warheads for RPGs, the fragmentation antipersonnel ones look like a small stick out of the end of it making it much smaller and less distinct.
The transcript of the video makes it seem as if there had been a bit of shooting that day and in that area, probably the reason that the journalists were there. The journalists probably wanted to get some great footage of a firefight because that's their job, so very likely they head toward whatever area there was shooting in. If that were the case then it's likely that the pilot and gunner were amped from a previous engagement in the area, either by them or the previous Apaches on station. These pilots fly a lot, they see what normal looks like, they saw a group of men sticking together with large items in their hands - not normal. With US troops on the ground just minutes away in what sounds like a hot area I can easily understand why the gunner is eager to kill what looks like an ambush in the making.
Here's a few key quotes from the transcript:
15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location.
15:36 That's why we ah, requested permission to engage.
30:15 Roger, I can ah hear small arms fire from your engagement area at two zero zero zero ah about three hundred meters from that objective over.
30:27 Crazyhorse; from what I understand small arms fire at two zero zero zero degrees about two hundred meters.
30:39 Just to the southwest.
As for evidence of it being a "hot" area in which there was fighting go on. The Apache has only 50 rounds of chain gun ammo left, the video doesn't show them unloading a thousand rounds so it can be assumed they had to use the rest earlier. The transcript also continues on to the Apaches having another engagement after the guys on the ground took over where they shot up the van. Not to mention the complete lack of people in the streets seeing as everyone seems to have hid or fled.
EDIT: At 3:39 to 3:53 there do appear to be AK47s being carried, from 4:09 to a few seconds later the radio chatter gives off that a Bradley fighting vehicle was just around the corner, the civilians were at it's 1 o'clock. Looking from the gunner's video while the cameraman peers around the corner it could very well be an RPG, and with US troops literally just around the corner it's understandable why he engaged these guys.
Banquo's Ghost
04-09-2010, 07:49
I don't believe it is common for the military to release such videos, most likely for this very reason. An investigation was conducted. Is there any evidence that it was handled improperly?
I think it's noble that you trust your government so completely. An example to all, believing that the state knows best and the citizen should accept their word for everything, needing not the wicked temptations of evidence. :bow:
:wink:
My problem with what I saw is I didn’t see weapons.
The query about engaging armed enemies (or even unarmed) in a war is not a problem.
It is part of the job to attack enemies when they don’t expect it, R&R included…
No. My problem is the keenness of the pilots to see weapons. I didn’t see a RPG. To be fair, I was not in the cockpit, and under tension.
But, having decided it was weapons, the pilots decided to link the mini-bus with the insurgents. And this is their major mistake. And it is the mistake of their Air-controller as well.
Bad enough to mix-up a camera and a RPG and to see AK but the fact that to pick-up injured as a help to insurgent was really a bad move.
As mentioned, the men doing it were unarmed and were doing what a Medic would do.
Now, the problem is how to respond to the insurgents?
If it is a war, they should be treated as soldiers, so yes, you engage when you see them. But, Geneva Convention, you stop to shoot when the cease to be a menace. And you don’t shoot against Medics.
If it is not a war, you don’t shoot in a crowd, and certainly not against a vehicle you can’t see who is inside…
PanzerJaeger
04-09-2010, 14:57
I think it's noble that you trust your government so completely. An example to all, believing that the state knows best and the citizen should accept their word for everything, needing not the wicked temptations of evidence. :bow:
:wink:
... :brood:
And I think it is idiotic for you to trust the creators of such an obviously biased and heavily edited video to present the reality of the situation. :shrug:
Seriously, as fun as it may be to do, how does mocking me address the question? If you are going to discount the military's investigation, you'll need more than the assumption that they are liars... like... oh I don't know... some evidence of misconduct in carrying it out.
ajaxfetish
04-09-2010, 16:05
If you are going to discount the military's investigation, you'll need more than the assumption that they are liars... like... oh I don't know... some evidence of misconduct in carrying it out.
And if it's not common for the military to release the materials from their investigations (and shouldn't be?), what kind of evidence is BG going to be able to find? Perhaps a leaked video? In the absence of other evidence, it's what we've got, man.
Ajax
Sasaki Kojiro
04-09-2010, 16:09
And if it's not common for the military to release the materials from their investigations (and shouldn't be?), what kind of evidence is BG going to be able to find? Perhaps a leaked video? In the absence of other evidence, it's what we've got, man.
Ajax
But the context is important to the video.
I don't think the fact that the military didn't want to release it is good evidence of wrongdoing. If a video looked bad but wasn't actually they wouldn't want to release it.
rory_20_uk
04-09-2010, 16:13
If something exonerated the pilots like an unedited video I'm sure we'd be hearing talk that it was being actively sought.
Apaches were made as tank killers. There isn't much infantry can do to damage them seeing as they can withstand even some tank shells, hence the pressure on the pilot and gunner was very limited - hardly life and death. Or did they edit out the Taliban had a few tanks just out of the picture... Oh yeah, unless carrying unusual armament, it can take out at least 8 tanks with Hellfire missiles...
~:smoking:
ajaxfetish
04-09-2010, 16:51
But the context is important to the video.
I don't think the fact that the military didn't want to release it is good evidence of wrongdoing. If a video looked bad but wasn't actually they wouldn't want to release it.
Absolutely. Being edited certainly makes it an imperfect source of evidence; the point is, it's what we've got access to. I don't like the suggestion that we can't question the rightness of the military action without further evidence, when further evidence is not forthcoming. If the military feels that this video is a poor representation of what happened, they are free to counter it by releasing more information.
Ajax
Sasaki Kojiro
04-09-2010, 16:58
Absolutely. Being edited certainly makes it an imperfect source of evidence; the point is, it's what we've got access to. I don't like the suggestion that we can't question the rightness of the military action without further evidence, when further evidence is not forthcoming. If the military feels that this video is a poor representation of what happened, they are free to counter it by releasing more information.
Ajax
The unedited video was released by wikileaks, and I think the military did an extensive write up.
But the thing is, the video in either version does not provide enough information to condemn or clear the military. The wikileaks commentary attempts to bridge that gap by talking about how the military didn't want the the video released, and by clearly labeling the innocent people just before they are shot. That doesn't bridge the gap.
ajaxfetish
04-09-2010, 17:20
But the thing is, the video in either version does not provide enough information to condemn or clear the military.
Not condemning. Only questioning.
Ajax
Sasaki Kojiro
04-09-2010, 17:27
Not condemning. Only questioning.
Ajax
Fair enough...but is "Was this a negligent attack on civilians, including two small children?" really "only questioning?". I agree that the reasonable thing to do is to question as we are doing, but the releasers clearly trying for more than that.
I guess in general I feel that in this day and age people are to believe that because something was "leaked" it has a special truth quality about it. You see this all the time with political campaigns and such "leaking internal documents" when really it's a dressed up press release. I guess it's a cultural bias of ours. "The truth they didn't want you to know!"
FWIW, Wikileaks was leaked the encrypted video a few months ago. They had to decrypt it themselves before they could go public with it.
PanzerJaeger
04-09-2010, 18:08
And if it's not common for the military to release the materials from their investigations (and shouldn't be?), what kind of evidence is BG going to be able to find? Perhaps a leaked video? In the absence of other evidence, it's what we've got, man.
Ajax
The video does not contradict the findings of the military's investigation.
Banquo's Ghost
04-09-2010, 18:20
... :brood:
And I think it is idiotic for you to trust the creators of such an obviously biased and heavily edited video to present the reality of the situation. :shrug:
Seriously, as fun as it may be to do, how does mocking me address the question? If you are going to discount the military's investigation, you'll need more than the assumption that they are liars... like... oh I don't know... some evidence of misconduct in carrying it out.
Actually PJ, you might notice I haven't offered an opinion on this video and what it may be evidence for or against.
I'm just amused that if the government launches say, an attack on some loons in Texas, there are cries of cover-up and conspiracy from certain sections of the citizenry. Almost always the same section that will accept without murmur the word of the military on any incident. I just find it an amusing paradox that one arm of the government is given a free pass, that's all.
I have no intention to mock you, just tease you a little bit with that observation. As for the video, I would agree with you that it's not really evidence for anything as it stands. That's why I believe that all forms of government should be transparent and held to the highest standards of public examination, rather than having web sites try it.
I'm just amused that if the government launches say, an attack on some loons in Texas, there are cries of cover-up and conspiracy from certain sections of the citizenry. Almost always the same section that will accept without murmur the word of the military on any incident. I just find it an amusing paradox that one arm of the government is given a free pass, that's all.
The paradox is due to the Posse Comitatus Act. The military only goes after foriegners, so we aim all of our scorn on the jack booted thugs of the various 3 letter enforcement agencies. :yes:
If something exonerated the pilots like an unedited video I'm sure we'd be hearing talk that it was being actively sought.
Apaches were made as tank killers. There isn't much infantry can do to damage them seeing as they can withstand even some tank shells, hence the pressure on the pilot and gunner was very limited - hardly life and death. Or did they edit out the Taliban had a few tanks just out of the picture... Oh yeah, unless carrying unusual armament, it can take out at least 8 tanks with Hellfire missiles...
~:smoking:
Tank shells? Apaches can take some large caliber bullets and small auto cannon rnds, not tank main gun rounds. Besides, the armor on an Apache is certainly not uniform or perfect, there is always the chance of a freak hit from a small caliber round knocking it out of the sky, massed small arms fire at an Apache has a good chance of damaging some of the systems aboard at the least.
Also, it doesn't have to be life or death for them, there are US troops on the ground that they are supporting, certainly they feel anxious on behalf of their buddies on the ground. They mistook the guy with the camera peering around the corner of US troops for a guy with an RPG getting ready to engage US troops. While the "RPG" was not aimed at then they felt compelled to engage because they thought it was an impending and dangerous attack about to happen.
EDIT: Here is a Wikipedia link to aviation losses in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War). I count 10 post invasion losses of Apaches to enemy fire. Not a high number compared to the Soviets in Afghanistan or the US in Vietnam but still proof that they can be shot down by something short of "tanks."
Ironside
04-10-2010, 10:58
Also, it doesn't have to be life or death for them, there are US troops on the ground that they are supporting, certainly they feel anxious on behalf of their buddies on the ground. They mistook the guy with the camera peering around the corner of US troops for a guy with an RPG getting ready to engage US troops. While the "RPG" was not aimed at then they felt compelled to engage because they thought it was an impending and dangerous attack about to happen.
They asked for engagement and had gotten it before they saw the camera and mistook it for an RPG. That part is almost irrelevant. If anything the act of the crowd afterwards is indicating that something is wrong. How many would stand next to a guy that aimed an RPG towards an armed helicopter and then care nothing about the helicopter?
HoreTore
04-10-2010, 20:57
They asked for engagement and had gotten it before they saw the camera and mistook it for an RPG. That part is almost irrelevant. If anything the act of the crowd afterwards is indicating that something is wrong. How many would stand next to a guy that aimed an RPG towards an armed helicopter and then care nothing about the helicopter?
You're forgetting that everyone browner than Aryan White are evil, Ironside...
You're forgetting that everyone browner than Aryan White are evil, Ironside...
Well that's certainly an out of line conversation stopper...
Seamus Fermanagh
04-11-2010, 04:45
You're forgetting that everyone browner than Aryan White are evil, Ironside...
Horetore:
That comment is rather asinine, and far below your usual level.
Moreover, it does not gibe with the demographics of the U.S. military. Source (http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/fall2006/volunteer.html)
This is such a broad brush bit of silliness that I, personally, will not gig you for it -- though if one of my colleagues thinks it warranted, I will not object.
HoreTore
04-11-2010, 08:14
Horetore:
That comment is rather asinine, and far below your usual level.
Moreover, it does not gibe with the demographics of the U.S. military. Source (http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/fall2006/volunteer.html)
This is such a broad brush bit of silliness that I, personally, will not gig you for it -- though if one of my colleagues thinks it warranted, I will not object.
It was a joke, relax fella ~;) Lack of smilies etc. Glad you were joking. SF
But is there some truth to it, are there racists, neo-nazi's and fascists in the US army(or any other army for that matter)? Of course there are, why on earth wouldn't there be? Being a tough guy soldier is the homo-erotic dream of any fascist. It's the same reason why you'll find a higher than normal number of commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.
“commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.”
You and me have met different kind of commies…:laugh4:
In France, Commies were the one starting strikes, joining the Brigades Internationales, demonstrating against the Colonial Wars and having work values as Gods.
And made a few mistakes as well, as we all know…
But smoking pots? They even didn’t know what it was… They were reading, reacting, were political… They were dreaming, but what a dream… No need of pot…
HoreTore
04-11-2010, 08:37
“commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.”
You and me have met different kind of commies…:laugh4:
In France, Commies were the one starting strikes, joining the Brigades Internationales, demonstrating against the Colonial Wars and having work values as Gods.
And made a few mistakes as well, as we all know…
But smoking pots? They even didn’t know what it was… They were reading, reacting, were political… They were dreaming, but what a dream… No need of pot…
Next you're going to tell me that black people don't steal and arabs don't beat their wives. :clown:
“Next you're going to tell me that black people don't steal and arabs don't beat their wives “ No. I just telling you that you have a different kind of commies, another branch…
Louis VI the Fat
04-12-2010, 00:06
It was a joke, relax fella ~;) Lack of smilies etc. Glad you were joking. SF
But is there some truth to it, are there racists, neo-nazi's and fascists in the US army(or any other army for that matter)? Of course there are, why on earth wouldn't there be? Being a tough guy soldier is the homo-erotic dream of any fascist. It's the same reason why you'll find a higher than normal number of commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.PJ would agree with you that the US goes on rampaging racist wars. :wink3:
And don't get wobbly knees! You are our leftist voice, stand for what you say. Of course there is a lot of racism (http://www.blackcommentator.com/133/133_think_racism_military.html) involved, especially during the early years of the war. That the US army is itself multiracial doesn't diminish that.
Q: They refer to Iraqis as “Hajjis”?
DELGADO: “Hajji” is the new slur, the new ethnic slur for Arabs and Muslims. It is used extensively in the military. The Arabic word refers to one who has gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is used in the military with the same kind of connotation as “gook,” “Charlie,” or the n-word. Official Army documents now use it in reference to Iraqis or Arabs. It’s real common. There was really a thick aura of racism.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-12-2010, 00:13
And don't get wobbly knees! You are our leftist voice, stand for what you say. Of course there is a lot of racism (http://www.blackcommentator.com/133/133_think_racism_military.html) involved, especially during the early years of the war. That the US army is itself multiracial doesn't diminish that.
Q: They refer to Iraqis as “Hajjis”?
DELGADO: “Hajji” is the new slur, the new ethnic slur for Arabs and Muslims. It is used extensively in the military. The Arabic word refers to one who has gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is used in the military with the same kind of connotation as “gook,” “Charlie,” or the n-word. Official Army documents now use it in reference to Iraqis or Arabs. It’s real common. There was really a thick aura of racism.
Disliking your opponents isn't racism. Hajji means something like "person who has gone to mecca" right? So it isn't referring to skin color.
Do the soldiers believe that they are inherently better because of the color of their skin? Are the prejudiced towards the iraqi's because of the color of their skin? What is racism then?
Louis VI the Fat
04-12-2010, 02:30
Disliking your opponents isn't racism. Hajji means something like "person who has gone to mecca" right? So it isn't referring to skin color. Hajis is an ethnic slur, of the level of *beep* or *beep*.
One does not need to scour Eurocommie.com for allegations of institutional racism. US Military Review ran a scathing article by British Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster:
In an article published this week in the Army magazine Military Review, British Brig. Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was deputy commander of a program to train the Iraqi military, said American officers in Iraq displayed such "cultural insensitivity" that it "arguably amounted to institutional racism" and may have spurred the growth of the insurgency. The Army has been slow to adapt its tactics, he argues, and its approach during the early stages of the occupation "exacerbated the task it now faces by alienating significant sections of the population." Rampaging rednecks? No, the probrlems are (were?) more subtle than that:
The Army is full of soldiers showing qualities such as patriotism, duty, passion and talent, writes Aylwin-Foster, whose rank is equivalent to a U.S. one-star general. "Yet," he continues, "it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."
Those traits reflect the Army's traditional focus on conventional state-on-state wars and are seen by some experts as less appropriate for counterinsurgency, which they say requires patience, cultural understanding and a willingness to use innovative and counterintuitive approaches, such as employing only the minimal amount of force necessary. In counterinsurgency campaigns, Aylwin-Foster argues, "the quick solution is often the wrong one."
He said he found that an intense pressure to conform and overcentralized decision making slowed the Army's operations in Iraq, giving the enemy time to understand and respond to U.S. moves. And the Army's can-do spirit, he wrote, encouraged a "damaging optimism" that interfered with realistic assessments of the situation in Iraq.
"Such an ethos is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command," Aylwin-Foster says. A pervasive sense of righteousness or moral outrage, he adds, further distorted military judgments, especially in the handling of fighting in Fallujah.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001456.html
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Edit: Nearly wasted this excellent opportunity to sow discord between the Anglo powers. :wall:
While the British Iraq command openly acusses the Yanks of being trigger-happy racist hicks, the Americans, for their part, had this to say about the Limeys:
"I think he's an insufferable British snob," said Col. Kevin Benson, commander of the Army's elite School of Advanced Military Studies, referring to Aylwin-Foster. Benson said he plans a rebuttal.
Quite the cultural difference. The British and Americans should make cultural sensitivity training mandatory, that both countries, so very different, learn to understand each other.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-12-2010, 03:28
Two countries, separated by a common language.
I don't think I'd consider it "racism" at all. Cultural insensitivity may be a fair critique, though. It's not as though I don't have a lot of fellow Americans who are woefully ignorant of other cultures.
The other concerns are very important to counter-insurgency operations. Many of you have heard me argue for a changed focus -- shock and awe is not the best answer to all problems.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-12-2010, 03:41
Two countries, separated by a common language.
I don't think I'd consider it "racism" at all. Cultural insensitivity may be a fair critique, though. It's not as though I don't have a lot of fellow Americans who are woefully ignorant of other cultures.
Exactly. Banning the burqa isn't racist, and having a "slur" isn't racist. "Pothead" and "Jock" are slurs aimed at a specific group of people. Neither disliking a culture (however wrongly), nor using a slur is racist. Racism is being prejudiced against people of other races and believing your own is inherently superior.
PanzerJaeger
04-12-2010, 06:22
I would not take seriously any criticism concerning anything having to do with Iraq from anyone in the British military. :shame:
HoreTore
04-12-2010, 08:50
And don't get wobbly knees! You are our leftist voice, stand for what you say. Of course there is a lot of racism (http://www.blackcommentator.com/133/133_think_racism_military.html) involved, especially during the early years of the war. That the US army is itself multiracial doesn't diminish that.
Wobbly knees? Bah. The US army is certainly no more racist than the Norwegian army. The problem is that every single army is more racist than the rest of the population, because, as I said earlier, it's every little fascist/racists dream to wear a shiny uniform.
EDIT: And you think "Hajji" is a slur? In the vocabulary of those from my platoon who have served in afghanistan, the word "Afghan" was swapped for "monkey". They simply didn't use "Afghan", they consistently referred to them as "monkeys". The rest of you should be happy that the Norwegian force is a communication camp in the quiet north Afghanistan, we would've massacred half the country if we'd been in the south.
I would not take seriously any criticism concerning anything having to do with Iraq from anyone in the British military. :shame:
While British privates are thugs with guns, British officers are actually surprisingly intelligent. At least that's my impression from my quite limited contact with the Royal marines.
rory_20_uk
04-12-2010, 11:15
While British privates are thugs with guns, British officers are actually surprisingly intelligent. At least that's my impression from my quite limited contact with the Royal marines.
The front line troops merely need to know to kill. The officers should when, where and how to kill.
~:smoking:
PanzerJaeger
04-12-2010, 18:23
While British privates are thugs with guns, British officers are actually surprisingly intelligent. At least that's my impression from my quite limited contact with the Royal marines.
Interesting. In Iraq, their soldiers were generally highly motivated and professional while their leadership was simply awful - a stain on a checkered, yet generally proud, history.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-12-2010, 19:14
The front line troops merely need to know to kill. The officers should when, where and how to kill.
~:smoking:
I think there is too much in the way of high-tech equipment for this "Wellingtonian" mantra to hold completely true. The modern private soldier has a bit more to keep track and too much scope for independent action than his historical peers -- necessitates at least a rudimentary intelligence.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
04-13-2010, 14:25
Sadly people die in war and people will still complain. I watched the video and believe the attack was justified. Tell the civilians not to inter-mingled with the insurgents next time :).
pevergreen
04-13-2010, 15:02
I think some of us are trying to make the point that there were no insugents? What did they attack off of? The cameraman having an 'rpg'.
Trigger-happy US troops completely flock up and flip out gunning down civillians. The incident is then suppressed and only comes to light when wikileaks brings it to the public attention. And in response we get 3 pages of sophistry about ROE and whether a camera is an RPG.
Get a grip you lot. The soldiers seriously flocked up and should face charges. How many times are US soldiers going to do this and get away with it? We only usually find out about it when it's a blue on blue. Blue on brown doesn't count.
PanzerJaeger
04-13-2010, 19:38
Trigger-happy US troops completely flock up and flip out gunning down civillians.
A claim unsupported by any of the evidence, be it the military's investigation, that of Reuters, or even WikiLeaks own findings. Don't let that stop you from making even more unsupported claims about the involvement of racism in this incident.
There was a military inquiry?
PanzerJaeger
04-13-2010, 20:51
Indeed.
Colbert Report Interview with Wikileaks spokesperson Julian Assange (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusives---julian-assange-unedited-interview)
PanzerJaeger
04-14-2010, 04:22
Colbert Report Interview with Wikileaks spokesperson Julian Assange (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusives---julian-assange-unedited-interview)
"For maximum political impact... "
At least they're being honest about it.
Cannot believe Colbert didn't just tow the line... well done. Best interview of this joker I've seen yet, including the one on CNN.
"For maximum political impact... " Well. That is not bad. Or course it is for political impact. Hopefully it is for political impact and not just for the gore or the fun to see a bloody mistake/blunder (as minimum) or a war crime (as maximum).
“There was a military inquiry?” “Indeed”
Now, about US military Justice recorded success, I have doubt of any wrong doing finding as in all past cases I heard of the US soldiers were found not guilty (from friendly fired against British to civilian slaughter and cover up by hierarchy etc…).
HoreTore
04-14-2010, 09:01
Indeed.
Yeah because an organization investigating itself is worth the paper the report is written on....
I might just start believing all those soviet reports about how everything was working perfectly within the soviet union....
PanzerJaeger
04-14-2010, 16:48
Now, about US military Justice recorded success, I have doubt of any wrong doing finding as in all past cases I heard of the US soldiers were found not guilty (from friendly fired against British to civilian slaughter and cover up by hierarchy etc…).
Yeah because an organization investigating itself is worth the paper the report is written on....
I might just start believing all those soviet reports about how everything was working perfectly within the soviet union....
I love how everyone is an expert on what happened after watching a heavily edited video with no context given, but the organization that actually investigated the incident must be lying simply by virtue of its existence. Do either of you have any real evidence that the military's investigation was distorted?
Ser Clegane
04-14-2010, 18:23
I love how everyone is an expert on what happened after watching a heavily edited video with no context given, but the organization that actually investigated the incident must be lying simply by virtue of its existence. Do either of you have any real evidence that the military's investigation was distorted?
Well, to avoid such a situation, the military could perhaps have decided to be a bit more transparent with regard to their investigation. From what I have read (unfortunately the article was in print), the military did not even bother to inform the families of the victims of any investigation that might have taken place.
Add to that some past experiences people have made with military investigations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable-car_disaster) and the military should not be surprised that there is mistrust - be it justified or not.
“Do either of you have any real evidence that the military's investigation was distorted?”
Distorted? No. None existent: Yes.
“An American military jet, that had left from the Aviano military base, crossed the Fiemme Valley (a densely populated touristic area) al 800 km per hour, flying very low and scaring the population. The plane cut the wire of a cable way packed with skiers.
20 people died. Knowing what a terrible crime had been committed for no reason at all (rumors have it that the pilot was playing a dare on who could fly lower with his colleagues), the pilot was immediately flown back to the US, and the Italian Authorities had no one to arrest for the crime. 12 years have gone by and we are still waiting for justice”
Strike For The South
04-14-2010, 19:27
“Do either of you have any real evidence that the military's investigation was distorted?”
Distorted? No. None existent: Yes.
“An American military jet, that had left from the Aviano military base, crossed the Fiemme Valley (a densely populated touristic area) al 800 km per hour, flying very low and scaring the population. The plane cut the wire of a cable way packed with skiers.
20 people died. Knowing what a terrible crime had been committed for no reason at all (rumors have it that the pilot was playing a dare on who could fly lower with his colleagues), the pilot was immediately flown back to the US, and the Italian Authorities had no one to arrest for the crime. 12 years have gone by and we are still waiting for justice”
What in the name of the republic does that have to do with this?
A singular case from more than a decade does not mean the US military does not bring its soldiers to justice.
Nor will you posting ten more of the same italizced anecdotes.
Ser Clegane
04-14-2010, 19:44
What in the name of the republic does that have to do with this?
A singular case from more than a decade does not mean the US military does not bring its soldiers to justice.
Nor will you posting ten more of the same italizced anecdotes.
These "anecdotes" show that there is sufficient reason not to blindly trust such investigations, especially if there seems to be zero transparency.
Don't get me wrong - I do not think this is a problem limited to the US military. As Horetore indicated - trust that whatever organizations will properly investigate cases where members from within the organization negatively affected people from outside the organization is not really justified based on plenty of experience. The "Bundeswehr" is not much better as an incident of last September shows, but non-military organizations, e.g., the Catholic Church, companies or political parties do not have a better track record either.
Unless forced by public pressure such organizations seem to rarely find the motivation to thoroughly investigate in an un-biased way (and create transparency).
Strike For The South
04-14-2010, 19:48
These "anecdotes" show that there is sufficient reason not to blindly trust such investigations, especially if there seems to be zero transparency.
Don't get me wrong - I do not think this is a problem limited to the US military. As Horetore indicated - trust that whatever organizations will properly investigate cases where members from within the organization negatively affected people from outside the organization is not really justified based on plenty of experience. The "Bundeswehr" is not much better as an incident of last September shows, but non-military organizations, e.g., the Catholic Church, companies or political parties do not have a better track record either.
Unless forced by public pressure such organizations seem to rarely find the motivation to thoroughly investigate in an un-biased way (and create transparency).
I will put forth the oppisite is also true.
Many here seem to simply take this clearly doctered video as gospel simply because the us military is not to be trusted.
Ser Clegane
04-14-2010, 20:02
I will put forth the oppisite is also true.
Many here seem to simply take this clearly doctered video as gospel simply because the us military is not to be trusted.
Valid point - but if you leave the field open for others to play you should not be surprised if they do. If there was a proper and thorough investigation - why hasn't e.g., the family of the killed journalist been kept in the loop about what has happened? Why has the family to be surprised by such a video now? More than two years after the incident?
Strike For The South
04-14-2010, 20:07
Valid point - but if you leave the field open for others to play you should not be surprised if they do. If there was a proper and thorough investigation - why hasn't e.g., the family of the killed journalist been kept in the loop about what has happened? Why has the family to be surprised by such a video now? More than two years after the incident?
I can't answer that with any sort of certainty nor do I think anyone on here can.
There are thousands of possible explanations.
But what I can say that jumping to the conclusion these incedents are commonplace or that America sweeps all of these things under the rug is blantantly false.
PanzerJaeger
04-14-2010, 20:08
Well, to avoid such a situation, the military could perhaps have decided to be a bit more transparent with regard to their investigation. From what I have read (unfortunately the article was in print), the military did not even bother to inform the families of the victims of any investigation that might have taken place.
Add to that some past experiences people have made with military investigations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable-car_disaster) and the military should not be surprised that there is mistrust - be it justified or not.
I understand your point, and yes, the Italian incident has marred the American military's reputation. You'll note that they were found guilty of destroying evidence and removed from the military.
I still maintain that there should be at least some evidence of misconduct before complete dismissal of a military investigation. Military justice is a serious business, not an afterthought. Just like civilian justice systems, it is certainly not perfect, but there are hundreds (thousands?) of men and women involved in the American military justice system that operate with a high level of integrity.
In any event, I'm still wondering what the real differences are between Wikileaks' claims and the military's findings. They both acknowledge the journalists were among insurgents.
HoreTore
04-14-2010, 20:39
I love how everyone is an expert on what happened after watching a heavily edited video with no context given, but the organization that actually investigated the incident must be lying simply by virtue of its existence. Do either of you have any real evidence that the military's investigation was distorted?
An organization investigating itself is by definition worthless.
It has to be an outside investigation. That goes for any situation.
“There are thousands of possible explanations”. Yes, and some are not nice.
I don’t and never said that the US pilots were guilty of war crime. I even am of the one who recognised that similar things happened to me (mixing camera with small weapon)…
But, as mentioned, it is very difficult for an organisation to judge its members.
So, a healthy scepticism is required.
I do the same for the video…
Edited or not, the camera can’t be mixed with a RPG. You can’t see any weapons in the pictures I saw.
If some of you, or the Army, has a video re-establishing (or establishing) the “real” facts, and show the journalists and the crowd having weapons, or at least with some individuals with weapons, it will be welcome.
Now, it could have unknown circumstances, or facts I ignore which can explain this appetite for engaging any enemies…
But facts being facts, the ones killed were not insurgents and the pilots made a terrible mistake I hope they will be able to survive (emotionally).
Killing other humans is not easy, but if they were enemies most of men/women will succeed to overcome the guilt. But, when you made a mistake, and killed innocents…
Haudegen
04-14-2010, 21:50
A claim unsupported by any of the evidence, be it the military's investigation, that of Reuters, or even WikiLeaks own findings. Don't let that stop you from making even more unsupported claims about the involvement of racism in this incident.
I´d love to have a look at the military´s investigation report.
Is this the one you´re talking about? :inquisitive:
http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf
As far as I understand the above document (which doesn´t have to mean a lot), the investigating officer doesn´t even discuss the possibility of misconduct by the soldiers involved. I´d even say the investigator didn´t even have orders to find out about possible mistakes made by the Apache crews. See page 5, no. 2 in the above document.
IMHO the main purpose of that investigation was to find out if the kids and the journalists were in fact hit by American bullets. The pessimist within me says they were just hoping to find out that somebody could be blamed for that mess.
I hope I´m wrong and somebody can hint me towards the real investigation report...
PanzerJaeger
04-14-2010, 22:31
I´d love to have a look at the military´s investigation report.
Is this the one you´re talking about? :inquisitive:
I believe so.
IMHO the main purpose of that investigation was to find out if the kids and the journalists were in fact hit by American bullets. The pessimist within me says they were just hoping to find out that somebody could be blamed for that mess.
I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Of particular note to the discussion are the findings found on page 14.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/untitled-1.jpg
Haudegen
04-14-2010, 23:03
I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. Of particular note to the discussion are the findings found on page 14.
[/IMG]
Hmm, okay, I cannot conclude that directly from the document, but I still think it´s a good guess.
I think that kind of thinking pattern is the standard procedure if something like that happens. Anyone remember the infamous Kunduz Airstrike?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airstrike
Phase 1:
"No, we didn´t kill any civilians"
Phase 2:
"Hmpf, okay, okay, maybe one or two ... hundred ..."
Phase 3:
"... but absolutely nobody from our team can be hold responsible because .... we say so ..."
But back to my original point:
Do you see anything in that report that makes you think that the culpability of the Apache crews was thouroughly tested?
Well, it could be interesting if:
On the tape, no insurgent is actually in combat, so how the officer can tell they were engaged against Bravo Company.
I see no combat gear on none of the men shown on the film.
If it was a combat situation, how the delay to come and to secure the zone is explained, and how he can explain that in loading the injured in the mini-bus, the insurgents showed no behaviour specific to this kind of situation? Especially with ground troops with APC not so far (As taking cover)....
When the troops arrived, they are not in a fighting formation, as they should if they were expecting some incoming fire, or a possibility of…
If the tape is to be believed, no insurgents were not able to retreat from the area, so where are the weapons that the platoon that arrived on zone a long time after the shooting (not really aggressive the Bravo Company) should have founded…
The PREPONDERANCE of evidences is not evident to my eyes…
The fact that he concluded that the 2 men were in the company of armed insurgents when nothing on the film and on the field proves it (and in fact the presence of 2 kids is more a clue of a bib big big mistake from the pilots) makes me think he tried a cover-up.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-15-2010, 04:10
The only way to reliably spot insurgents from the air is to be shot at by, and see the point of origin for the firing by, said insurgents.
Soldiers, concerned as they are with personal survival, are rarely patient enough to await being shot at first and attempt to identify insurgent forces PRIOR to taking it on the chin.
Regrettably, unless this identification is being made by mark-one eyeball at a range of 50m or less (and in quite a few of those instances as well) mistakes will be made. This is particularly true of troops that have recently engaged insurgent forces in similar physical/terrain conditions. Selective perception is a well-known psychological trait.
So what do you do about it?
1. Do you change the ROE so as to require troops to take fire before replying and only reply when the point of fire can be pinpointed by more than one observer? Remember, anything less (and probably even this standard as well on occasion) is going to put it up to the judgement of anxious 20-somethings who really would rather not end up dead.
2. Do you accept that innocents are going to get killed -- insurgents often rely on this as a strategy in point of fact -- while working to minimize it? This is a balancing act, and such incidents as the two dead Reuters newsies will continue to occur.
Horetore is suggesting that the military IG program is an insufficient investigative tool and prone to manipulation (whitewash) efforts. If we accept this criticism, where do we find an unbiased (no such thing as a true neutral exists) party to conduct such an investigation. None of the parties involved are likely to accept that any such 3rd party capable of the appropriate detachment and with the skills to conduct such an investigation exists. I know I'm skeptical.
Brenus, you can see weapons in the video. At 3:39 to 3:53 there do appear to be two guys at the top right of the screen carrying AKs.
As for the presence of children, insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have used women and children to lower the suspicion of coalition troops. There have been car bombs where a whole family was in the vehicle that blew up, when transporting weapons, bomb making materials, and other insurgents women and children are put in the same vehicle because they know those passengers will make a thorough search of the vehicle less likely. In the video, I highly doubt that the children were being used as I've suggested they can be used as, I just want to point out that you can't use your normal standards to judge merely by the presence of children.
EDIT: I can understand the distrust that people have for the military when it comes to policing itself it has certainly done wrong in what should be disclosed as well as actually covered things up (Ranger Pat Tillman killed by friendly fire not the Taliban). Despite this, immediately dismissing everything that is put out as evidence or done as an inquiry by the military isn't right either. Military Justice is an imperfect system but all justice systems are, Reuters did get the tapes though it took far more prodding than it should have and the military seems to have (in my opinion on this case) come up with a proper conclusion on what happened and if there was intentional wrongdoing.
Ironside
04-15-2010, 08:56
1. Do you change the ROE so as to require troops to take fire before replying and only reply when the point of fire can be pinpointed by more than one observer? Remember, anything less (and probably even this standard as well on occasion) is going to put it up to the judgement of anxious 20-somethings who really would rather not end up dead.
That has been the ROE for several peacekeeping missions. Not that popular with the soldiers for obvious reasons though.
But there's a few contradictions there, since a very important thing is to show for the civilians that you're there to protect them, even at your own peril, while on the other hand shooting back on insurgents grants you respect from the insurgents. To be a good unit you'll need to do both well.
Brenus, you can see weapons in the video. At 3:39 to 3:53 there do appear to be two guys at the top right of the screen carrying AKs.
Can you see the 5-6 AK:s they report about?
Personally, I would say that they certainly deserves being monitored, but not shot at, since they aren't doing anything threatening.
Then it's on the assumption that the population haven't gotten clear message about carrying weapons beforehand of the operation.
HoreTore
04-15-2010, 11:02
Horetore is suggesting that the military IG program is an insufficient investigative tool and prone to manipulation (whitewash) efforts. If we accept this criticism, where do we find an unbiased (no such thing as a true neutral exists) party to conduct such an investigation. None of the parties involved are likely to accept that any such 3rd party capable of the appropriate detachment and with the skills to conduct such an investigation exists. I know I'm skeptical.
A jolly good idea - let the criminal do his own investigation.
Courtrooms might get empty.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-15-2010, 13:42
A jolly good idea - let the criminal do his own investigation.
Courtrooms might get empty.
I understood your point the first time. The wisecrack was un-needed. Have a stab at the counter-query why don't you? If you think investigating one's own is always insufficient (a view of yours that I'd acknowledged, not mocked), then how do you find suitably UNbiased investigators for such incidents?
Soldiers, concerned as they are with personal survival, are rarely patient enough to await being shot at first and attempt to identify insurgent forces PRIOR to taking it on the chin.
Correction - American soldiers are rarely patient enough...
For all their charms they are, and have always been, notoriously trigger happy.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-15-2010, 21:18
Correction - American soldiers are rarely patient enough...
For all their charms they are, and have always been, notoriously trigger happy.
I stand by my general statement. I do not believe that my countrymen are unique in this regard. I believe self defense is pretty compelling and that "short-punching" a coming attack is basic to military thinking.
On the other hand, we may be collectively trigger-happy. I have not served, so I cannot speak for the soldiers regarding this (Kukri, please assist.), but I do acknowledge that our national myth has never really embraced the virtue of patience. This may influence our general tendencies.
PanzerJaeger
04-15-2010, 21:25
Correction - American soldiers are rarely patient enough...
For all their charms they are, and have always been, notoriously trigger happy.
And there it is...
I stand by my general statement. I do not believe that my countrymen are unique in this regard. I believe self defense is pretty compelling and that "short-punching" a coming attack is basic to military thinking.
On the other hand, we may be collectively trigger-happy. I have not served, so I cannot speak for the soldiers regarding this (Kukri, please assist.), but I do acknowledge that our national myth has never really embraced the virtue of patience. This may influence our general tendencies.
My statement comes partly from popular myth and partly from talking to British soldiers who have served in the same theatres as american soldiers.
HoreTore
04-16-2010, 07:59
I understood your point the first time. The wisecrack was un-needed. Have a stab at the counter-query why don't you? If you think investigating one's own is always insufficient (a view of yours that I'd acknowledged, not mocked), then how do you find suitably UNbiased investigators for such incidents?
The answer might be right there...
Anything will be better than the criminal investigating himself though. Anything.
Banquo's Ghost
04-16-2010, 08:00
My statement comes partly from popular myth and partly from talking to British soldiers who have served in the same theatres as american soldiers.
I have served with US forces (albeit some while ago and not in an active war theatre, though I still know plenty still serving in current conflict) and I would disagree with your statement. There is an ancient rivalry, wherein the British services disdain almost all of their colleagues, and this is likely to be the source of your myth. It's the kind of thing that soldiers love to tell civilians. We liked to josh the US that they were trigger happy (because it fits with the wild west meme) and the British Army used to pride itself on discipline to the nth degree whereas even in my day, US soldiers did tend towards the casual uniform code. It was easy for us to tease them therefore as being "slovenly" soldiers with all that entails (but in our starched high collars, we were actually jealous). I know they had some choice characterisations of us to share too. Unsurprisingly, we had some interesting prejudices against the French and Germans we served alongside too. None of this compared to the ire we reserved for the real enemy, Her Majesty's Navy.
Rarely was it true. I knew some incredibly professional Americans, and I would be proud to serve alongside them again. Having been in a civil insurgency operation myself, I know how hard it can be sometimes to make the right split second decision.
If you want an idea of just how trigger happy British soldiers can be, review Bloody Sunday.
If you want an idea of just how trigger happy British soldiers can be, review Bloody Sunday.
Preaching to the choir mate.
If you think investigating one's own is always insufficient (a view of yours that I'd acknowledged, not mocked), then how do you find suitably UNbiased investigators for such incidents?
Horetore is suggesting that the military IG program is an insufficient investigative tool and prone to manipulation (whitewash) efforts. If we accept this criticism, where do we find an unbiased (no such thing as a true neutral exists) party to conduct such an investigation. None of the parties involved are likely to accept that any such 3rd party capable of the appropriate detachment and with the skills to conduct such an investigation exists. I know I'm skeptical.
How about the International Criminal Court?
Louis VI the Fat
04-16-2010, 12:59
How about the International Criminal Court?The US is not a member of the ICC, and does not extradite its citizens.
For some reason which I, erm, can't quite figure out, Bush declared that American interests and sovereignity took preference.
The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. These exclusionary steps clearly endanger the fledgling Court and may seriously weaken its credibility and effectiveness.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/us-un-and-international-law-8-24/us-opposition-to-the-icc-8-29.html
The US is not a member of the ICC, and does not extradite its citizens.
For some reason which I, erm, can't quite figure out, Bush declared that American interests and sovereignity took preference.
I know. That was the point of my question :wink:
If our US friends are fighting noble and honorably and never make mistakes, then why not becoming a member and just having a few of these so called war crimes investigated by the ICC, so that an unbiased organism can resolve the US from all these false accusations obviously spread by terrorists and evil conspirators.
Vladimir
04-16-2010, 13:18
My statement comes partly from popular myth and partly from talking to British soldiers who have served in the same theatres as american soldiers.
Stereotyping another nation's military based on second hand information from myth and limited conversations with another nation's military.
Do educated people really do such things? We need an independent body to investigate.
Louis VI the Fat
04-16-2010, 13:28
I know. That was the point of my question :wink:Slick lawyer Andres_the_Cunning outcuns Louis VI the Slow yet again.
We need an independent body to investigate.
Such an independent body already exists.
Yeap, I saw the AK. And I heard the pilot saying they were opening fire, and that is a lie. The RPG is definitively not a RPG.
Kadagar_AV
04-20-2010, 22:49
Ok, this video is just horrible. It seriosly makes me sick.
But then, I (as a sergeant) have full understanding as to why this happened. Do not get me wrong though, I UNDERSTAND why it happened, it doesnt mean I like it.
Get some backwater 20ish year olds into an apache, load them up with ammo, have them fly over an area and tell them horror stories about helis shot down. Guess what the result is?
I dont blame the idiot behind the gun, except for signing up for the military in the first place. I do however blame whoever it was who started this war, in this case, the US population who didnt give Bush a big laugh when he wanted to attack Iraq.
I remember a video of Saddam Hussein inviting Bush for a talk man to man... On neutral ground with live cameras. Maybe that would have saved the people on that street?
Strike For The South
04-20-2010, 22:52
Ok, this video is just horrible. It seriosly makes me sick.
But then, I (as a sergeant) have full understanding as to why this happened. Do not get me wrong though, I UNDERSTAND why it happened, it doesnt mean I like it.
Get some backwater 20ish year olds into an apache, load them up with ammo, have them fly over an area and tell them horror stories about helis shot down. Guess what the result is?
I dont blame the idiot behind the gun, except for signing up for the military in the first place. I do however blame whoever it was who started this war, in this case, the US population who didnt give Bush a big laugh when he wanted to attack Iraq.
I remember a video of Saddam Hussein inviting Bush for a talk man to man... On neutral ground with live cameras. Maybe that would have saved the people on that street?
It's posts like these that make me weep for humanity
Kadagar_AV
04-20-2010, 23:07
It's posts like these that make me weep for humanity
Because you are such a big fan of me?
Don't get me wrong, I know a debate between saddam and bush would be a bit pointless. Would have been a helluva fun though, in a redneck way!
But yeah, I am serious about the responcibility being in the hands of the people who think it is a good idea to send an apacheload of idiots into another country.
HoreTore
04-20-2010, 23:49
It's posts like these that make me weep for humanity
Funny that, it's posts like that which reminds me that not everyone in sweden is an inbred idiot.
.....it's just their royals....
Seamus Fermanagh
04-21-2010, 05:01
Keep on topic, gentlefolk.
I'm more interested in how our US friends feel about the International Criminal Court.
Taking into account that apparently, they want an independent body saying that they are not comitting war crimes so that once and for all, it's over with these accusations against the noble US, it is a bit strange that they don't want to recognise the ICC.
The ICC is the independent body they are looking for; able to judge impartial about things like this. Or is the US not keen on a judgement by the ICC, because they won't like the outcome? Is all this "there have been no war crimes comitted, we did investigations" talk, just that: talk?
A judgement by the country that is accused of comitting war crimes, is not at all useful: nemo iudex in causa sua.
I mentioned the ICC 5 days ago and the subject remains ignored. That's telling, imo. And it smells like hypocrisy. Don't whine about people not believing the results of your investigations if you refuse to submit yourself to an independent body capable of judging if war crimes have or have not been committed by your country. The international community has every right to question your impartiality in this, because by definition, the US cannot be impartial in this.
ajaxfetish
04-21-2010, 15:33
I'm more interested in how our US friends feel about the International Criminal Court.
Before this thread, I hadn't heard of it. If it's as you've described, it'd probably be the best way to judge these things.
Ajax
Sasaki Kojiro
04-21-2010, 15:36
Why is the ICC impartial? It has people on it not robots right?
Why is the ICC impartial? It has people on it not robots right?
So, the US judging the actions of the US is as good as an International court judgin the actions of the US?
You don't see the problem with judge and one of the parties involved being the same?
I think it's pretty obvious why you can't be your own judge, but if you fail to see why, then there's no point in discussing this.
Then you have no other choice than to continue to be the judge in your own cases and being amazed that other people don't accept your judgement.
While we're at it, forget about courtrooms and your entire legal system; continuing your line of thought, they're all partial and biased, so it's all rubbish anyway.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-21-2010, 16:08
So, the US judging the actions of the US is as good as an International court judgin the actions of the US?
You don't see the problem with judge and one of the parties involved being the same?
I think it's pretty obvious why you can't be your own judge, but if you fail to see why, then there's no point in discussing this.
Then you have no other choice than to continue to be the judge in your own cases and being amazed that other people don't accept your judgement.
Aren't we our own judge when we decide whether to reelect a president? Or should we have an "impartial" international committee to decide that?
I'm fine with other people disagreeing with the US. I might myself in this case, not sure. I never really got the whole "this is what makes other countries hate us!" appeal.
While we're at it, forget about courtrooms and your entire legal system; continuing your line of thought, they're all partial and biased, so it's all rubbish anyway.
But our courtrooms and legal system are internal, which you were saying wasn't sufficient.
Louis VI the Fat
04-21-2010, 16:13
I'm more interested in how our US friends feel about the International Criminal Court.
Taking into account that apparently, they want an independent body saying that they are not comitting war crimes so that once and for all, it's over with these accusations against the noble US, it is a bit strange that they don't want to recognise the ICC.
The ICC is the independent body they are looking for; able to judge impartial about things like this. Or is the US not keen on a judgement by the ICC, because they won't like the outcome? Is all this "there have been no war crimes comitted, we did investigations" talk, just that: talk?
A judgement by the country that is accused of comitting war crimes, is not at all useful: nemo iudex in causa sua.
I mentioned the ICC 5 days ago and the subject remains ignored. That's telling, imo. And it smells like hypocrisy. Don't whine about people not believing the results of your investigations if you refuse to submit yourself to an independent body capable of judging if war crimes have or have not been committed by your country. The international community has every right to question your impartiality in this, because by definition, the US cannot be impartial in this.Pft. The Americans can not judge their own. Yet the lawyer judges only his own, the lawyers, to be able to judge.
Nemo iudex in pecunia sua.
:devil:
I typed up a post on the ICC when you brought it up, but thought better about submitting it. If you really want to know...
The decision to stay out of the ICC was bad PR, but in the end I think it was the right decision. At the time (not so sure about our future employment in this role), as the World Police we would have opened our elected officials, military leaders, and troops to a myriad of lawsuits brought up by every tinpot dictator with a grudge. Look at how the UN operates, eventually the ICC would become similar.
We need to police ourselves better, especially if we ever want to regain the appearance of moral high ground. Of course, not getting involved in useless wars would keep the potential war crimes to a minimum. ~:rolleyes:
Strike For The South
04-21-2010, 16:32
Because you are such a big fan of me?
Don't get me wrong, I know a debate between saddam and bush would be a bit pointless. Would have been a helluva fun though, in a redneck way!
But yeah, I am serious about the responcibility being in the hands of the people who think it is a good idea to send an apacheload of idiots into another country.
Anti-American + Assumptions + a complete disregard for nuance in favor of stereotypes = your posts.
PanzerJaeger
04-21-2010, 19:46
The ICC is the independent body they are looking for; able to judge impartial about things like this. Or is the US not keen on a judgement by the ICC, because they won't like the outcome?
Sasaki and I seem to be on the same page as of late, which is odd. :grin3:
How are you able to ensure the impartiality of the ICC? Due to its unique position among nations, the US engenders strong emotions around the globe which would certainly play a part in any trial of American military personnel. The various committees within the UN demonstrate how politics can pervert the intended goals of an international organization, with the Human Rights Committee being the most obvious. It is easy to find a jury of people to judge a common person that they have never encountered impartially, but try finding a person who doesn't have an opinion on the US.
And again, you should not be so quick to write off the US military justice system. It is certainly not perfect, but it is generally effective. Consider the Navy Seals recently put on trial for simply punching an Al Queda boss in the stomach.
WIRED actually has an interview up (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/) with a ground soldier who appeared in the video helping the kids. He believes the first attack was appropriate, but the attack on the van was not:
I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary.
Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning shots in the direction…. Instead, the Apaches decided to completely obliterate everybody in the van. That’s the hard part to swallow.
And where the soldier said [in the video], “Well, you shouldn’t take your kids to battle.” Well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids. There’s no front lines here. This is urban combat and we’re taking the war to children and women and innocents.
There were plenty of times in the past where other insurgents would come by and pick up the bodies, and then we’d have no evidence or anything to what happened, so in looking at it from the Apache’s point of view, they were thinking that [someone was] picking up the weapons and bodies; when, in hindsight, clearly they were picking up the wounded man. But you’re not supposed to do that in Iraq.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-21-2010, 20:10
Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning shots in the direction…. Instead, the Apaches decided to completely obliterate everybody in the van. That’s the hard part to swallow.
Yeah, this is what I think. Understandable that the vans that come are usually more insurgents, and that civilians "aren't supposed to" do that. But I don't think you shoot up a van just because it "isn't supposed to be" civilians.
HoreTore
04-21-2010, 22:02
simply punching an Al Queda boss in the stomach.
It always surprises me how little knowledge right-wingers have of the rules of war, how they came to be and why they are the way they are.
Haudegen
04-21-2010, 22:08
I'm more interested in how our US friends feel about the International Criminal Court.
Taking into account that apparently, they want an independent body saying that they are not comitting war crimes so that once and for all, it's over with these accusations against the noble US, it is a bit strange that they don't want to recognise the ICC.
The ICC is the independent body they are looking for; able to judge impartial about things like this. Or is the US not keen on a judgement by the ICC, because they won't like the outcome? Is all this "there have been no war crimes comitted, we did investigations" talk, just that: talk?
And according to article 17 of the ICC statutes, the ICC shall only function as a last resort. Full text here:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
IMHO this means that- contrary to some opinions stated in this thread - individual US soldiers don´t have to worry about being tried in The Hague, as long as the US government can demonstrate that they are actively trying to keep their own house clean.
Effectively the ICC can work as a means of motivation for the national institutions that are responsible for investigating such incidents.
....
And even states that have subscribed to the ICC statutes are allowed to step over the boundries every now and then: :wink2:
Just two days ago the attorney general of Germany has decided that the German officer who ordered the Kunduz Airstrike (see my earlier post) is obviously innocent and no trial shall take place. Further details of this decision were not disclosed to the public...
So the ICC, as it stands now, is politically a toothless institution, limited to prosecuting crazy mass murderers from some obscure third world countries.
But maybe, just maybe, the ICC could have fulfilled the role I described above, if the US hadn´t decided to declare the ICC as totally irrelevant from since its beginning ...
But maybe, just maybe, the ICC could have fulfilled the role I described above, if the US hadn´t decided to declare the ICC as totally irrelevant from since its beginning ...
Indeed.
PanzerJaeger
04-22-2010, 06:19
It always surprises me how little knowledge right-wingers have of the rules of war, how they came to be and why they are the way they are.
That is quite a lot to surmise from my statement. :inquisitive:
HoreTore
04-22-2010, 10:01
That is quite a lot to surmise from my statement. :inquisitive:
Not really, since you were showing surprise at someone being prosecuting for breaching said rules.
PanzerJaeger
04-23-2010, 01:30
Not really, since you were showing surprise at someone being prosecuting for breaching said rules.
I think you failed to understand the point I was making.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-23-2010, 03:10
How can we rely upon the ICC to handle war crimes issues when we do not recognize/participate in all of the statutory agreements that form the basis for ICC rulings?
How can we rely upon the ICC to handle war crimes issues when we do not recognize/participate in all of the statutory agreements that form the basis for ICC rulings?
That was my point. Why don't you recognize it/participate in it? Is the US afraid that it won't always say what the US wants to hear, namely "innocent"?
Bad experiences with other international courts, perhaps? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#The_ruling) Interesting to note that after the ruling in favour of Nicaragua, the US veto'ed a resolution calling for full and immediate compliance with that Judgment... Also something that needs to be noted: in 1986, the US withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court and from then on accepted its' jurisdiction only on a case by case basis.
Please, don't be surprised that the world looks a bit sceptic at you guys when you claim that some internal investigation has cleared the military from all charges...
Accept full jurisdiction of the ICC and the International Court, if the judgement is not in your favour, accept it and comply with it and you'll gain credibility. Don't and accept that the world is sceptic about your actions and doesn't believe everything you say. The non existence of certain Weapons of Mass Destruction in a not too distant past, doesn't help your credibility either.
Kadagar_AV
04-27-2010, 13:03
Anti-American + Assumptions + a complete disregard for nuance in favor of stereotypes = your posts.
Thank you for your time! However, do you not think spending more time discussing my points and less time trying to summarize my posts would further the debate more? I do not want to stray off-topic, but when quoting your post there is very little "on topic" to work with, get my point?
I do however find your attempts of trolling and flaming charming though, you know, just the way you would with a clown who just wasn't funny. You still keep looking at his show, out of pity perhaps?
Strike For The South
04-27-2010, 16:38
Thank you for your time! However, do you not think spending more time discussing my points and less time trying to summarize my posts would further the debate more? I do not want to stray off-topic, but when quoting your post there is very little "on topic" to work with, get my point?
I do however find your attempts of trolling and flaming charming though, you know, just the way you would with a clown who just wasn't funny. You still keep looking at his show, out of pity perhaps?
People have simply taken to ignoring you, call me a hopeless romantic but I think you've still got a chance to be productive
CountArach
04-28-2010, 13:44
Settle it down guys...
ajaxfetish
05-29-2010, 15:56
US Drone Crew Blamed for Afghan Civilian Deaths (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100529/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan)
Saw this today, and thought it might be support for PJ's thesis. It's apparently at least possible for US military investigators to find fault with their own, and to make that public.
Ajax
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 14:32
Got 'im.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/
Have fun at Fort Leavenworth, don't drop the soap! ~:wave:
PanzerJaeger
06-08-2010, 15:19
Hang him. He doesn't deserve to be shot.
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 15:31
Hang him. He doesn't deserve to be shot.
That's a bit brutal. I suggest prolounged embarassment and humiliation.
This guy is a real :daisy:bag.
Louis VI the Fat
06-08-2010, 15:46
One man's traitor is another one's whistleblower. :thumbsup:
I, for one, hope he gets protection. It is important that government employees can disclose with impunity evidence of a violation of law, of misconduct or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority.
I briefly scanned the whistleblower protection act (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33918.pdf), but frankly I assume that the military - always a bit more authoritian-minded than civilian society - protects the individual less extensively from his government.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-08-2010, 15:51
Lamo has contributed funds to Wikileaks in the past, and says he agonized over the decision to expose Manning — he says he’s frequently contacted by hackers who want to talk about their adventures, and he has never considered reporting anyone before. The supposed diplomatic cable leak, however, made him believe Manning’s actions were genuinely dangerous to U.S. national security.
“I wouldn’t have done this if lives weren’t in danger,” says Lamo, who discussed the details with Wired.com following Manning’s arrest. “He was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air.”
Got turned in by a hacker who'd donated to wikileaks in the past...it doesn't seem like this guy had any idea what he was doing.
One man's traitor is another one's whistleblower.
But he can't be both, yeah? I don't think this guy is a whistleblower, he was more concerned with self gratification.
PanzerJaeger
06-08-2010, 16:03
That's a bit brutal. I suggest prolounged embarassment and humiliation.
This guy is a real :daisy:bag.
I'd like to amend my position. Give this guy a medal for exposing the serious problems in American cyber security, then hang him.
One man's traitor is another one's whistleblower.
I'd be more sympathetic to such a view if his actions were limited to the release ove the video. However, Lamo said it best...
“He was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air.”
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 16:07
One man's traitor is another one's whistleblower. :thumbsup:
I, for one, hope he gets protection. It is important that government employees can disclose with impunity evidence of a violation of law, of misconduct or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority.
I briefly scanned the whistleblower protection act (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33918.pdf), but frankly I assume that the military - always a bit more authoritian-minded than civilian society - protects the individual less extensively from his government.
Louis: Read the article please.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-08-2010, 16:09
One man's traitor is another one's whistleblower. :thumbsup:
I, for one, hope he gets protection. It is important that government employees can disclose with impunity evidence of a violation of law, of misconduct or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority.
I briefly scanned the whistleblower protection act (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33918.pdf), but frankly I assume that the military - always a bit more authoritian-minded than civilian society - protects the individual less extensively from his government.
You can't have a military whistleblower in a warzone, only a traitor. At the end of the day all soldiers have is each other, and if ne of them uses his privilaged position to act like a child and endanger his brothers he's culpable, and would probably need to be placed in solitary for his own protection.
Louis VI the Fat
06-08-2010, 16:23
But he can't be both, yeah? I don't think this guy is a whistleblower, he was more concerned with self gratification.Hmm, you're quite right. Unlike this video, the release of all those other documents can not be considered the work of a man struggling with making public damning evidence of misconduct (regardless of whether it is or isn't misconduct). He couldn't have read all those cables, and is I would presume barely knowledgable about their contents.
Ah well, one nation's self-gratifying traitor is another nation's bonanza of hilarious behind-the-scenes. :beam:
No doubt, as we speak foreign offices with sufficiently large staffs are having a ball sifting through the US foreign office's private dealings.
How come a 22-year old has access to 260.000 classified diplomatic cables? Why is he unsupervised if he has this much access? They only caught him through sheer luck too.
If I were concerned about America's intelligence saftey, it is not this leaker's head I'd want on a platter...
Manning had access to two classified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRNET, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level.
The networks, he said, were both “air gapped” from unclassified networks, but the environment at the base made it easy to smuggle data out.
”Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis … a perfect storm.”
Louis VI the Fat
06-08-2010, 16:26
Louis: Read the article please.I only post here, I'm not at work!
Gah! I can't even bluff my way into a descussion here that I do, in fact, not know the first thing about without being found out within five minutes. Dammit. :laugh4:
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 16:43
I only post here, I'm not at work!
Gah! I can't even bluff my way into a descussion here that I do, in fact, not know the first thing about without being found out within five minutes. Dammit. :laugh4:
~;)
I knew how to take your post. The article itself is just too good to pass up. The best part is his military photo. :laugh4:
Kadagar_AV
06-08-2010, 17:02
May I usher a word of caution here?
All we have is the US army version of what has happened. And they have had plenty of time to spin it.
Does ANYONE on these boards really believe the US army press communique would read "We just caught the guy and hold him in custody without having pressed charges. Damn him for showing how we murder people!"
PLEASE people... I am not saying he is an angel... Just saying that you should take what was written with a grain of salt or two. Again, the US army has a lot of reasons to spin this, and a lot of possible ways to do it.
So what about those 250.000 other things he leaked? When will we see them? Oh right, we never will. As they are secret. But if they are leaked, shouldnt they be... leaked?
The bigger the lie, the more people believe it.
I for one will not jump on the bandwagon just yet. As I am not sure of the agenda here. Are you?
May I usher a word of caution here?
All we have is the US army version of what has happened. And they have had plenty of time to spin it.
Not entirely true. The original article cited by Vladimir is from Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/), a respectable magazine, and contains named sources, a sure sign that actual reporting took place. So the conversation is not based on a Pentagon press release, but rather an actual piece of journalism. Big difference.
PanzerJaeger
06-08-2010, 17:12
May I usher a word of caution here?
All we have is the US army version of what has happened. And they have had plenty of time to spin it.
Does ANYONE on these boards really believe the US army press communique would read "We just caught the guy and hold him in custody without having pressed charges. Damn him for showing how we murder people!"
PLEASE people... I am not saying he is an angel... Just saying that you should take what was written with a grain of salt or two. Again, the US army has a lot of reasons to spin this, and a lot of possible ways to do it.
So what about those 250.000 other things he leaked? When will we see them? Oh right, we never will. As they are secret. But if they are leaked, shouldnt they be... leaked?
The bigger the lie, the more people believe it.
I for one will not jump on the bandwagon just yet. As I am not sure of the agenda here. Are you?
The vast majority of the article quoted the man himself via chat logs provided by Lama, not a "military version" of anything.
Kadagar_AV
06-08-2010, 17:32
The vast majority of the article quoted the man himself via chat logs provided by Lama, not a "military version" of anything.
Ok, cool :)
I am sure it will all come to light then... But until then...
Again, am not saying anything, just saying I would like to hear both sides before I make any judgement. Wouldnt you?
Sasaki Kojiro
06-08-2010, 17:40
Again, am not saying anything, just saying I would like
:stare:
Kadagar_AV
06-08-2010, 17:42
:stare:
what did you object to? Hearing both sides before jumping on a bandwagon? Or?
EDIT: Sorry I was slow... I got your point now, valid or not. Yes I do admit to an error of phrasing.
Let me rephrase: Again, am not saying anything on the matter of guilt, just saying I would like to hear both sides before I make any judgement. Wouldnt you?
There. I hope that cleared it up for you :)
At least you were not nitpicking, that would have been horrible, would it not?
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 18:27
Ok, cool :)
I am sure it will all come to light then... But until then...
Again, am not saying anything, just saying I would like to hear both sides before I make any judgement. Wouldnt you?
Your questions would be answered if you read the article. :stare:
I'm just sayin'.
Kadagar_AV
06-08-2010, 18:31
Your questions would be answered if you read the article. :stare:
I'm just sayin'.
I have... I'm just sayin'.
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 19:15
I have... I'm just sayin'.
:laugh4:
Don't leave us. ~;)
I've got mixed feelings on the guy, he did break the laws of the uniform he put on but at the same time I'd rather not discourage people from breaking stories such as the Abu Graib or Haditha massacre. Though I feel the "Collateral Murder" was justified by the pilots enough people have doubts that I'm actually glad to have it in the open, even if it were presented on a website with an agenda such as WikiLeaks.
Kadagar_AV As a member of the US Armed forces he's subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is a bit harsher. I'm not even close to an expert in military law but have gotten the general gist that he'll have to prove his innocence instead of the court proving his guilt as in civilian courts.
He definitely showed some major flaws in our cyber-security though, something which the US should definitely fix. If a lone guy can have access to so much information then the damage someone working for a foreign entity could do is quite shocking. Perhaps we should be doing more thorough background checks for Top Secret security clearances as well.
Kadagar_AV
06-08-2010, 19:24
:laugh4:
Don't leave us. ~;)
If you would elaborate enough to make your point comprehensible then, who knows, it might lead to a... debate? Or do you want to solve it with one-liners and smilies?
spmetla, I very much agree with your opening. If people are doing the right thing, then why worry about the truth getting out?
I still want to hear what he has to say though, before I make up my mind. That isn't unreasonable, is it?
Not unreasonable at all, I was just trying to imply that with a military court a open public hearing is unlikely, especially seeing as it deals with 'national security' matters. Seeing as this is borderline whistle blower perhaps the circumstances of the proceedings should be a bit more open.
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 19:36
If you would elaborate enough to make your point comprehensible then, who knows, it might lead to a... debate? Or do you want to solve it with one-liners and smilies?
One liners (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106308/quotes) please.
Kadagar_AV
06-08-2010, 19:37
Not unreasonable at all, I was just trying to imply that with a military court a open public hearing is unlikely, especially seeing as it deals with 'national security' matters. Seeing as this is borderline whistle blower perhaps the circumstances of the proceedings should be a bit more open.
Very true :)
I would not expect total openness - ie. "these were the secret files he leaked".
Just hearing his side of the story in an interview would however do a lot of good :)
Seamus Fermanagh
06-08-2010, 20:57
Very true :)
I would not expect total openness - ie. "these were the secret files he leaked".
Just hearing his side of the story in an interview would however do a lot of good :)
Not going to happen. Even if the Army allowed him to make some kind of public statement or submit to an interview, his attorneys will advise STRONGLY against it. No defense attorney wants anything to get in the way of their defense of their client. That holds true for JAG officers as well.
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 21:10
Very true :)
I would not expect total openness - ie. "these were the secret files he leaked".
Just hearing his side of the story in an interview would however do a lot of good :)
Not going to happen. Even if the Army allowed him to make some kind of public statement or submit to an interview, his attorneys will advise STRONGLY against it. No defense attorney wants anything to get in the way of their defense of their client. That holds true for JAG officers as well.
No, no...I totally agree with Kadagar on this one. I love it when spies reveal everything they steal.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-08-2010, 21:17
No, no...I totally agree with Kadagar on this one. I love it when spies reveal everything they steal.
Me too. I also love the part where the bad guy explains the entire nefarious plot to James Bond and the Woman Accomplice of the Moment.
I just said that it ain't gonna happen 'cause the defense won't want to try a spy case in the court of public opinion. Now, if it had been a journalist who ferreted out the information or even stole it, they might very well want to do just that. But this one? Nope.
Kadagar_AV
06-08-2010, 21:51
I dunno, maybe I just prefer openness.
"I released the video of the murders because I felt it was the moral thing to do" -> is for me better than silence.
"I released XXXXXXXX because it showed the US has extraterrestrial contacts and our president is a lizard" <- is better than silence.
Dont get me wrong, I do not believe the president is a lizard or any such. However, hearing WHY he did what he did might be prudent before I write him off as a nutter. And all we KNOW so far, is that a video leaked of US troops out of control. He is accused fo other stuff, but that is all we know have leaked. From that information, you know, information we KNOW of, I wouldnt say he is a bad guy.
Sure we can fantasize about other things he leaked, but what we have seen, what there is evidence of, I applaud him.
Important note: He might still be a moron trying to be cool on the net. However, I would like to know way more before I make that judgement call.
Well, I might be the only one doing this, but here it goes nonetheless: Well done Manning. As I read the article, I can only applaud what the man did. That man did only what he thought was necessary to use his power to report wrong-doing and overall shady business that has become the trademark of how the USA Foreign Policy operates, since the end of World War 2. He wasn't selling anything to the highest bidder, he was revealing things to a trusted leak site on matters the US was doing its utmost to cover up. Notice he didn't reveal any miscelaneous information. He was there to leak the stuff USA doesn't want to get out so the successive US administrations can't be exposed for the shady dealings they do. It's a pity he was arrested, but I can't wait to see the information he leaked to Wikileaks.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-08-2010, 22:20
Well, I might be the only one doing this, but here it goes nonetheless: Well done Manning. As I read the article, I can only applaud what the man did. That man did only what he thought was necessary to use his power to report wrong-doing
With power comes responsibility. It's great to release stuff that should be released, but it is tough to make that call. He was very casual about it--even the hacker who had donated to wikileaks thought so.
Notice he didn't reveal any miscelaneous information.
None of the 260,000 foreign policy cables were miscellaneous?
Kadagar_AV
06-08-2010, 22:31
With power comes responsibility. It's great to release stuff that should be released, but it is tough to make that call. He was very casual about it--even the hacker who had donated to wikileaks thought so.
None of the 260,000 foreign policy cables were miscellaneous?
Where are they, mate?
If he leaked them... shouldn't we have heard something about it? I am sure that would have caused somewhat of a stir...
All we know is leaked is that video. He is also accused of this other thing, but evidence hasn't been presented as of yet.
Notice he didn't reveal any miscelaneous information. He was there to leak the stuff USA doesn't want to get out so the successive US administrations can't be exposed for the shady dealings they do.
Do you think he read all 250,000 diplomatic cables?
Personally, I think he should get 20 years for putting Lady Gaga CDs into classified machines. :yes: Add on the 10+ years for espionage afterwards.
Edit:
Where are they, mate?
If Wikileaks has them, it will probably take a while before they get sorted, organized, and edited. It took them several months to post the vid.
Sasaki Kojiro
06-08-2010, 22:37
Where are they, mate?
If he leaked them... shouldn't we have heard something about it? I am sure that would have caused somewhat of a stir...
All we know is leaked is that video. He is also accused of this other thing, but evidence hasn't been presented as of yet.
You know what they say about keeping an open mind...
Hillary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning wrote.
He admitted to it.
Vladimir
06-08-2010, 22:50
Spies like to brag.
The Army will trace his computer history to see if he had access to these files; that's the easy part. Then we'll know.
Kadagar_AV
06-08-2010, 23:25
You know what they say about keeping an open mind...
No? But then I also always wondered what killed the cat.
He admitted to it.
We have people admitting crimes every day. Some just want to look cool.
Also, we only have one source, in a case like this, I would like more.
And again, I would like to hear from him :)
What are foreign policy cables? Aren't 260000 cables pretty heavy? Were they long cables or short cables and what does wikileaks want with so many cables? Isn't giving cables to wikileaks theft? How do you know when to cut the cable at both ends so the information is still in it? Am I missing something here? :dizzy2:
Louis VI the Fat
06-09-2010, 00:11
What are foreign policy cables?
50
ORIGIN SS-10
INFO JUN-03 ISO-00 SSO-00 /011 R
66602
DRAFTED BY: X
APPROVED BY: Y
--------------------- 106551
O 301903Z SEP 73 ZFF4
FM FINANCE
TO FRA EMBA BERLIN IMMEDIATE
INFO FRA EMBA BRUSSELS IMMEDIATE
S E C R E T STATE 194280
EXDIS
FOLLOWING SENT ACTION PARIS, JUNE03, FROM SECSTATE RPTD
TO YOU:
QUOTE S E C R E T STATE 194280
EXDIS
E.O. 11652 - XGDS
TAGS: EU, AL, Merk, Finance
SUBJECT: German bailout
FOR CONSUL FROM X
1. Nicolas says to tell that fat Wagnerian Valkyrie where to stick her bail-out proposal.
<< END OF DOCUMENT >>
This is then translated by a diplomated schooled in the finesses of international conduct into language agreeable to the slightly more disciplined German mind. :book:
Vladimir
06-09-2010, 00:12
What are foreign policy cables? Aren't 260000 cables pretty heavy? Were they long cables or short cables and what does wikileaks want with so many cables? Isn't giving cables to wikileaks theft? How do you know when to cut the cable at both ends so the information is still in it? Am I missing something here? :dizzy2:
Maybe ask our British friends for a torch to shed some light on this.
Kadagar_AV
06-09-2010, 00:29
Said stuff
10/10
What are foreign policy cables? Aren't 260000 cables pretty heavy? Were they long cables or short cables and what does wikileaks want with so many cables? Isn't giving cables to wikileaks theft? How do you know when to cut the cable at both ends so the information is still in it? Am I missing something here? :dizzy2:
Screw the information, have you seen the price of copper these days?
Louis VI the Fat
06-25-2010, 01:47
McChrystal and WikiLeaks: A double standard? (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/24/mcchrystal_vs_manning/index.html)
The dismissal of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and the military's detention of WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning seem to be unrelated stories, but one former Marine sees a double standard at work.
Jeff Paterson, the project director of Courage to Resist (http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/), an organization that supports "informed resistance" of those who have left or want to leave the Army, believes that Manning, the Army private who leaked a video of an Apache helicopter attacking civilians in Afghanistan, is getting a raw deal compared to McChrystal.
"Here's one case of your average rank and file soldier who is facing a crisis of conscience, with realizing what's really going on with this war on the ground ... he made the decision to actually throw his hat in the ring of public debate, to actually offer a critical critique of what's going on," Paterson said. "And now he's in jail ... and doesn't have the ability to just resign from the Army."
The 22-year-old Manning is being detained in Kuwait after releasing the video and "hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records," according to Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter's Wired article (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/). Though he has not been formally charged, Paterson said he doesn't know if Manning will even be able to get a civilian legal defense.
"McChrystal has continued to do what he's done for the past decade, from the Pat Tillman coverup (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2007/08/01/tillman) to criticizing the president, yet he has the opportunity to resign," Paterson said. "It's substance versus fluff."
http://www.salon.com/news/gen_stanley_mcchrystal/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/06/24/mcchrystal_vs_manning
Sasaki Kojiro
06-25-2010, 04:35
"Here's one case of your average rank and file soldier who is facing a crisis of conscience, with realizing what's really going on with this war on the ground ... he made the decision to actually throw his hat in the ring of public debate, to actually offer a critical critique of what's going on,"
Err...how did he do that exactly?
PanzerJaeger
06-25-2010, 04:41
I hate people like Mr. Jeff Paterson.
Because bad mouthing your boss is exactly the same as stealing and distributing classified documents you have agreed, under penalty of law, to protect. ~:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.