WikiLeaks publishes apparent negligent attack on civillians in Iraq video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Correction - American soldiers are rarely patient enough...

For all their charms they are, and have always been, notoriously trigger happy.

---

And there it is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

If you want an idea of just how trigger happy British soldiers can be, review Bloody Sunday.

---

Preaching to the choir mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

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/u...-icc-8-29.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

I know. That was the point of my question :wink:

---

Slick lawyer Andres_the_Cunning outcuns Louis VI the Slow yet again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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

Why is the ICC impartial? It has people on it not robots right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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 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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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/...te_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 ...