WikiLeaks publishes apparent negligent attack on civillians in Iraq video

[Idaho]

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]

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.

[Idaho]

There was a military inquiry?

[PanzerJaeger]

Indeed.

[spmetla]

Colbert Report Interview with Wikileaks spokesperson Julian Assange

[PanzerJaeger]

Colbert Report Interview with Wikileaks spokesperson Julian Assange

"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.

[Brenus]

"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]

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]

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]

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 and the military should not be surprised that there is mistrust - be it justified or not.

[Brenus]

“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]

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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.

[Brenus]

“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]

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?

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/r...estigation.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]

I´d love to have a look at the military´s investigation report.

Is this the one you´re talking about?

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.

[Haudegen]

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?

[Brenus]

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]

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.

[spmetla]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Idaho]

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]

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.