Collateral Murder

[Minute]

I don't even know what to say. @ the point when they are deciding to shoot the van and cheering and such I thought I was going to throw up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/0 ... 25569.html

[Taxious]

Weird... I just watched that and was feeling pretty sick to my stomach as well.

[Ddrak]

Assuming the video is not doctored, I believe UCMJ Art. 118 should apply in this situation?

At the very least, the Pentagon is going to have hell with this. It's also why people should donate money to help Wikileaks stay afloat.

Dd

[JecksS]

UCMJ Art. 118 (Murder) does not apply. The ROE were followed. There were weapons visible. The RPG and the AK's were visible. According to the ROE of the time this was sufficient to show hostile intent. If you listen to the tape you can hear someone indicate that there were shots fired. Engagement was properly requested and granted each time. The van was not marked as an ambulance and the people picking up bodies were not marked as rescue or medical personnel. I am sure you would agree that it would be ok to fire on insurgents who were picking up other insurgents.

The questions would be:

1) Did the Reuters journalists inform coalition forces of their intent to mingle with armed individuals in the AO?

2) Were the ROE followed?

3) When civilians were identified were they offered immediate medical care?

War should turn your stomach. It is a nasty business.

[Partha]

"Just pick up a weapon."

They were looking to kill. Which is why, when the supposed shooters were all clustered in a group out of sight, they announced shots fired.

But hey, they clearly deserved it, all walking around and shit on the street, right?

[JecksS]

They were looking to kill.

So a soldier was looking to kill someone who was perceived as an enemy but instead did not fire and followed the ROE because the wounded individual did not have a weapon...

Find a crime in that, please.

they announced shots fired

Shots being fired is a side note and irrelevant. Just carrying the weapons openly indicates hostile intent.

Yeah...we get it...you don't like war. Neither do I. But that does not mean we charge our soldiers with non existent crimes.

[Ddrak]

Yes, I went over the top with the murder charge. Apologies. The attitude of the crew to the actions they were performing was completely unprofessional and shouldn't be tolerated in any sort of professional armed force. If this is considered normal in the US military then you're doing it wrong.


If one person "just carrying a weapon" is sufficient under the ROE to permit a helicopter pilot to take out everyone in the vicinity then the ROE are wrong. Carrying a weapon is not uncommon in Iraq, so you're essentially saying that US troops have carte blanche to kill anyone they wanted to. Imagine if a Palestinian claimed that "carrying a weapon" made anyone around you a legitimate target in Israel - think that would fly?

Imagine if a cop in NYC decided because they were responding to a "shots fired" request that anyone carrying a weapon was a target and they should fire first and ask questions later. How soon would it take for it to descend into "citizens vs police" warfare?

I am sure you would agree that it would be ok to fire on insurgents who were picking up other insurgents.

No, I don't. Actions like the ones shown in the video serve to create insurgents rather than eliminate them. Simply assuming that someone attempting to help someone else deserves death because they aren't an "official ambulance" shows a callous disregard for basic human instincts. As a result, they shot up two kids because they were operating under instructions that people deserved death unless proven otherwise. How on earth that goes towards winning "hearts and minds" is beyond me, in fact it only serves to inflame the situation - especially now the US Army's actions are fully visible to the public.

The real problem here is the US military is an anachronism from the cold war days and is incapable of effectively undertaking policing operations.


To look at the questions:

Did the Reuters journalists inform coalition forces of their intent to mingle with armed individuals in the AO?
Given the rate of gun ownership in Iraq, don't you think this is just a little bit stupid? You're saying journalists require military permission to talk to people? The issue isn't that journalists were killed in any case - it's the entire situation that took place. War is ugly, but actions like this don't serve to bring it to a close.

Were the ROE followed
Valid question for a court martial. Wrong question for the whole situation - the bigger question is "Were the ROE even sensible?"

When civilians were identified were they offered immediate medical care?
A bit hard to when they were all dead, don't you think? Besides, the Army's press release on the situation said that they were all clearly insurgents and were actively involved in a firefight. As far as the video shows, the only involvement they had was being on the receiving end.

Dd

[Lurker]

Here's a chat transcript with a Washington Post staff writer who was covering that battalion at the time of the incident.

[Ddrak]

Good transcript - well worth reading. Thanks, Lurker.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Correct me if Im wrong, but ROEs establish the minimum threshhold for military engagement, but they don't necessarily REQUIRE engagement. US military engagement decisions are (in my understanding, again, correct me if I'm wrong) based on ROEs... AND... tactical evals of commanders in the field. Both are equally important. In essence, ROEs frame the basics for combat, commanders in the field decide if combat is warranted once ROEs are satisfied. In this case, even though technically ROEs might have been fulfilled, commanders in the field were obviously looking for a reason to open fire, and seem unconcerned about the legitimacy of the engagement.

We have to be better than that.

[Torakus]

Correct me if Im wrong, but ROEs establish the minimum threshhold for military engagement, but they don't necessarily REQUIRE engagement. US military engagement decisions are (in my understanding, again, correct me if I'm wrong) based on ROEs... AND... tactical evals of commanders in the field. Both are equally important. In essence, ROEs frame the basics for combat, commanders in the field decide if combat is warranted once ROEs are satisfied. In this case, even though technically ROEs might have been fulfilled, commanders in the field were obviously looking for a reason to open fire, and seem unconcerned about the legitimacy of the engagement.

We have to be better than that.

You have it right. The ROE spell out the criteria for engagement of particular targets. ROE is all about appropriate application of force to achieve specific goals. The receipt of weapons release authority does not relieve the aircraft commander of his responsibility to ensure that force applied is appropriate to situation. If ROE is not met to begin with or he fails to de-escalate when appropriate, he is fully and legally responsible for his and his crew's actions.

[Ddrak]

More commentary:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63649P20100408

Chris Cobb-Smith, a former British army officer who has conducted war zone investigations, said knowing what rules of engagement the pilots were operating under was critical to understanding whether they had acted appropriately.

But he said firing on those who came to help the wounded appeared to be a breach of the laws governing military conduct in war. "That is the element that is blatant. That is against all humanitarian law and the rules of conflict -- most definitely and without a doubt," he told Reuters.

Bibi van Ginkel, an international lawyer and senior fellow at the Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations, said the video was only a fragment of evidence and more investigation was required. But she added:

"My first guess would be that a war crime was committed. Very simply speaking, if people are helping the wounded, they are non-combatants. If force is used against them, then that is a war crime," she said.

I suspect there's going to end up being some sort of investigation whether the Pentagon wants it or not.

It's pretty bad press that the video come out via Wikileaks and not through official replies to Reuters FOIA requests. The latter would have enabled the Pentagon to put a much different spin on things and come out looking a lot better than they do having a whistleblower leak it.

Dd