Video Allegedly Shows U.S. Soldiers Shooting Dead Civilians in Iraq

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Really?
Are you high or something?

Methinks he was being sarcastic....

 

[tomahawk6]

Lets see wasnt it Hizbollah that first used ambulances to ferry weapons and men about in Lebanon and I would suspect the same happened in Iraq. Thats a violation of the Geneva convention. So is fighting without uniforms. Killing prisoners is also a violation. Blowing up civilians is a violation of the Geneva Convention. When I grew up I was taught personal responsibility and I will bet everyone else here at army.ca was as well. You drive a van into a battle you risk getting killed. Ignore a checkpoint and you run the risk of getting killed. All this is in the context that a US convoy was being engaged by insurgents a short distance from this location. One of these days we will have munitions that can distinguish bad guys from civilians. Until then if you are going to play with fire dont cry when you get burnt.

 

[vonGarvin]

Small add of informations :

From what I heard on the news, they didn't (immediately) shoot.
They asked for permission to shot, and upon receiving it,  they then
procede...

I've sat near a monitor as shots were made.  I've also sat near a monitor when shots were not made.  As you point out, Yrys, the pilots asked for permission to engage in both cases.  In the case of the bongo truck, it appeared at the time that not only were they picking up people, but also the weapons.  Ifit were the case that they were recovering weapons, then they would be legitimate targets.  My own opinion, in the opening lines of "Cross of Iron"

Good Kill.

Edit to att (t6 responded before my post): that pongo van was not marked as an ambulance, and it seemed that they were recovering weapons in addition to the wounded.  Using a "mission of mercy" to shield a military op (recovery of weapons, etc) is perfidy, and is itself is a war crime.

 

[brihard]

I've sat near a monitor as shots were made.  I've also sat near a monitor when shots were not made.  As you point out, Yrys, the pilots asked for permission to engage in both cases.  In the case of the bongo truck, it appeared at the time that not only were they picking up people, but also the weapons.  Ifit were the case that they were recovering weapons, then they would be legitimate targets.  My own opinion, in the opening lines of "Cross of Iron"

Good Kill.

Edit to att (t6 responded before my post): that pongo van was not marked as an ambulance, and it seemed that they were recovering weapons in addition to the wounded.  Using a "mission of mercy" to shield a military op (recovery of weapons, etc) is perfidy, and is itself is a war crime.

I've watched the video several times now, and at no time subsequent to the arrival of the van is there any evidence that weapons were being handled.

I have no problem with the first engagement, but I share Petamoncto's doubts on the legitimacy of the second. I'm not saying the pilots were in the wrong- they requested and received permission to fire. But I do NOT see any evidence that there was anything going on except the removal of casualties.  Because CASEVAC has been abused by insurgents in the past to conduct military activities does NOT justify a general assumption that such is the case without actual evidence of such activity.

Remember, of course, that Iraq is a counterinsurgency. Decisions that make tactical sense might compromise the higher strategic intent. The bad optics that come out of an incident like this can have a tremendously disproportionate effect both in the conflict zone and in the court of public opinion, which matters whether we like it or not.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm not going to question the second engagement.  Yeah, I'm cheering for the "good guys", but I'm not privy to more info that is not apparent in the video.  For example, was bringing in trucks a Modus Operandus for the insurgents?  Were there other contacts in the area?  We see one video, with one combat net.  The ground elements were still in contact (11:45 in the video, the ground element warns of more insurgents engaging them with RPGs and AKs).  So, yeah, no question in my mind.  The battle is raging, and people die. 

In fact, after the initial engagement, the choppers are calling in ground forces to the area to get the wounded dude as they keep an eye on him.  That Bongo was there awfully quick, leading me to suspect that it wasn't simply a mission of mercy.  And I suspect that those pilots knew it, and so did the ground element.

EDIT TO ADD: the initial engagement was at 03:16 of the video.  The Ground Element arrives at 14:59 and starts setting the cordon, less than 12 minutes later.  In combat.  I'd say that the ground forces were very quick to arrive.  My question: how did the bongo get there so quick? 

 

[SeanNewman]

Tomahawk6,

Using the justification "well they did this..." is a sad, sad, defence.

Worse, it undermines our efforts to claim we know better.

If the bad guys use a mosque as a shield, then you can shoot at those bad guys; you can't shoot everyone in a mosque for the rest of your tour.

As per my first post, (likely) none of us were involved with that incident so we don't have the entire story, but from watching that video what I will reiterate is that the pilots may have a hard time justifying that two guys carrying an obviously wounded guy into a van (presumably to provide him some sort of care) was a legitimate threat to them in the air or ground forces near by.

First engagement?  No problems at all.  Shooting that van and responders?  Honestly, shame on you for defending them.

I know what right looks like, and that's not it.  People who allow those sorts of incidents to happen or defend them are why things like Abu Gharib, My Lai, and Somalia happen in the first place.

We follow the rules if we wear the flag on our shoulder, period.

 

[tomahawk6]

I was simply pointing out the enemy TTP's,their tendencies if you will. Second, have you bothered to read the other comments in this thread ? Finally my impression based on your posts that you buy the slanted argument of wikileak rather than the counterargument. In combat people die if you make the wrong decision and people die if you fail to make a decision. If you say give these guys a pass and then they join up with their friends who are attacking a convoy. More friendlies die because you are afraid to make a hard decision. Patton had it right when he said that it was his job to make sure the bad guys died for their country. Our pilots like yours are highly trained and have the best sensor package that money can buy. At the end of the day the experience of the aircrew felt they were justified to engage. I do want to point out that what you saw on the video was also seen by the Apache's command at their TOC and they cleared the pilot to engage. End of story.

 

[OldSolduer]

As the father of a son who was KIA in Afghanistan on 3 Sep 2008, if we could reverse time and place those AH 64s near the site of C/S 32A on that day, I would by the crews of said AH-64s all the beer they could drink, if they had taken the shot.
I think the families of American soldiers are silently cheering for the AH 64 crews. I know I would be....in fact I am.

 

[SeanNewman]

I do want to point out that what you saw on the video was also seen by the Apache's command at their TOC and they cleared the pilot to engage. End of story.

T6,

Wrong, absolutely wrong, on both legal and ethical levels.

Being granted clearance to conduct an act does not vindicate you from responsibility for any wrong-doing.

Everyone has shared responsibility when something wrong happens, from those who did it to those who did not stop it, and those who ordered it.

Again, I am not passing judgement on the pilots, but your defences of them are deplorable.  Just because their TOC authorized something doesn't make it a sound decision any more than Nazi war crimes being authorized by higher made murdering Jews a sound decision.

In Canada we have a statement of defence ethics, which include three hierarchical principles.  At the very top of that list is "Respect the dignity of all persons", which takes precedence over "Respect and obey lawful authority".

So not only does consent from higher not automatically make it okay, but even if higher had ordered you to do it, we have an obligation not to do so.

Silverback,

Obviously nobody is going to disrespect what you just said due to the way you prefaced it, but understand that you are now justifying the concept of revenge killings with impressionable young soldiers viewing this website.

 

[Spanky]

T6,


Again, I am not passing judgement on the pilots, but your defences of them are deplorable. 

It sure sounds like judgement being passed.



Silverback,

Obviously nobody is going to disrespect what you just said due to the way you prefaced it, but understand that you are now justifying the concept of revenge killings with impressionable young soldiers viewing this website.

Far be it for me to defend what Silverback is saying, but it sounds to me more like prevention than revenge.

 

[brihard]

Far be it for me to defend what Silverback is saying, but it sounds to me more like prevention than revenge.

Again, tactical versus strategic. How many new recruits has this given the insurgency, whether such recruiting is based on accurate information or not? How many people will no longer give the Americans potentially critical information about insurgent activity in their area? Collateral damage matters far more in a counterinsurgency than it does in a conventional war; when the enemy is in and of a civilian population, that population needs to be brought and kept on side as much as possible, and sometimes, yes, this means that strategic considerations may have undesirable tactical ramifications.

All that aside, there's also the simple questions of whether it's right to shoot up a van with a couple of individuals who have presented no obvious or credible threat, and who are simply rendering aid to and evacuating a casualty. I've yet to see anyone challenge me on the point that for the duration of the part of the video where the van appears and is engaged there is no evidence of the individuals or the casualty being armed- in fact, just prior, the helicopter crews were expressing a desire for the casualty to pick up a weapon so they COULD engage. There is zero apparent evidence that the civilians in the van were engaging in any sort of 'military' activity or works other than rescuing someone who was wounded.

The first engagement was absolutely justified in my mind. There were weapons, and there were troops in contact. Shooting up the van, however, does not appear to have been as sound a decision. To those who would say we have to simply take the chance that they're civilians in order to eliminate a potential threat, well, how far to we carry that logic? Can't you see the slippery slope that leads us down?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I love to read folks making  "justified" decisions about other peoples live-threatening situations while they are sitting naked in front of a screen eating a bowl of cereal.........

 

[armyvern]

I love to read folks making  "justified" decisions about other peoples live-threatening situations while they are sitting naked in front of a screen eating a bowl of cereal.........

Damn, I'm busted; What type of cereal am I eating?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Damn, I'm busted; What type of cereal am I eating?

Bet it's not Honey Nuts

 

[armyvern]

Bet it's not Honey Nuts

Correct, I figured Special K was appropriate for this thread.  Well, that and the fact that I wanted to be able to actually see the screen.  8)

 

[tomahawk6]

Below is the official report. It includes film shot by the "journalists" and weapons the bad guys had been armed with.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA

 

[OldSolduer]

I love to read folks making  "justified" decisions about other peoples live-threatening situations while they are sitting naked in front of a screen eating a bowl of cereal.........

Cheezies actually.

 

[bdave]

I've watched the video several times now, and at no time subsequent to the arrival of the van is there any evidence that weapons were being handled.

I have no problem with the first engagement, but I share Petamoncto's doubts on the legitimacy of the second. I'm not saying the pilots were in the wrong- they requested and received permission to fire. But I do NOT see any evidence that there was anything going on except the removal of casualties.  Because CASEVAC has been abused by insurgents in the past to conduct military activities does NOT justify a general assumption that such is the case without actual evidence of such activity.

Remember, of course, that Iraq is a counterinsurgency. Decisions that make tactical sense might compromise the higher strategic intent. The bad optics that come out of an incident like this can have a tremendously disproportionate effect both in the conflict zone and in the court of public opinion, which matters whether we like it or not.

I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if this issue was addressed...however:
If you were driving your van (with children inside, apparently) around a dangerous city and you just witnessed a bunch of people being lit up silently, would you just drive there and start putting bodies in your van?
I wouldn't. Common sense would dictate something just went down and the area is (still) dangerous.
That being said, what is it with this conception that if you shoot someone, and they're dying, that you are not allowed to shoot them again if they are 'escaping'?
As far as I know ( I know little), if you are armed or attempting to flee, you are grounds for termination.
Those guys were clearly together and they were not marked as being medical (neither them nor the van) so they were open season.
In that video, it doesn't seem that all the members of the first group are armed, but by proxy, they are a threat.
Second group trying to aide the first? They are a threat.
Regardless of how the pilots spoke (cause none of us speak like that on a daily basis or anything, right?) I think they did nothing wrong.
That's my 2 cents.

 

[SeanNewman]

I love to read folks making  "justified" decisions about other peoples live-threatening situations while they are sitting naked in front of a screen eating a bowl of cereal.........

See, that's the problem.  We're so used to defending our actions across the board that we now don't even see the difference between a genuine threat (or a "life threatening situation" in your words), and a case when there was no threat at all.

I've had multiple IEDs blow up beside me, so I will be the first guy to defend soldiers who do things when they are not sure what the outcome of a situation will be, but that is not what is happening in the second engagement.

We're not talking about a soldier who was in an ambush at night and shot someone holding an RPG on a roof who turned out to be ANP, we're talking about an Apache shooting two people doing a CasEvac.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

CasEvac? More like aiding and abetting.

Eye of the beholder stuff and you're not going to convince anyone to the contrary otherwise, but go ahead and get the last word in anyway.