Soldier from "Collateral Murder" company speaks out

Anonymous

@duncano
“This to me, is the interesting thing about the video. A fairly routine, almost textbook incident has been released on video because it involved the death of a reporter. ”

Exactly… a friend of a friend’s story of knocking on a house with suspicion of insurgents inside and hearing a commotion inside…

they toss a grenade in…

they go in to find the guts of a family of four splattered on the broken walls of the place… not a gun or anything in sight.

Not videotaped, no non-Iraqis killed… no story.

The people that did that were not, unphased to say the least, by the brutality of what had occurred… but from the point of view of us folks who (generally) have never been under the gun… we just see the brutality, not the fear/group fear/survival instinct that can cause such things.

Like I said, things are screwed.

Anonymous

Can someone tell me what the insurgent uniform looks like? The Iraqi army is our ally in the war in Iraq. We are fighting a war against civilians. How can you imagine that civilian casualties would be something that we can avoid?? It is disheartenning that there are innocent civilians that cannot or will not move away from the conflict in their country that congregate publically holding unidentified objects where military forces are hunting for enemy troops. It is equally unfortunate that soldiers opperating at night weren’t able to identify the objects they were carrying and mistook them for hostile forces. It’s heartbreaking that a man driving a van with young children in it, through a combat area, stopped without evaluating the consequences of those actions. All of this pales in comparision to the reminder that our Goverment is waging war against civilians in a foreign land. It has to stop.

ncinerate

Now I’m depressed just thinking about this whole nasty thing.

Why can’t this whole war just end.

Hell with it, iraq and afganistan might end up falling back into nasty hellholes. Who cares? We aren’t exactly fighting wars in every single country that’s also a nasty hellhole.

Even with this new nuclear treaty we’ll have enough nukes to level the planet, why do we even need a military anymore? I mean, aside from the corporate profiteering. It seems to me in todays world, we could scrap the aircraft carriers, mothball the tanks and aircraft, close up shop, and -NOTHING- would change.

No country is going to attack us. We might face a terrorist here and there but we -already- face a terrorist here and there. We could take the TRILLION dollars next year and spend it on something worthwhile…

That’s change I could believe in. I know I’m oversimplifying it (I mean, there’s countless jobs at stake here supporting the whole nasty business of war), but is that really any excuse to continue such an outdated system?

I guess it is. I wonder if we’ll ever achieve universal peace as a race. Obviously not as long as wartime policies are dictated by job statistics and corporate profits…

chigg

i dont find this as a murder because they are not out there to look for cameras, my point of view is that if you are a reporter in the middle of a war you have to be ready to die this might have been a mistake but by the way it looked i will be shooting too if there was a big group of people and there is weapons around them in a war zone its a sad thing there are civilians but war is war people die people kill

Anonymous

â€œIt is a condition of wisdom in the archer to be patient because when the arrow leaves the bow, it returns no more.â€ – Saâ€™di (as quoted in Brian Turner’s excellent book of Iraq War Poetry, “Here, Bullet”)

Now contrast with:

“You’ve gotta make decisions, you’ve gotta keep making decisions, even if they’re wrong decisions. If you don’t make decisions you’re stuffed” – Joe Simpson (Touching the Void)

These are both among my favourite maxims but sadly, in combat, they have an uneasy coexistence at best.

Trotsky

>> Please provide an actual example of how ‘changing the minds of soldiers’ has stopped any war.

I did provide an unambiguous, clear cut “actual” example of a war fought within my lifetime, involving people I know, citing causes and support that are wildly accepted in a global consensus. That you choose to cavalierly wave your hand and dismiss it with “what a load of nonsense” does not diminish nor negate my remarks. A rhetorical gesticulation of “LOL” or “that’s crazy” does not alter the trajectory of an assertion, regardless of how many derisive emoticons or exclamation points are attached for effect.

ALL wars cease when soldiers refuse to deploy. And not before. They either refuse to deploy because they expect certain death (the futility of inevitable sacrifice), because their support network ostracizes them and they internalize this doubt, or because they lack confidence in the mission as outlined by their superiors. Those are the ONLY three ways in which wars end, apart from genocide (all combatants murdered and their families and sympathizers, as well), and they are all reduced to soldiers simply refusing to show up for a battle. Soldiers are humans. Rooted in family and relationships which define their lives. If those people closest to them demand their withdrawal, that has a profound and immediate effect.

You assert that “military indoctrination is far too sophisticated, extremely thorough and way too effective.” But military indoctrination pales in comparison to the indoctrination and influence of one’s children, parents, and friends. I don’t think you can credibly assert that most or even a small minority of soldiers will defy their society, their family, their coworkers, their neighbors, and their friends to place themselves in harm’s way because “military indoctrination is far too sophisticated, extremely thorough and way too effective.”

I know a lot of soldiers and I’ve never met one who would deploy if their wife, children, families definitively and unambiguously opposed it. And I don’t mean crocodile tears and “I’ll miss you, daddy.” I mean “if you go and kill on our behalf, you are walking away from us.” That’s a line that few will cross.

Cruel? Certainly far less than the slaughter we are visiting on the rest of the planet to maintain our affluent lifestyle and position of global authority through theft.

duncano

@Trotsky: The prevailing wisdom (your ‘global consensus’) is NOT that the Vietnam war ended because soldiers refused to fight. Therefore, it isn’t an example of a war that ended that way. If you can point me to some scholarly work that gives this as the reason please do.

You wrote: “I don’t think you can credibly assert that most or even a small minority of soldiers will defy their society, their family, their coworkers, their neighbors, and their friends to place themselves in harm’s way . . .”
But they don’t have to defy them – that’s the whole point – your model of military indoctrination is too narrow. It’s not just soldiers, it’s their society, their family, their coworkers, their neighbors and their friends have also been subjected to it. And this is because military indoctrination is far too sophisticated, extremely thorough and way too effective.
Terry

“ALL wars cease when soldiers refuse to deploy.”

What about all those wars that ended because one government surrendered to another?

Anonymous

Oh! I didn’t know it was military protocol to laugh with the killings and treat death so cheerfully!

Trotsky

And one of the most telling lessons from this video is that soldiers NEVER speak in euphemism in the field. In the field, it’s not about “force protection,” it’s about “shooting those motherfuckers.”

The euphemisms only come out when the general public timidly asks to participate in the conversation, and then the laity is led by the seasoned guidance and battle-forged wisdom of the vets who were “there” and “know what it’s like.”

ncinerate

I want to say I couldn’t bring myself to watch the video in full, and now that I’ve actually watched a bit more I think I understand what the outrage is for….

The whole van sequence where they are picking up wounded and dead while the apache is begging for clearance to kill everyone is absolutely completely wrong.

The initial mistake, shooting all those people, maybe I can understand the justification in a warzone. The van? That’s uncalled for. Grotesque. A clear violation of war ethics and rules.

Anonymous

I can understand the first part of the attack. A mistake identifying equipment as a weapon is just that – a mistake. But how do they justify machine gunning a man they knew to be unarmed and injured ? Even if he was a combatant he was entitled to humane treatment under art.12 of the Geneva Convention. Similarly, the family in the van that pulled up and tried to help him were not armed, and there is nothing to show that the Apache crew thought they were. Yet they were killed, in contravention of Art.18. The worst thing about this is that it is undoubtedly going on day after day – unilateral execution from the sky, without even as much evidence that would be required to put down a stray dog in the US.

sloverlord

He’s right, of course, that war makes people behave in certain ways that makes this sort of thing inevitable, and that’s a reason we should be working our hardest to avoid it, but that doesn’t excuse the actions of the individual soldiers. They still committed cold-blooded murder and need to see some justice for it.

Machineintheghost

Wait, I don’t think Josh Stieber said it was “cold-blooded murder.” He said “Killing was following military protocol. It was going along with the rules as they are,” implying he didn’t like those rules and wanted them changed. He may be right, and the rules of engagement may need to be changed to make them more cautious. But if you’re not a pacifist, it would be hard to argue that the official rules of engagement are criminally insane, or that following these rules in good faith in obedience to the chain of command (which goes up to and includes our Commander in Chief) is morally evil.
duncano

Uh, no. The soldiers in the video performed according to protocol and obeyed the RoE. That’s not murder, it’s combat. These rules exist for force protection. They observed people on the ground carrying weapons within meters of an active engagement with US forces. They cleared it with command and opened fire. As someone has already stated: this is not the fog of war – this is as clear cut as it gets. I’m not saying that America isn’t imperialistic (it is) or that it’s a just war (it’s not) or that soldiers don’t screw up (they do). The video just doesn’t show them screwing up – it shows them doing it by the book. If you don’t agree with the RoE the soldiers are operating under, take it up with the people who sent them there.
- Trotsky
  
  Americans like to view their military leaders as straight-talking, no BS, plain speaking, common sense, working men and women. Embodied by such actors as John Wayne, R. Lee Ermey, Fred Thompson, Jack Nicholson, and so many others. It’s also how our soldiers view themselves. As ordinary men and women, quiet heroes, who stand for common sense and decency.
  
  Except it’s not true.
  
  duncano’s post is like every other defense of this video which is unambiguous, cold-blooded murder captured in its entirety. Yes, the ground troops are to blame. Yes, the pilots. Yes, all. Yes, your friends. Yes, your brother and your sister. Them.
  
  But the quiet heroes were just following the rules. Just doing their jobs. Don’t blame them. They are not responsible. They are, after all, bound by a paycheck and possible prison time. Don’t blame them. It’s not like they enlisted. It’s not like they had a choice and continue to have a choice as humans. It’s not like they could quit. Or refuse. Or resist. Don’t be naive.
  
  Be reasonable. It’s the RoE. And those fat cats in Washington.
  
  Words from duncano’s post: protocol, RoE, force protection, active engagement. Of course, we all know the others: enhanced interrogation, indefinite detention, collateral damage, shock and awe. All of those weasel words, the antithesis of the image in our heads of a plain-speaking, common sense John Wayne or Private Ryan, are euphemisms for turning children into bullet riddled meat.
  
  Whoops.
  
  That’s what exists at the other end of the euphemism, the spin, the justification, and the support-our-heroes propaganda. Dead people. Who were killed because they live on top of stuff that we want. And have decided to take.
  
  Americans don’t really like plain speaking at all.
  
  They just like the idea of it. It makes a great t-shirt or coffee mug.
  - duncano
    
    I am just trying to explain that even when people are careful and follow the rules, war is a horrible thing to witness. What is shown in the video is as good as it gets: clear identification of hostiles, confirmation from command and timely engagement. People do not seem to grasp that it would be much, much worse without these rules in place. And if anyone can suggest superior RoE’s please do. There are entire departments at the Pentagon who would be glad to hear from you!
    
    These rules exist to protect the lives of American soldiers and innocent civilians. Of course even when done properly it’s an imperfect system. There are plenty of examples of soldiers screwing up – this just isn’t one of them.
    - Trotsky
      
      >> There are entire departments at the Pentagon who would be glad to hear from you!
      
      If you believe this, it speaks to your overall level of discernment.
- LS
  
  “The soldiers in the video performed according to protocol and obeyed the RoE. That’s not murder, it’s combat”
  
  The invasion of Iraq is an illegal war. In an illegal war, all killing equals murder.
  
  I have some sympathy for the soldiers, since they are part of a corrupt broken system. However, in the end every individual makes the choice to participate.
  
  I choose not join my countries military. It’s called conscientious objection. If however you chose to join the military because it was “the only job I could get” (something that I often hear said of members in the US military), then that makes you a mercenary, not a patriot.
  
  By all means blame the corrupt leaders that started the war, but if you do so, then you have a duty to hold those same leaders to account. Not to just go on murdering because their illegal orders tell you too.
  
  Anything can be justified in your own mind if you try hard enough, but this video shows quite clearly the horrible, indiscriminate nature of war (regardless of the legality of RoE, orders or anything else). Therefore STOP THE WAR.
- HDN
  
  Spot on.
- EH
  
  That’s what people *are* doing when they’re not countering the effort to make it all about the soldiers. I don’t really care what this soldier has to say. The fact that everybody agrees it’s common means the DoD has a policy of lying about very common things. Whether the RoE are corrupt is a matter of opinion.
  
  It’s textbook pathological lying. If the military feels the need to lie about the little (i.e. commonplace) things, that’s a huge problem and typically masks more insane things going on behind the scenes. That is, pathological liars are usually much more broken than the lies themselves would intimate.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  The soldiers in the video performed according to protocol and obeyed the RoE. That’s not murder, it’s combat.
  
  Google Nuremberg Trials.
  - duncano
    
    “Google Nuremberg Trials.”
    
    The RoE in place at the time would never qualify as a war crime! Actually, this is standard operating procedure in every modern military in the world and as such would never be prosecuted. What RoE would you suggest, Mr. moderator?
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      Extrapolate. I didn’t bring up the Nuremberg trials because Nazis are evil. We already know that. Nor am I suggesting that US soldiers are Nazis.
      
      My point, which stands, is that “I was just following orders” was deprecated as a defense in cases of war crimes. And yet, multiple commenters have said, “Yeah, but they were just following the Rules of Engagement.” If you take that position and don’t examine whether the RoE are morally defensible or valid under various international agreements, you’ve failed humanity. It’s not enough to say that politicians or military brass are responsible for the RoE. Individual soldiers must made appropriate decisions.
      
      We have committed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Haditha. Bombing multiple wedding parties. Blackwater, which has absolutely been a branch of the US military. And, for the most part, they’ve gone unpunished. Even General Stanley McChrystal recently pointed out that not one person who’s been killed by twitchy security has proven to have been a threat. Not one.
      
      Until the military tries soldiers who commit war crimes, and either jails them for life or executes them, US military atrocities are not going to stop.
    - duncano
      
      I love this thread. We’re getting down to the crux of it.
      
      At Nuremberg the principle was rightly established that ‘following orders’ was not a defence for war_crimes. Following the RoE as they exist in Irag could never be called a war crime under existing definitions.
      
      That doesn’t make it right, fair or just. It’s just that when the majority of the worlds 1st world military leadership all follow similar RoE’s they’re not likely to be defined as war crimes.
      
      I’m trying to clarify that there is such a thing as combat and that it doesn’t play by the same rules as the rest of life. In combat people ARE trying to kill each other. However, it’s not the wild west (despite appearances) and there are rules that are followed.
      These guys, in the video, followed the rules.
      
      This to me, is the interesting thing about the video. A fairly routine, almost textbook incident has been released on video because it involved the death of a reporter. The real horror here is that this is happening all the time – largely because this is exactly how it’s supposed to be done. People shouldn’t be outraged about this incident – they should be outraged about this being the standard operating procedure.
      
      The real drag is that now these guys – who did it right, followed their training and the RoE – are going to be crucified. To people critical of their actions I can only say: what is the alternative? To operate without any RoE? It’s a valid question to ask whether the RoE could be weighted away from force protection and more towards protecting innocent lives.
      
      Politically though that will never happen. Force protection is job one for the US military because nothing will restrict their actions faster than lots of American boys coming home in body bags.
  - Machineintheghost
    
    I knew somebody was going to bring that up.
    
    These are American soldiers (they could also be any other allied military in Iraq, and the same principles would apply.) They are not sworn to obey Hitler, they are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Their boss is ultimately President Obama, and beyond that — the American people. They’re doing what their elected representatives have told them to do. This is not Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      They’re doing what their elected representatives have told them to do. This is not Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
      
      Do you seriously believe that the soldiers in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan thought that they were drones of the evil empire committing war crimes? Everyone who commits a war crime thinks that they’re special and don’t have to play by the rules.
    - kaffeen
      
      The Nazi war crime was Genocide. The war in Iraq has no relationship to this.
    - Machineintheghost
      
      Do you seriously believe that the soldiers in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan thought that they were drones of the evil empire committing war crimes? Everyone who commits a war crime thinks that they’re special and don’t have to play by the rules.
      
      Yes!
      
      No, not all the ordinary soldiers fighting like ordinary soldiers do. But the ones who were prosecuted for serious war crimes, like organized rape, torture, genocide, baby murder, and so forth — and those who got away with it without being prosecuted — knew that what they were doing was monstrous. A tiny percentage, but enough to accomplish the Holocaust, the rape of Nanking, and so forth. The Nazis, in particular, created the SS to do things that the Wermacht wouldn’t do.
      
      The U.S. military specifically trains recruits in how to resist and ultimately disobey an illegal order, and I’m sure other countries do the same — especially the modern Germans and Japanese forces. There are rules in war, and — according to peace activist Josh Stieber — these soldiers were obeying those rules.

Anonymous

Very honest. The only reason these wars have been allowed to continue is that regular Americans have been insulated from the reality. The news networks do not show coffins covered in flags and they certainly do not show murder, though both are a very real and necessary part of any war (though war itself is far from necessary).

Avram / Moderator

Anyone else notice how a post that advises “working harder towards alternatives to war” has gotten side-tracked into an argument about how we should feel about the soldiers in the video?

This is a common problem with discussions about American war-making. Our government spends vast amounts on military equipment and near-constant wars and occupations all over the globe, and yet it’s almost impossible to carry on a public conversation about it. Instead, anyone questioning the war machine is accused of “not supporting our troops” or some nonsense like that.

I don’t care nearly as much about whether the soldiers were following rules-of-engagement, or the Iraqis were carrying rifles or grenade launchers, as I do about the fact that we’re in the seventh year of an unnecessary war declared under false pretenses and being fought to no clearly-defined end other than to preserve the prestige of the office of the American presidency and to further enrich war profiteers. Feeling good or bad about individual American soldiers merely obscures the vital issues.

j9c

Anyone else notice how a post that advises “working harder towards alternatives to war” has gotten side-tracked into an argument about how we should feel about the soldiers in the video?

Yeah, thanks, I did notice that part, and would like to offer up this as one alternative:
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/how-to-help/intro-to-central-asia-institute/
Machineintheghost

Maybe you could persuade one of the boingboing bloggers to post about that.

Because this particular post started with Josh Stieber’s opinion about the individual soldiers in this video and his view that they were following the rules of engagement. The post seemed to invite comment about those specific points.

And I think your comment is the first one that contains the phrase “not supporting our troops.”
Trotsky

>> Feeling good or bad about individual American soldiers merely obscures the vital issues.

I think the soldiers are *THE* issue.

An entire framework can exist for planning, deploying, subduing, and occupying a physical location, but unless actual humans set boots to ground, drive the vehicles, or pull the trigger, the action simply cannot happen.

Another point lost on most is the nature of this “battle.” The killing was done entirely from a distance. And with our increasing development of remote control weapons, it will become increasingly viable for “soldiers” to kill “insurgents” from an office park in a quiet Florida suburb. But as of 2010, we still rely primarily on humans to maintain our empire.

The ground troops came in as clean up. They “secured” the area post “battle,” but really they were there to pick up the carnage and wipe the scene. Possibly to negotiate compensation, if that is something our government actually does, and not just talks about. Most of our soldiers are not killed in direct confrontation, nor do they engage in “battles.” They are killed by IEDs, and other passive or asymmetric weaponry.

Soldiers always have and always will be the issue. If those humans, which we call soldiers, feel that a war zone or action is illegal or immoral, and they participate, they are liable. They have made their choice. And we should hold them as accountable or more accountable than the leaders who supposedly compel them to act.

If Bush is a war criminal, the soldiers who carried out his war crimes are likewise war criminals.

That’s what Nuremberg was about. And to the few who have suggested that Nuremberg was a digression in this conversation, I would say once again that it is not a side issue, it is the central issue. The fact that we as a nation have to keep revisiting this event some sixty-four years after the issue was allegedly settled is a damning indictment against the state of our union and the mindset of its citizens in 2010.

Anonymous

No, it was WE who committed cold-blooded murder. They were just the weapons.

dhamby

Well, then we need to work harder toward alternatives to war. What infuriates me is that I understand why Mr. Stieber would say and do this. He has his honor and his friend’s reputation to uphold. He’s standing side by side with his brothers, even if he is lying.

It’s loyalty to the point of insanity.

This is just such a clear-cut example of soldiers fucking up. I don’t think the individual soldiers shooting the weapons should receives a courts-martial, their company commander should.

But, semantics aside, I would be less angry at journalists dying in a combat zone and more angry at how the Army covered up the report about the deaths that Reuters requested.

Machineintheghost

I think you may be reading Steiber’s motivation wrong. The linked page says he “now works to promote peace and alternatives to war.”
jackie31337

“But, semantics aside, I would be less angry at journalists dying in a combat zone and more angry at how the Army covered up the report about the deaths that Reuters requested.”

Yes, it’s easy to forget that that is the real story here.

“No, the people that murdered those people gave false information (I believe the voice that requested fire said there were six people with assult rifles) to their handler in order to get the authorization to fire.”

That is what is different about this incident. Yes, civilian deaths regrettably happen all the time in war, but these particular deaths happened because the men in the helicopter lied about what they saw to justify firing. Later, their superiors lied about what had happened to cover it up. The fact that they were exposed due to this video is the news here.
Tynam

“It’s loyalty to the point of insanity.”

Well, yes, of course. Loyalty to your unit to the point of insanity is the single bare minimum requirement for a soldier. It’s the mindset all military training is intended to produce. A soldier is someone who’ll jump on a grenade because otherwise it might hurt some other guy in the unit.

There’s no point objecting that a soldier has this mindset.

We should be objecting to the training (and RoE) that produce these results, and above all to the attempt to cover it up. That was criminal.

lim.reverse

There are 2 possible reasons to be angry after this video.

On the one hand people were killed.

If the gun camera video is all the information that the Helicopter crew had to pass on according to the rules of engagement to make their fire/hold decision, they had a very bad information source. If the decision turns out to be a mistake then there is no way you can unkill the people. If the decision is correct, then the deaths are part of that nasty process called “war”. Killing should always cause concern, and these deaths alone might make you angry.

If the descision is a mistake, then there should not have been a coverup – THAT is IMHO the main point that WikiLeaks is trying to make. THAT should make you angry whatever your other views might be!

Nobody is free from error. Some errors are Fatal. In such situations, the military powers should ensure that there is clarity as to whether a mistake has occurred or not, and as to the consequences. Coverups of this nature will rightly destroy the public’s confidence that the military is doing a good job.

As a pragmatic pacifist, I accept that sometimes there is a need to counter violence with violence. Coverups like this make me think that the violence committed is for the Pleasure of a perverted leadership and not for the common good of all life on this planet.

duncano

I have another point I think is relevant here. There’s always a distinction made between insurgents (or terrorists) and regulars in war. It is crucial that people, especially Americans make a real attempt to understand what’s going on here. American foreign policy-wise.

Take a moment and look around your neighborhood, your community, your home. I know it’s difficult and unpleasant but now imagine your neighborhood has just been bombed. Perhaps the building you are in as you read this post has been destroyed or partially destroyed. Members of your family have been killed or injured, maybe that someone you love who is sitting across from you now. Friends, people who you may have known for years are screaming and bleeding and dying. Your whole world has been turned upside down.

Through a stroke of luck you are unharmed. What will you do now? Really think about it . . . I don’t know what I would do in this scenario – none of us do, until we’re in it – but I can pretty much guarantee that it wouldn’t be pretty. It wouldn’t involve fairies or unicorns. And I don’t think I’d be alone in feeling like doing some pretty terrible things to whoever or whatever did this . . .

Guerrilla tactics in war are used by entities who lack the resources to wage war the old fashioned way. All I know is this: If you use a 767 it’s terrorism. If you use an F16 it’s war. But the victims are just as dead in both scenarios.

Trotsky

>> It wouldn’t involve fairies or unicorns.

It’s an obscenity that you imply that people who express anger over this criminal act captured on video are somehow unbalanced or childishly naive.
- duncano
  
  Trotsky wrote: “It’s an obscenity that you imply that people who express anger over this criminal act captured on video are somehow unbalanced or childishly naive.”
  
  Umm, whoa. Please carefully reread the post. There is no implication of any kind. I was trying to point out that US foreign policy is actually manufacturing enemies, perhaps at a rate that exceeds the ability of US forces to defeat them.

Anonymous

I’ve heard far more terrible stories from the mid-east from friends and friends of friends than what I saw on the video. I don’t quite see how shooting the life out of people you think have an RPG that can blow you out of the sky is… cold blooded.

Screwed up that anyone is in that situation on either side. Screwed up that we have spent the last 20 years destroying Iraq.

The troubling knowledge of collateral damage is something soldiers have to deal with and can seriously screw them up.

So yeah, to summarize: things are screwed.

Anonymous

“I don’t quite see how shooting the life out of people you think have an RPG that can blow you out of the sky is… cold blooded.”

Exactly the problem – you don’t see – war is not about protocols – kids playing war games with multi-million dollar “toys” is not honorable engagement -invading another country on false pretenses does not justify everything that follows – killing a bunch of unarmed people to get one armed person is not moral – acting like this and falsely justifying it is precisely the attitude and behavior that gives cause to insurgents and purpose to insurgencies – it is born in ignorance and blind obedience – it is the worst of humanity.

Anonymous

The soldiers in this video weren’t acting out of malice. They followed the protocols they were given.

Plenty of terrible things happen in a war that should be prosecuted but this just isn’t one of them. This is standard warfare, where civilians were unfortunately mistaken for combatants.

Should the victims family be compensated? Maybe.
Should the soldiers doing their job as instructed be persecuted? No.

Anonymous

@anon#3

+1

Our apathy against this war is definitely to blame as well.

Anonymous

they saw armed men, one with an rpg – what were they supposed to do? the war was and is bullshit – i don’t blame the soldiers taking orders, i blame the bush administration. you’ve got trained killers with itchy trigger fingers combined with shitty intelligence = civilian deaths. a tragedy for sure, but i don’t think there was any misconduct. it’s war.

Anonymous

According to everything I’ve read thus far, the soldiers believed that the individuals had weapons, they reported being fired upon, they received authorization to fire, and they did their job — they eliminated a perceived threat. They did not commit “cold-blooded murder,” but they did make a reasonable mistake. It is a tragedy on all sides. I assure you that no soldier, upon realizing they have accidentally killed innocent civilians, is proud of their actions. But war is complex, and soldiers at the lowest levels do their very best to serve with honor and with distinction.

Mitch

That’s not completely true. Stephen Dale Green and his buddies weren’t ashamed of what they did until after they got caught. And since Abeer’s mother knew to be fearful of the attention her daughter was getting from the Americans I doubt that was the first time such a thing happened.

Khakjaan Wessington

Explosive Monochrome [News Poem, April 8, 2010]
http://toylit.blogspot.com/2010/04/explosive-monochrome-news-poem-april-8.html
â€œWe had a guy shooting… and now he’s behind the building.â€
â€œUh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the brad. Uh, ’bout there… one o’clock. Haven’t seen anything since then.â€
â€œJust fuck it. Once you get on ‘em just open ‘em up.â€

With monochrome eyeballs the whirlybird watches
And likewise we’re fixed on the ignorant target;
And both of us think of the black and white moviesâ€”
Those cellulose nitrates, those obsolete pictures
Of characters featuring colorless faces,
Of subjects long dead and the lingering stigma
Of monochrome colors in digitized footage:
The murder it plays out like X-Box Three Sixty.

Trotsky

@duncano

>> But they don’t have to defy them – that’s the whole point – your model of military indoctrination is too narrow. It’s not just soldiers, it’s their society, their family, their coworkers, their neighbors and their friends have also been subjected to it. And this is because military indoctrination is far too sophisticated, extremely thorough and way too effective.

I did not say, nor would I, that the indoctrination is limited to the soldiers. And yet this indoctrination failed catastrophically world-wide as recently as the late 1960s due in large part to the televised carnage in Southeast Asia, the reaction of a nauseated and outraged population, and the resentment and resulting chaos displayed by the troops who simply refused in significant numbers to obey orders. That’s fact. Military indoctrination is not supreme. It can be broken and has been many times. And once again, military indoctrination is nothing compared to the innate drives that motivate a human as relates to personal well-being, family, and societal pressure.

To suggest that “resistance is futile” betrays a collaboration and defeatism which, in my opinion, is a grim acquiescence not worthy of a people who purport to value democracy. If you are reconciled to surrender in the face of omnipotent and unassailable military conditioning, that’s your choice. It’s not mine.

@Terry

>> What about all those wars that ended because one government surrendered to another?

Yes. What about them? Governments, which is to say the non-rifle carrying administrative layer, surrender ONLY when they run out of fodder or the fodder refuse to take up arms. You validate my point.

Trotsky

And I have gone way past my limit for commenting, and for that I apologize.

manicbassman

put the politicians on a desert island and leave them to it… bit like Star Trek where Kirk had to battle the Gorn captain using the available resources and his brain… (TOS: Arena)

EH

As long as the focus is on the soldiers, the war can continue.

mgfarrelly

He’s absolutely correct. I wonder, how all the commenters on BB and Reddit and Digg and elsewhere can claim to be shocked by the horrors of warfare. All that “Shock and Awe” were people’s homes and businesses exploding. The Iraq Body Count site stand at somewhere between 95,000-104,000 Iraqis killed in the conflict. War kills people, often it kills people who are simply going about their lives in the midst of a conflict zone and aren’t ideologically engaged in any side. War is horrid and it’s a sad thing how much we glorify it and how little we do to prevent it.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

hpavc

No, the people that murdered those people gave false information (I believe the voice that requested fire said there were six people with assult rifles) to their handler in order to get the authorization to fire.

If you fuck up over and over like that, without any review. That has nothing to do with war. Its a systemic command and control issue.

If incidents like this are common, I cannot see an end to our enemies list any time soon. For the people’s families of the murndered this is a Kent state, MLK/X murder every day … who doesn’t join the/ fight against that sort of activity.

Anonymous

There were six people, and there were assault rifles.

You need to read the offical report. It makes it clear that while this was a titanic fuck-up, the fuck-up was not that soldiers shot some cameramen and some little kids, the fuck-up was that the USA invaded another country and continues to attack the people living there.

Nobody should really comment on this without reading the report. It has pictures and meta-analysis of multiple issues not available in the video. The soldiers were doing the job the USA sent them to do, and doing it right, and the problem is that the USA sent them to do a job that is fundamentally wrong, unethical, illegal, and evil.

When you watched the video you had a 15″ or better screen. The soldiers had a screen the size of an iPod. Think about that and read the official report.
Machineintheghost

My understanding was that the Americans really thought the people they were observing really rather weapons or other equipment. Of course, that’s a pivotal point. If they knowingly killed unarmed and neutral civilians, then I’d agree it was both a violation of the rules of engagement and also morally murder. But I thought Josh Steiber’s point is that the Americans in this video were *not* lying.

Rob

Wasn’t there an interview somewhere (MSNBC?) that some military officer pointed out how they WEREN’T following RoE?

Who’s right?

Machineintheghost

I actually agree with the main point here.

The principles articulated at Nuremberg are vitally important. I think I disagree with Trotsky only on whether the orders in question were evil or not. I couldn’t cite chapter and verse of every rule that these soldiers operated under. But I trust the process that made these rules. I think the burden of proof is on the people who think the rule of engagement are monstrous to show that this is so. Not just that the rules are imperfect, or sometimes result in deaths of innocent people — all human rules are imperfect.

As a side note:
If the rules of engagement were monstrous, then have they changed since President Obmama came to office? If so, are the new rules better or worse?

If the old rules or the new rules (if they have changed at all) are evil, who is to blame and who is blameless? The army? Former President Bush? Current President Obama? The American voters, who elected both Bush and Obama? The governments of other allied countries that may have similar rules of engagement?

My answer: none of the above. I don’t see that the current rules of engagement are very wrong. I don’t claim to be an expert and am willing to be corrected.

Trotsky

The most effective way to stop the war is to stop “supporting the troops.” That means you don’t give your brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, co-workers a pass anymore. You don’t let them say: “I do my job” or “what choice do I have?”

The only way this war or any war ends is when the soldiers know that their actions bear consequences and that they are not heroes. When the soldier comes home or phones home, they need to know that it’s precisely the opposite of okay.

A lot of people make hay over the whole baby killer and spitting-on-the-troops meme surrounding the invasion of Southeast Asia, but Nixon refrained from nuking Vietnam purely because of the price he knew he would pay in domestic resistance. And not the protesters, mind you. But the family members who would not allow their sons and daughters to participate in the slaughter. Were troops spat on? Probably. Most of that was urban myth and a Pentagon-fomented press meme, but I’m sure the troops received disapprobation. And why shouldn’t they? The US was responsible for the deaths of 2.5 million Southeast Asians. I’d say a little spit and harsh language means the soldiers and their leaders got off easy.

I’m sure if you asked the 2.5 million who died if they would rather have been spat upon and called rude names, they likely would have chosen the latter.

If you do care about the soldiers, you will not let them go. And you will not budge.

As long as we “support our troops” and turn a blind eye, the slaughter will continue unabated. It’s why the United States has been in a state of perpetual war since the birth of our nation.

Tdawwg

Good luck with that “Not letting soldiers go to war, but arguing with them over having gone to war when they come home, if they succeed in going to war” platform. Do you really think that telling soldiers you disapprove of their lifestyle choice will end war?
- Machineintheghost
  
  This is another point I agree with Trotsky on, while having the opposite perspective. It’s an all-volunteer military in the U.S., and part of the implicit rewards package for being with the military is that most ordinary Americans respect and admire military service. Servicemembers really value the respect of their civilian friends and family. Also, some women (and men, too — don’t ask, don’t tell) love the look of a man (or woman) in a uniform. That also matters.
  
  If the American public — I’m talking red states, too, here — ever decided that a war was evil and that military service was contemptible, I guarantee that war would end. Vietnam took a long time to end, but with modern communications and the all volunteer force, it could happen a lot faster now. But it hasn’t, because the opinion back home is not there. I don’t think it will be (although I think people may well become sick of this particular foreign entanglement in itself.)
  - Tdawwg
    
    Vietnam ended because of the Vietcong: protests didn’t factor all that much into it. I’d like to know by what measures or actions the American public could end a war being fought in our name on other shores: I don’t mean to be dismissive, but I just don’t see it happening. How could it be accomplished?
    - Trotsky
      
      A significant portion of the American leadership and population wanted to nuke Vietnam (many Americans, a majority, in fact, feel that we lost in Vietnam because we “didn’t go far enough” and the “bureaucracy tied the hands of the military”). This is often portrayed, if it’s portrayed at all, as just another kooky musing by Nixon and many people dismiss it out of hand. But it was a serious option and one way to “clean up the VC” once and for all.
      
      The only thing which prevented this faction from going forward with this very rational course of action (in their view) was the domestic insurrection from subversive groups in the US and other anti-imperialist movements that reached a peak world-wide in 1968.
      
      Let’s be clear, the only reason the US did not go “all the way” in “winning” in Southeast Asia was because the US and other allies feared that their governments would have been overthrown. It was not a humanitarian consideration. It was a purely tactical decision.
      
      Those same people and their confederates and proteges still wield authority in our government. In most cases, they still subscribe to a scorched earth, total destruction solution against insurrectionary forces, foreign and domestic.
      
      The real reason we lost in Vietnam is because potential soldiers were refusing to serve and had become radicalized in their opposition. This was taking place in Vietnam with officer fraggings at epidemic levels. The Phoenix Program, which was a quota based assassination process, even went so far as to deploy US soldiers to kill other US soldiers who they believed had gone over to the enemy. The most noteworthy example of this was the case of Bobby Garwood, a fellow POW John McCain said should have been shot dead as a traitor.
      
      Make no mistake, the war in Vietnam was “lost” (despite their being no definition, nor consideration given as to what constituted victory) because domestic resistance on a soldier by soldier basis caused the leadership to realize that their network of authority was unraveling at home and abroad. They contracted to preserve their power. To solidify their base, before returning to aggressive expansion.
      
      Post-Watergate, of course, they retrenched and reestablished control and we currently reside in a world which in many ways resembles an early 60′s zeitgeist of unquestioning support for foreign adventure which is precisely how the oligarchs prefer it.
      
      Stopping wars means changing the minds of soldiers.
      
      Always has, always will.
    - duncano
      
      “Stopping wars means changing the minds of soldiers.
      
      Always has, always will.”
      
      What a load of nonsense. The Vietnam war ended because it became too expensive – politically, financially and militarily. Not because soldiers refused to fight. I’m sorry but any strategy to end war by convincing soldiers not to fight is doomed to failure. Military indoctrination is far too sophisticated, extremely thorough and way too effective.
      
      Please provide an actual example of how ‘changing the minds of soldiers’ has stopped any war.
    - Anonymous
      
      I would suggest perhaps changing the minds of Russian soldiers in WWI might qualify as an example.
      
      http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/ww1/section9.rhtml
      
      “The February Revolution
      In early March 1917 (late February by the Julian calendar in use in Russia at the time), the tsarâ€™s entire regime unexpectedly collapsed after a series of large demonstrations in the Russian capital of Petrograd. Under pressure from both the military and the parliament, Nicholas II abdicated on March 15 (modern calendar). The event became known as the February Revolution.
      
      As the struggle for control of the country began, parts of the military continued to fight on the war front, others quit fighting altogether, and others even fought each other. Germany quickly recognized an opportunity and made arrangements to help Russian revolutionaries in Europe, including Vladimir Lenin, to get back to Russia in order to fuel the ensuing chaos there. Lenin arrived in Petrograd on April 16 on a train provided by Germany.”
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      Please provide an actual example of how ‘changing the minds of soldiers’ has stopped any war.
      
      You might want to check out the Russian Revolution. It’s more complex than just stopping a war, but that’s certainly a big component.
    - duncano
      
      Hah! That’s a great answer! I never thought of it that way! I guess the iraqi soldiers that were laying down their arms in the face of an overwhelming US force ‘had their minds changed’ too.
      
      I’m sorry, but soldiers of the czar didn’t stop fighting because of moral qualms about killing. They stopped because they saw clearly that they were on the losing side of history.
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      I’m sorry, but soldiers of the czar didn’t stop fighting because of moral qualms about killing. They stopped because they saw clearly that they were on the losing side of history.
      
      I had no idea that the Imperial Russian Army was composed solely of psychics. I had rather gotten the idea that the Bolsheviks (and others) had convinced them that it would be better to work for themselves than for their oppressors.
    - Tdawwg
      
      Mnnn, no, the Vietcong won the war and reunited the country, which is what many of the people wanted anyway. Or, the US lost the war militarily, whichever you prefer. Or, the United States tried to apply military force to what was a largely foregone political conclusion. Or, we ran out of money and energy and time and will. Etc. etc.
      
      Sorry, I’ve never seen the “protesting soldiers” hypothesis treated as a cause of the war’s ending in any of the sources I’ve read about the war. Read Neil Sheehan et al.: we had a bad strategy, which lead to bad tactics, we changed course too late, and we completely misunderstood the political and cultural situation from the beginning, which lead us to support the wrong people, pursue the wrong goals, and expend blood and treasure generally, all while eroding support for the war at home.
      
      The “We didn’t nuke them” hypothesis is also false: not having nuked them, we can’t really know what would have happened, so it’s a moot point. What we do know is that they soldiered on through decades of the worst that the French and Americans threw at them. But it’s the things that happened, not those that didn’t, that history looks at.
      
      Vietnam ended the way most wars end: attrition followed by a regime change or the loss of political will to carry on the fight.
      
      But your false hypothesis also draws us away from the real issue at hand, which is: How are you going to accomplish what you say you will? How will you convince soldiers not to fight? I mean, think of that groovy USMC ad where the soldier pulls the sword from the pillar and becomes a knight and slays that evil dragon! What do you have to counteract that kind of insidious-beautiful propaganda? A promise to a destitute kid from Detroit or Upstate New York, whom you’ve never met and never will meet, that you’ll respect him or her, forever, and not call them war criminals on the Internet? Really, how are you going to counteract generations of propaganda, the economic imperative to volunteer, the family traditions, etc., involved? Not with a fraudulent hypothesis about the Vietnam War!
    - Machineintheghost
      
      America could have defeated the Vietcong if it really wanted to, the way we wanted to defeat (say) Japan in World War II. But America didn’t see the overwhelming benefit, and hated what it saw on T.V. Lieutenant Calley didn’t make anybody more confident in the military.
      
      I don’t mean the radicals in the U.S. ended Vietnam. More along the lines of Walter Cronkite. Middle America just got sick of the war, and so — we got out.
- Trotsky
  
  >> Do you really think that telling soldiers you disapprove of their lifestyle choice will end war?
  
  I do, or I would not have said it.
  - Tdawwg
    
    Lol. But what’s your argument: a bucket of spit here, some bile there, some yellow ribbons clipped from your neighbor’s tree?
    
    I think this is where you justify your opinion regarding why soldiers care what you think of them. Care to show the math whereby you went from “right now” to what you’re talking about? What’s your argument, what will you campaign on, how will you win hearts and minds? Etc.

Ugly Canuck

Cryptome has good coverage, as usual: pithy, and admirably reasonable.

http://www.cryptome.org/

Two things worthy of note: Cryptome has got off its butt and made a FOIA request for the fotos the soldier is seen taking at the site in the video , after the carnage: apparently, they’ve gone AWOL, and they have yet to be released/described, nor their existence acknowledged.

Secondly, the Reuters photographer’s son has been quoted as saying (I paraphrasse, don’t have the link at hand) that “he plans to carry a camera to carry on his dead father’s work”.
Crytome suggests that sites and orgs making money with this story ought to perhaps donate some to the family of the dead reporters ; I’d like to add that maybe someone ought to send the kid a replacement for his dad’s equipment, huh?

As to the ROE and the Laws of War: time to tighten ‘em up IMHO (and how did they get so loose?): make ‘em right and tight.
That would just be another step in the slow natural progress of civilization, as it looks to me from the vantage of this 93rd Anniversary of the bloody battle of Vimy Ridge.
The current rules seem to allow too much….

Anonymous

Just following orders? They were BEGGING to shoot. Then they laughed about it. They laughed when the vehicle drove over a dying man. They rationalized when they heard that they shot up a couple of kids.

Anonymous

EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN BAGHDAD HAS A WEAPON. ALMOST EVERY MAN OWNS SOMETHING LIKE AN AK-47. IT WAS PERFECTLY NORMAL FOR ONE OR TWO OF THOSE MEN TO BE STANDING THERE WITH AN AK-47 ON HIS SHOULDER.

Anonymous

No, neither these soldiers nor their commander should be disciplined. We should exit this war.

9 times out of 10 means that 90% of engagements feel just like this, out of hundreds or thousands in this conflict alone. If you object to that, you object to committing war, not committing murder.

The lesson is plain – you can’t use vast resources to kill people en masse and have the result be ethical, easy to watch, or free from fuckups where civilians die. Do not commit war.

Stefan Jones

In order to be an informed electorate, videos like this shouldn’t be hidden away, and the DOD shouldn’t cover up, obfuscate, and out-and-out lie when things FUBAR.

Ugly Canuck

I mean, firing on those seeking to administer or administering aid to the wounded?

What part of the ROE deals with that? And how does that jibe with the obligations under the Geneva Conventions not to fire upon those providing assistance to the wounded in combat zones? Any precise answers?

kaffeen

If you are against the war in Iraq, then you must understand that the US soldiers are not the problem, the US government is the problem. What you think or how you treat the soldiers will not change anything, it will however make you look like a fool. They serve their country (good or bad) and to ridicule them is absolutely ridiculous and dishonorable. For any change to happen it has to happen at the top, not the bottom of the chain of command.

Anonymous

Yes it’s war but what I find most abhorrent is that they seemed to be enjoying themselves; as if it was just a video game they were playing. They’re just as inhuman as they believe the “enemy” to be.

Krisjohn

I believe every word of their story and I think they ought to go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Anonymous

@duncano no.8

No…they saw one person with a potential weapon….and told their despatch team that their were 5 or 6 people with AK47s, and later an RPG! Is lying in the book?

Mitch

The people in the helicopter killed a bunch of civilians but if some Iraqis had managed to shoot the helicopter down with an RPG before the incident happened many people would have referred to them as “terrorists”.

blokey bloke

All this can stop happening , if you the american people , sod off out of the middle east and let the muslims do what they want to do , to each other , and the Israelies.

If you continue your fantasy of , ‘ watch me stir up the hornets , Mum ‘ , you are going to get stung . Sooner or later , some of those ‘collaterals’ you cant see , are going to come in under the radar and ‘light up’ your children , wives , girlfriends , neighbors , etc , etc .

They will when they get it right , repay the balance of everyone of their children you have ‘lit up’ a million fold , and all you can do is pray to your god of war that they dont do it in your street.

Stop discussing the rules of engagement ,were hiroshima and nagasaki , in the rules ? , no .

So get ready US of A , the muslim reaper will be calling , it may be in your lifetime , just as it was in the lifetimes of the people of Japan .

You lot invented the ‘flash of god/allah ‘ and these people cant wait to give it back to its righteous inventors , such is Karma.

My advice is migrate to Australia , because they hate your guts more than ours.

Machineintheghost

Should have said “really thought the people they were observing had weapons rather than cameras or news reporting equipment.”

P. Gartman

Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course but I have to say I disagree with most of the commenters on here and I’ll tell you why.

The soldiers in the helicopter identified targets with weapons (clearly visible). The photographer (of which I happen to be one those not of this type) was with a group of men with weapons. Don’t you suppose that the soldiers would assume anyone with the gunmen would also be enemy combatants? I can’t feel sorry for two men who went into a war-zone with the enemy.

As for the kids that were in the van, it’s unfortunate but you can’t blame the soldiers for that either. First of all, did any of you see the kids in the van until the video was replayed and zoomed in? I know I didn’t. The soldiers were firing on a van that was giving aid to targets they were trying to kill. The old saying, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” also applies in reverse. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. Someone giving aid to enemy combatants is also an enemy. They were the ones who brought children into a war-zone. Let me repeat that. They brought children into a war-zone. Either they were cowards trying to use them as a human shield or they are just the dumbest people on the planet.

That the government handled the aftermath badly is not in doubt. The children certainly should have been taken to the military hospital and the truth of the situation should not have had to been dragged out. But to say that these soldiers are cold-blooded murderers seems ludicrous to me.

jackie31337

“They were the ones who brought children into a war-zone. Let me repeat that. They brought children into a war-zone. Either they were cowards trying to use them as a human shield or they are just the dumbest people on the planet.”

Except in this case, the “war zone” is their home. It’s not as if there was yellow tape saying “CAUTION: WAR ZONE. DO NOT CROSS.” The whole CITY was a war zone. Imagine an urban battle being fought in your city. Imagine you are on your way somewhere, because you are still trying to live some semblance of a normal life despite living in the middle of a war zone. Imagine you see an injured person lying on the ground and don’t notice the helicopters in the distance circling the city (which are probably a pretty common daily sight anyway). You live in a war zone. You see civilian casualties all the time. You decide to try to help this person who you see as another human being in need of help. How is that stupid?
EH

Of course we can’t blame the soldiers for anything, their entire purpose is to be trained monkeys who do what they’re told. Everything in the video is US policy.

So what do you think should be done about the military lying about it?
angusm

P.Gartman wrote: The soldiers were firing on a van that was giving aid to targets they were trying to kill …

Firing on helpless wounded men, or on those rendering them assistance, is a straightforward violation of the Geneva Convention. See http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/365?OpenDocument

If you don’t believe articles 3 or 12 – which prohibit killing the wounded – apply, then article 18 seems to cover it: “The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality … No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.”

ncinerate

I’m trying to understand what’s going on in this horrifying video…

I’m seeing people standing around with camera’s, but this isn’t readily apparent (they are slung over the arm, could be weapons with a shoulder strap). Next, I see what appears to be two people with RPG’s, one peeking out from behind a building, and one walking down the street with his RPG.

The gunship comes around the building and opens fire on the group – I assume because they were considered enemies with weapons (especially the RPG’s).

I’m not saying this isn’t horrifying, and the fact that it’s a couple reporters down there is awful (I’m not even going to touch the sick humor displayed, this might be a human way of coping with performing such horrifying acts). Am I missing something here that makes this particularly bad? Hindsight being 20/20 don’t shoot these people – but if you’re in a helo and theres enemies on the ground carrying RPG’s and peeking around buildings in a warzone, don’t you open fire?

I disagree with nearly every aspect of this war but I’m not sure placing my anger on this pilot is the right thing to do…

kaffeen

War is ugly and collateral damages are part of war. These people were following the chain of command and doing what they were taught and ordered to do. You may not like the way they carried their orders out, but if you study warfare and psychology I think you will at least understand, regardless, their behavior is not at issue. The actions they took are at issue. If someone truly has a problem with what happened and continues to happen daily, you should voice this and point your finger toward the one person responsible. The Commander in Chief. The President of the United States. As a former soldier, I know the chain of command and I can honestly tell you that all the shit rolls downhill from there.

Neon Tooth

“This is not Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.”

True, we pretend like we invade countries and rain death on them because we have altruistic reasons.

ncinerate

I want to make one comment here, when I said “Am I missing something here that makes this particularly bad?” I didn’t mean the obvious. Clearly this is loss of human life – it’s BAD.

I was trying to say, is there something damning in this video that shows the chopper pilot wasn’t doing his job (IE, to kill enemy combatants during a time of war).

EH

Yes, I do think you’re missing something. In a forest-for-the-trees moment, you’re still focussing on the soldiers and not the RoE policies.
- ncinerate
  
  I’m in no way trying to support our actions over in Iraq and Afghanistan (these wars are morally repugnant to me). I’m not trying to defend this horrible action, but what do you mean by RoE policies?
  
  Considering that we are talking about soldiers in an active warzone (whether we agree with the war or not):
  
  At what point is it -ok- to shoot these people? Do they have to shoot first? Do you let them run through the street with multiple RPG’s visible during a time of war? Do they at least have to point them at you? (I’d argue that the guy crouching around the building looking at the helo with the RPG visible appeared to be considering lining up a potshot).
  
  I’m trying to think about this as if we were talking about a police action in the US. Guy is in the street walking with an RPG (obviously a very very dangerous weapon). Others appear to be carrying machine guns. One is crouched around a building looking at a news helicopter and appears to be pulling his RPG out to potentially fire a shot. Does the police sniper try to take them out?

Terry

“Governments, which is to say the non-rifle carrying administrative layer, surrender ONLY when they run out of fodder or the fodder refuse to take up arms. You validate my point.”

Your point won’t get anywhere NEAR validation until you back up that ridiculous assertion. And simply repeating the nonsense you’ve already said does NOT constitute backing it up.

Ugly Canuck

It is dangerous to go for a walk when America is watching….

http://cryptome.org/hellfire-twice.jpg

Is this type of action official US policy now?
In nations where revenge killing for honor was and is common?
Do some US Officials want to provoke attacks upon the US or its citizenry by such secret conduct by its Armed Forces?

Anonymous

A few points, that everybody seems to miss.
1) That was not a war zone, as war was over (remember Bush on the carrier?)
2) It was /clear as day/ that there were no weapons. Surely that would have been also evident when troops arrived on the ground.
3) It was /clear as day/ that there was no shooting.

It seems to me that, although it is clear that soldiers make mistakes, what is really shocking, about the video and the comments, is the TOTAL LACK OF GUILT of USians. That is terrible, shocking and frankly disgusting.

lim.reverse

There are 2 possible reasons to be angry after this video.

On the one hand people were killed.

If the gun camera video is all the information that the Helicopter crew had to pass on according to the rules of engagement to make their fire/hold decision, they had a very bad information source. If the decision turns out to be a mistake then there is no way you can unkill the people. If the decision is correct, then the deaths are part of that nasty process called “war”. Killing should always cause concern, and these deaths alone might make you angry.

If the descision is a mistake, then there should not have been a coverup – THAT is IMHO the main point that WikiLeaks is trying to make. THAT should make you angry whatever your other views might be!

Nobody is free from error. Some errors are Fatal. In such situations, the military powers should ensure that there is clarity as to whether a mistake has occurred or not, and as to the consequences. Coverups of this nature will rightly destroy the public’s confidence that the military is doing a good job.

As a pragmatic pacifist, I accept that sometimes there is a need to counter violence with violence. Coverups like this make me think that the violence committed is for the Pleasure of a perverted leadership and not for the common good of all life on this planet.

Machineintheghost

If the descision is a mistake, then there should not have been a coverup – THAT is IMHO the main point that WikiLeaks is trying to make. THAT should make you angry whatever your other views might be!

Agreed.

Ugly Canuck

Hey it seems I am not the only person to so wonder:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/12/afghanistan/index.html

Wars undertaken, in order to guarantee more wars?
Whose interests would be served by that?
Whose interests do the current wars serve?

aeon

“Killing was following military protocol. It was going along with the rules as they are”

That’s the Nuremberg Defense. Soldiers who relied on it in 1946 were justifiably hung for their complicity and good riddance.

The initial shooting was understandable, just unfortunate there were reporters in the group. But the destruction of the van along with the wounded man and his attempted rescuers is a war crime. Even if never properly prosecuted the gunner in that Apache deserves PTSD and sleepless nights for life.

Lobster

If we want to make progress on this we need to stop blaming the soldiers and stop using the inflammatory language. You blame the soldiers and you let their superiors – who claim they followed the RoE – off the hook. The RoE doesn’t get changed. You call it “collateral murder” and you sound like you’re attacking the soldiers, which shuts down a huge chunk of the US population.

The way things are going now, the left will get those soldiers disgraced for doing their jobs, the right will call them bad apples, their lives will be ruined for following their training and the people who are really responsible will get off totally free. Meanwhile, it’ll just keep happening again, and again, and again.

kaffeen

I think this happened during the Bush administration, but regardless you should just paste a little picture of the President on the heads of these soldiers. That is who is responsible. And to compare this to Nuremberg is complete and utter bullshit. War and Genocide are two different things, you should google Genocide.

Anonymous

THE CAPTCHA IS THE COMMENT:

“hangman effective”

kaffeen

Wiki….GENOCIDE

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Because of the insistence of Joseph Stalin, this definition of genocide under international law does not include political groups.

The preamble to the CPPCG states that instances of genocide have taken place throughout history, but it was not until Raphael Lemkin coined the term and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Holocaust at the Nuremberg trials that the United Nations agreed to the CPPCG which defined the crime of genocide under international law.

Do you see the Nuremberg reference? Good.

ncinerate

I’m thinking, while watching this video, that you could probably take -any- apache in the area at this time, pull the video reels off it, and it would look JUST like this.

Pilot flying around looking for enemies carrying weapons in a clearly defined warzone, spots a group of enemy combatants with apparent weapons visible, requests permission to fire, receives permission, fires, mops up straggler survivors, makes some crude comments about the dead.

The fact that there are two innocent reporters down there makes this instance unique, but I’m sure there’s thousands of hours of footage -just- like it.

teh_chris

something doesn’t quite add up.

if stiebler was with the 1st infantry division, and talking about the 2/16th, the 2nd battalion 16th infantry was a mechanized infantry unit, at least they were when i was with the 1st ID (the Big Red One) in the early 90′s. mechanized infantry are guys in bradleys, not apaches.

when he talks about his friends in the video, maybe he’s talking about the guys in the bradleys that show up after the shooting is done?

Anonymous

Yes, I think it’s assumed he’s part of Bushmaster 2-6 (armoured infantry).
Machineintheghost

That’s an interesting point. I’m sure as hell not qualified to judge based on what unit was where or so forth. But Stieber’s comments seemed kind of thoughtful and reserved. I’m under the impression that most of the fake soldiers tend to make statements that are self-aggrandizing and/or ridiculously inflammatory and/or incredibly ignorant.

Anonymous

The reason why wars of aggression are forbidden in the U.N Charter (formed by treaties ratified by the U.S and therefore U.S law) and numerous nations laws and many international conventions is because of the horrible consequences of fighting wars.

To risk such horror there should be good reasons for killing – and a foolish attempt to reorder loyalties of a oil rich nation isn’t such.

But laws, well, the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.

Anonymous

More people should read that book.

SunnyDayz

The bottomline is that the military is trained to place their lives over that of the civilians they are there to protect…that really makes no sense in the end. They only add perpetrators into the mix rather than protect anyone!

Instead of writing this off to “thats what happens in war” we should be saying “thats what happens when we wage aggressive wars”. The second statement is more accurate, the first statement seesm to assume that we are involved in a war that “happened” rather than a war we “started”.

There was clear indication in that video that some of those who were shooting were anxious to shoot and KILL a person that they didnt percieve as a threat. The guy who wants the wounded man crawling around on the ground with no ability to harm anyone to give him an excuse to shoot again is a good example of that.

I hope people in the US realize that creating monsters like that is to create their own neighbors as monsters. The US can completely forget about lowering violent crime, it will surely continue to rise. Add in the poverty these wars will also help induce within the US…and you have a cocktail for some really “fun” times in the next decade.

The US population dont seem to realize they arent only destroying Iraq and Afghanistan…..the US are also destroying themselves.

Terry

Let’s get this straight:

War IS murder. No matter what the war is about, no matter how bad the bad guys are, no matter how good the good guys are. A part of the process of war is that innocent people get killed in a premeditated fashion. This, boys and girls, is how we define ‘murder’.

And this is a large part of the problem. We talk about war in euphemisms. If we are actually going to have an open, meaningful dialogue about war, we need to stop calling murdered children ‘collateral damage’.

We can’t really discuss a subject if everything we say about it is an attempt to avoid the subject.

duncano

Actually, ‘murder’ is a legal term which defines a certain type of crime. I’m all for calling it killing though. That’s what it is.
- Terry
  
  Murder: Kill (a human being) unlawfully, esp. wickedly or inhumanely. spec. kill (a human being) with a premeditated motive. kill with malice aforethought.
  
  Straight from the OED. Are you going to try to tell me that this does not define the act of dropping bombs on cities?

Soldier from "Collateral Murder" company speaks out

More at Boing Boing