Collateral murder

[Just_A_Guy]

Indeed; and it looks like most of the principals associated with production are non-Americans (except for a former New York Times reporter named Jenny Lee).

How very ironic, if Wikileaks insists on its right to keep secrets from the public!

[talisyn]

Speaking of missing footage, the wikileaks site apparently lost a whopping 30 minutes of time. Where did it go? *faint breezy noise in the background*

The 'Full Version' of The Wikileaks Video Is Missing 30 Minutes of Footage - wikileaks - Gawker

[Just_A_Guy]

Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval."

Translation:

"We didn't manipulate the data. We simply knowingly and deliberately played the part of "useful idiots" for whoever did manipulate the data."

Not reassuring.

[Kawazu]

Veteran of "Collateral Murder" Company Speaks Out

WASHINGTON - April 9 - Josh Stieber, who is a former soldier of the “Collateral Murder” Company, says that the acts of brutality caught on film and recently released via Wikileaks are not isolated instances, but were commonplace during his tour of duty.



“A lot of my friends are in that video,” says Stieber. “After watching the video, I would definitely say that that is, nine times out of ten, the way things ended up. Killing was following military protocol. It was going along with the rules as they are.”



Stieber deployed to Baghdad with Bravo Company 2-16, whose members were involved in the incident captured in Wikileaks' “Collateral Murder” video, which has made international headlines by depicting a July 2007 shooting incident outside of Baghdad in which over a dozen people, including two Reuters employees, were killed. Although he was not present at the scene of the video, he knows those who were involved and is familiar with the environment. Stieber, who now works to promote peace and alternatives to war, is speaking publicly about his time in Iraq and the incident captured in this video.



“If these videos shock and revolt you, they show the reality of what war is like,” says Stieber. “If you don’t like what you see in them, it means we should be working harder towards alternatives to war.”



Stieber currently lives in Washington, D.C.






BACKGROUND ON JOSH STIEBER:

Branch of service: United States Army (USA)


Unit: 1st ID


Rank: Spc.


Home: Laytonsville, Maryland


Served in: Baghdad (Rustamiyah) 07-08 Fort Riley, KS 06-07, 08-09



Veteran of "Collateral Murder" Company Speaks Out | CommonDreams.org

__________________

[NeuroTypical]

“If these videos shock and revolt you, they show the reality of what war is like,” says Stieber. “If you don’t like what you see in them, it means we should be working harder towards alternatives to war.”

I think I agree with this guy. If you don't like it, go solve war - stop bugging the soldiers and blaming things on Bush and annoying people and whatnot.

And if someone actually came up with the solution to war, I'd be happy to jump on board.

LM

[Guest Goose]

And if someone actually came up with the solution to war, I'd be happy to jump on board.

LM

Solution? Step one don't start any wars, like the one we started over in Iraq.

But reading through the answers and comments here it seems that many people are more preoccupied with shotting the messenger than the message itself.

Soldiers do at times go astray and when they do military justice should do the right thing, as it did with master Sgt Hatley who executed 4 Iraqi detainees and was sentenced to life, or the Abu Ghraib reservists who were guilty of various forms of abuse.

Sometimes we need to stop these bad apples and put them away, and the guys in this video should at very least be investigated properly and fully without this ‘the video is lost’ business.

[Moksha]

This sequence is no worse than many video games, except they come in color, with better resolution and give extra points for headshots.

[Guest Goose]

Its more than a video game!

Notice today the news is: "Added On April 10, 2010

The US Command in Afghanistan has now admitted that five civilians were mistakenly killed by US forces."

That's all it takes. Say 'We made a mistake' . Can happen in battle but sometimes its deliberate so at very least one needs to fully investigate the events surrounding that mistake.

[NeuroTypical]

And if someone actually came up with the solution to war, I'd be happy to jump on board.

Solution? Step one don't start any wars, like the one we started over in Iraq.

Oh - you mean if people just stop killing each other, then there would be no more war? Heh. I'll make sure to transform humanity into a new utopia with that little tidbit. Thanks Goose. Any idea why John Lennon never got it done? I'm sure we're just inches away.

As I said, if someone actually comes up with the solution, I'm all for it.

LM

Edited April 10, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Just_A_Guy]

Sometimes we need to stop these bad apples and put them away, and the guys in this video should at very least be investigated properly and fully without this ‘the video is lost’ business.

What, exactly, should be (re-)investigated? We know that at least some of these guys were combatants; you can see an RPG in the video once you know where to look. Contextually, we know this was part of a large engagement in a Mahdi-dominated neighborhood, that there were US soldiers on the ground, and that it's highly likely these guys were setting up an ambush.

So, are we investigating why US soldiers dared to develop dark senses of humor after four years in the field? Are we investigating why Reuters chose to embed reporters with the Mahdi Army? Or are we investigating why the Mahdi Army brings children to its mop-up operations?

[Guest Goose]

Just_A_Guy:

Investigate why these soldiers mistook an ambulance evacuating the injured for insurgants.

"you can see an RPG in the video once you know where to look."

Once you know where to look you don't make those kinds of errors.

Loudmouth_Mormon

"Oh - you mean if people just stop killing each other, then there would be no more war? "

Dear brother Loudmouth_Mormon, let’s not get silly here. We started that war in Iraq and that’s why I mentioned step one: don't start any wars, or for the more academically inclined (not me) drop the 'preventive war' principal and leave preemptive war for only the very extreme situation. Iraq was neither. Iraq was just one huge mistake, one which no has being held accountable for as yet.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just_A_Guy:

Investigate why these soldiers mistook an ambulance evacuating the injured for insurgants.

Since when do healthy children ride along in ambulances for fun?

And what international standard says that every dark-colored, unmarked minivan is an ambulance?

Once you know where to look you don't make those kinds of errors.

Are you trying to make the case that that wasn't an RPG or rocket launcher they had set up in that corner?

[Blackmarch]

WikiLeaks - look at the video under collateral murder. Make of it what you will. Personally I found some of the comments by military personnel pretty disgusting.

**Beware there are a couple of colourful words used** - there isn't really a lot I can do about that. You have been warned.

See another website regarding this here: Collateral Murder

sorry i have my doubts about wikileaks.

Whistleblowers tend to have rather aggressive agendas these days... so whistle blowing more often than not tends to be misleading.

[NeuroTypical]

And if someone actually came up with the solution to war, I'd be happy to jump on board.

Solution? Step one don't start any wars, like the one we started over in Iraq.

"Oh - you mean if people just stop killing each other, then there would be no more war? "

Dear brother Loudmouth_Mormon, let’s not get silly here. We started that war in Iraq and that’s why I mentioned step one: don't start any wars, or for the more academically inclined (not me) drop the 'preventive war' principal and leave preemptive war for only the very extreme situation. Iraq was neither. Iraq was just one huge mistake, one which no has being held accountable for as yet.

I'm being silly because I'm having a hard time taking your suggestion seriously. Obviously, the idealistic "don't start any more wars" works just fine in an ideal world for getting rid of wars. But here in reality, mankind starts wars. Mankind has always started wars. Until the most righteous leader takes the reigns during the Millenium, mankind will always start wars.

Wars will get started, for right or wrong, by good guys or bad, no matter what the US position is. If the US starts no more wars, wars will continue to be started.

Your suggestion is simply not a solution to war. Which is what I asked for.

LM

[NeuroTypical]

BTW, does anyone consider what Russia just did in Kyrgystan, an alternative to starting wars?

[rameumptom]

If an ambulance has people in or near it with RPGs, or there is evidence it is being used by the bad guys, then it no longer has protected status, according to the Geneva Convention.

[Guest Goose]

If an ambulance has people in or near it with RPGs, or there is evidence it is being used by the bad guys, then it no longer has protected status, according to the Geneva Convention.

What???

there was no rpg around that van, and clearly it was a medical van with guys dressed as medics or docs. on top of all that the guys later on blamed the dead for 'bringing their kids along to a fight', what rubbish! there was no fight on until these trigger-happy hyper-wound-up video-games-crazy officers decided to shoot civilians!. plus crazy-horse claims that a small underarm bag or similar was a weapon? an AK-47?? the guy just needs new glasses!

also the iraqis were clearly there to pick up the wounded, the pilots knew that, only those blind enough to justify the unjustifiable can't see that. even in proper, real and legal combat you wouldn't shot the guys picking up the wounded.

just nuts, trying to justify what is clearly a major stuffup. now I'm just disgusted with you guys (obviously conservatives) who seem to think that everyone shot in iraq was a bad guy just because they were shot!

i'm sure that the man upstairs aint gonna simply overlook this or rationalize it away!

or maybe i'm in the wrong site here, probably!

[NeuroTypical]

Hey Goose,

Could you take a moment and explain your avatar (if there's an explanation)? Military insignia with a dove? What's the message you're trying to convey?

Just interested,

LM

[Just_A_Guy]

OK, here's a crash course on Iraqi counterinsurgency.

Lesson 1:

Iraqi ambulances look like this:

Not this:

These aren't hospital workers; they're fighters cleaning up their mess before the American troops can get in and verify the kill.

Lesson 2:

A type-69 RPG look like this:

Now look at this screen capture:

Whatever the guy in the middle is holding, it isn't a camera. Looks a lot like an RPG, though, doesn't it? Hmm.

Lesson 3:

You do not bring children into a combat zone. Period. If you do, it is not the enemy's responsibility to bring the operation to a screeching halt and give you a window to regroup your forces.

Lesson 4:

If your combat tactics involve fading back into the populace once the engagement is over and pretending to be an ordinary citizen, then expect the enemy to take shots at you as long as you're readily identifiable as a combatant. And don't plan on getting mercy just because you've been wounded.

In war, being shot does not mean the enemy will call off its operations and withdraw. It just means you lose.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Elphaba]

If an ambulance has people in or near it with RPGs, or there is evidence it is being used by the bad guys, then it no longer has protected status, according to the Geneva Convention.

By the time the van had arrived to help the wounded man, it was clear the soldiers knew they had killed all of the people in the group, except the one wounded man, who was clearly incpacitated.

How the Geneva Convention actually would be applied is as follows.

][The Geneva Convention]. . . protects soldiers that are hors de combat (out of the battle due to sickness or injury), as well as medical and religious personnel, and civilians in the zone of battle. Among its principal provisions:

• Article 12 mandates that wounded and sick soldiers who are out of the battle should be humanely treated, and in particular should not be killed, injured, tortured, or subjected to biological experimentation.
• . . . .
• Article 15 mandates that wounded and sick soldiers should be collected, cared for, and protected, though they may also become prisoners of war. (bold mine)

So, when they attacked the van, there were no people in, or near, the van holding a RPG, as they were all dead. Nor does anything on the video, which is pretty clear, indicate the dead man's RPG was being used by any other bad guys.

I disagree that the specific rule you cite from the Geneva Convention applies in this case.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

Elphaba, how does it define "soldiers"? I know the Third Convention sets down criteria for defining "soldiers" as it pertains to treatment of POWs; but I don't think that's a common article--is it?

Update: The Second Convention, Article 13, Paragraph 2, clauses © and (d) sets down criteria which our friends in Baghdad don't seem to have complied with. So the Geneva Convention theoretically doesn't apply here anyways.

(Though I seem to remember some kind of pronouncement from the White House in the last couple of years committing us to it in Iraq's case. Can anyone confirm?)

Edited April 17, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Godless]

Hey Goose,

Could you take a moment and explain your avatar (if there's an explanation)? Military insignia with a dove? What's the message you're trying to convey?

Just interested,

LM

Since Goose hasn't responded, I'll go ahead and chime in. His avatar is the rank insignia for a Senior Chief Petty Officer (Navy). The "dove" is actually an eagle. The only inconsistency that I see is that the crossed anchors have been replaced with what appears to be aviator insignia.

[Guest Godless]

Elphaba, how does it define "soldiers"? I know the Third Convention sets down criteria for defining "soldiers" as it pertains to treatment of POWs; but I don't think that's a common article--is it?

Update: The Second Convention, Article 13, Paragraph 2, clauses © and (d) sets down criteria which our friends in Baghdad don't seem to have complied with. So the Geneva Convention theoretically doesn't apply here anyways.

(Though I seem to remember some kind of pronouncement from the White House in the last couple of years committing us to it in Iraq's case. Can anyone confirm?)

Lately the military has been trying to put more emphasis on enemy "combatants" rather than "soldiers" since the militias over there don't exactly follow the rules. Hostile intent must be determined, whereas it used to be required that you identify enemies by their uniforms. Unfortunately, hostile intent is fairly subjective. It is for this reason that Iraqis carrying RPGs generally have a short life expectancy. As I said earlier, AKs are acceptable because many people over there carry them. But that doesn't mean that we aren't wary of people carrying assault rifles. I can say from experience that soldiers get jumpy when they're spending several hours in hostile territory each day. What looks like a grenade could really be a rock. A driver speeding towards your convoy probably (and usually) has no hostile intent, but it still sends up red flags. Errors in judgment occur and accidents happen. The Army is usually inclined towards giving soldiers the benefit of the doubt because no one likes to second-guess decisions that are made in fractions of a second.

Additionally, self-preservation and preservation of allied personnel takes precedence over the well-being of any non-combatants in the area. In other words, a soldier will rarely be held accountable for any loss of civilian life that occurs while he is taking fire from enemy combatants. There's simply no time to figure out who's dangerous and who isn't when your finger is on the trigger and bullets are flying towards you.

[Guest Goose]

Hmmm....

"You do not bring children into a combat zone. Period. "

1) Just about every city in Iraq was a combat zone. children couldn't escape that.

2) Ambulances, as with every other public service in Iraq, were in short supply. Short of 'official' vehicles they'd obviously grab anything that had a working engine, therefore we arrive at a van used as an ambulance which any sane normal human being would realize. The guys admitted that they saw they were picking up 'bodies' when the video show's that it was a wounded man, since the dude moved! with clearly a driver dressed as a medic. If you don't want to just kill civilians (as these officers did) you'd keep an eye on them and make sure they're just picking up the wounded, which they were.

3) "Looks a lot like an RPG, though, doesn't it?" No. its too small, could be anything, but these officers also saw Ak-47's, again they were too small to be that, insurgents, medics as terrorists and so on, therefore they need their eyes checked or just face the consequences for their actions, as we all have do.

Could you take a moment and explain your avatar (if there's an explanation)? Military insignia with a dove? What's the message you're trying to convey?

Just interested,

LM

Trying to be funny? sarcastic? didn't work!

but just for others here, between the eagle and strips is a propeller with wings to show rating or job. the image here by Godless shows a boatswain mate; star is for command master chief levels, E9.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Goose
quotes missing

[Guest Goose]

How the Geneva Convention actually would be applied is as follows.So, when they attacked the van, there were no people in, or near, the van holding a RPG, as they were all dead. Nor does anything on the video, which is pretty clear, indicate the dead man's RPG was being used by any other bad guys.

I disagree that the specific rule you cite from the Geneva Convention applies in this case.

Elphaba

Sorry, I wrote the last comment before reading this by elphaba, who seems to know the law (which I admit that I don't understand well by the way)

But,

Just_a_Guy, you may want to go to law school first? :)