Gitmo, Abu Ghuraib, Haditha, immunity before the ICC ... i don't think such incidents were, or will be subject to transparent investigation or accountablility by legislation, but juristic pettifoggery based on ad hoc nomenclature and red herring tossed by the Gvt.. With a smoke screen failing, at best we'll see a peasant or two getting sacrificed at times. In germany there is a similar discussion ongoing over an incident that happened last year near Kunduz, after the relay of knowingly false information to US CAS assets via a german JTAC, leading to the deaths of 140+ people, mostly civilians. The person resposible is more than likely to receive a first class verdict of not being guilty. As for the protagonists in the video - having read the comms transcript, i can't help the impression that Beavis& Butthead are for real, eager to project power on "lower-life", with killing being something of a rite for passage into manhood. Who gets killed seems to be of secondary nature (as long as they're indigenous people). Certainly life has become cheap again, with international law taking a backseat in conflicts waged by the nations who once installed those treaties and protocols, but refuse to get measured by them. Instead efforts are being made to by-pass, invalidate or bend these laws to fit- and rally support for the own agenda.

collateral murder part 2 survivor interviews
 

Found this today and noticed nobody posted on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw_5t...ayer_embedded#

OakGrove - I have to ask:

What treaty in the case of this matter has the US violated? The US military was assisting Iraqi National Security forces - under Rules of Engagement that was defined in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqi Government. No treaty violation there.

Combat was initiated within the boundaries of that ROE (armed men on the street when the region was under restriction and curfew imposed by the Iraqi government) - leading to the death of 8 people, two of whom should not have been there but chose to. Still no violation of international treaties....

In accordance with the Geneva Conventions - the secondary attack upon the van withstands review for the following reasons:

1) The van was not marked as a humanitarian vehicle, as required by the convention. This failure to be marked means that combatants have no idea what is in it, and thus are allowed to target it as it is in a conflict zone and is rendering aid to the enemy.

2) The van had been seen shortly before, dropping of other men near an ongoing firefight. This makes the vehicle a transport for the enemy, and thus a legitimate target.

So far, the only arguement that has come up was "this is horrible, people died" touchy feely stuff. War is a horrible thing, and people die in it. The reality is that this was not murder, it was a military operation in which 2 men made really bad decisions that put them into the firing line. A tragedy - and an avoidable one - but the decision to walk down a road with men carrying at least one RPG and some small arms - knowing that such action could lead to lethal force against them - was their own.

Hate it? Good! We should all hate war. If more people did - there would be a whole lot less of it. But when your in a conflict - its wise to remember the quote of Admiral Sir John Fisher:

"The essence of war is violence; moderation in war is imbecility!"

A lot has been said about the 'rules of engagement' on paper that supposedly make clear, distinct lines concerning what the coalition troops (and possibly also their Iraqi allies and maybe even the mercs) can shoot at with zero amount of remorse. In reality it doesn't work like that, when innocents get shot it's always a big deal. Or it should be. It shouldn't be "wrong or right, my country" or something like that.

The shooter in that video may have gotten caught up in the moment and acted rashly and probably understands this himself now and would most likely do anything to take those bullits back. And not just because the thing has caused quite a 'ruckus' in the media but because innocents really were killed.

However, there are infact very strict rules of "when to shoot and when not" in the various militaries of the world, especially when it comes to chopper warfare in an urban area. Not always written down but more or less as a kind of code of professionalism and, dare I say it in conjunction to military and warfare, as a mark of humanity. In a tight situation quick decisions have to be made and lives may or may not hang in balance so conflict situations may thus be rife. A war with a half-hearted support makes the whole situation even more muddled to the point of complete darkness I guess.

Personally I think the shooter(s) in this incident acted rashly and similar cases are unfortunately rife in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan making it a somekind of a systemic problem. I just wish the wars would come to a quick end and I'm pretty sure the various coalition people in charge of these wars share my sentiment.