Collateral Murder (merged)

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Unbelieveable, incredible in its range of detatchment.
Its almost as though two entirely detatched creatures from two civilisations on two alterrnate realities had decided to approach a subject for discussion yet cannot work out that they are presently unable to see or comprehend the issue at all

You seem to want to live in a fantasy land.

This action was (properly, IMO) decided not to be criminal.

That said, assuming the reporters were not functioning as propagandists for insurgents (which would make them desirable targets, IMO), it does suggest ways to try and prevent such outcomes in the future.

This would frankly be hard to do. You cannot simply not attack vehicles or people marked "press" since they'll paint PRESS on the roof of every single vehicle.

They could perhaps give reporters a IFF device that has some sort of time limit, and/or can be controlled remotely to turn on/off in case it is lost/stolen. The IFF might be a phone, actually. The troops or AS would know it was there, then make it so they can instantly communicate with it. If the person on the other end doesn't satisfy them that he is legit—including perhaps moving to some area at the command of the helo—then they might get permission to shoot anyway. This at least seems possible.

The only problem will be reporters that want ot embed with the enemy. The enemy troops won;t want their position marked on a GPS someplace, so those reporters will have to risk their lives if they think it is worth it.

You seem to want to live in a fantasy land.

You seem to be lacking in comprehension

This action was (properly, IMO) decided not to be criminal.

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

That said, assuming the reporters were not functioning as propagandists for insurgents

Errrrrrr....could you remind me again what irrelevant means?

Simple question Tater, what did I say the real issue was here?

Have a clue, its quite complicated(or simple really), it doesn't have to do with the specifics of the justifyability of the incident or any mitigating circumstances from either perspective, it has nothing really to do with ROE at all.
Hey have another clue, its not that the matress is full of bugs, its springs sprung and its covered in piss stains, its the fact that someone put a sheet on it and then claimed the matress was in good condition.

If you sre still stuck them review the topic.
It is quite easy, follow a simple process. Start at post #1, then get as far as post#2 then come back and review what you wrote in post #136

[tater]

Who are the two creatures of which you speak? Your previous post references no other post, and doesn't seem to apply to any that I can make out directly. I assume anyone not involved in the real events, who is chatting about it is detached, so that's all of us.

So who did your post refer to, it is entirely unclear.

Who are the two creatures of which you speak?

Those who are condemning the actions of the pilot/gunner in the incident and those who are justifying the actions.
Which is why its such a range of detatchment from the issue

It was a screw up, screw ups happen.

So who did your post refer to, it is entirely unclear.

It refers to all those who argue about the pros and cons of the little engagement when the real issue is what went on afterwards

[tater]

Gotcha. Sorry about my post, I was honestly confused and thought it was less generalized.

My remaining point about using the incident to try and figure out ways to avoid it in the future stands, of course.

[Foxtrot]

I am not sure if this case will be re-investigated and the lies from military. Despite the claims and believes, some people and some institutions are just above the law.

*cough* the presence of eeevvviilll and bbbaaaddd Weapons of Mass Destruction in North, South, East and West of Baghdad and Tilkrit *cough*

[Fish]

And giving aid to a wounded is reason to be killed too, shocking.http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-429355

Edit: I see there's a tread alreay .
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=167176

[Fish]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The video shows the photographer was going to take a picture of SOMETHING - and being a "war correspondant" - you can bet a doughnut that he wasn't going to take a picture of a little girl playing with her doggy in the park..

And thats a reason to be killed?

[CaptainHaplo]

Its been stated in the other thread repeatedly - there was an Iraqi NSC directive to disarm - being continually in the presence of armed men who are subject to lethal force for being armed in violation of such act, not making sure that combat forces in the area know your there, hanging out near a firefight - are all things that can get you killed. While the camera was mis-identified - 3 RPG's were found at the scene along with numerous AK's. One weapon was correctly identified prior to the attack. This justifies the action under the rules imposed by the Iraqi NSC and the ROE.

As for "helping" - note that the van was not marked in accordance with the Geneva Convention - and had been spotted earlier dropping off fighters involved in an ongoing firefight. Those earlier actions make it a combatant vehicle - as well as its lack of markings make it a legitimate target under international combat law.

War ain't pretty - if your going to be in or near a combat situation - you are accepting a level of risk. Walking with a person who you know to be armed in violation of governmental decree - thus making himself a target - means you accept greater risk. Doing so with a firefight nearby increases it further. Not making sure people know your there - making it worse.

I don't say its not a tragedy. But it was avoidable - and not just on the side of the aircrew - but on the side of the "reporters".

Ask yourself - if it were not for the 2 guys with cameras - but instead was a strike against armed men (which was what the other men were) - would this be so big of a deal to most? If not - then why - when it was the choice of the reporters to be there with those armed men (knowing the situationa as they did and the danger that decisions would create) - is it the fault of the aircrew or ground commanders who gave the ok instead of those who decided to put themsleves in that situation?

[August]

Originally Posted by Fish

And thats a reason to be killed?

Apparently yes. Pointing things that resemble weapons in the direction of patrolling soldiers, in a combat zone, is an inherently dangerous activity. He might as well have run around with a bunch of road flares taped to his chest.

[CaptainHaplo]

Fish - your requote of me intentionally disregards the situation that photographer CHOSE to put himself in.

Hanging out with armed men when armed men - by law - are subject to lethal military force.

This - ^ - is all that is needed realize that while one can handwring over it - it was the decision by those reporters to walk down a road in the company of armed civilians - knowing the situation - and near a firefight - that means they chose to put themselves into a situation where they could be killed. That was their choice - and it cost them their lives.

Had there not been an NSC directive - then we could all discuss the issue of "did it look like an RPG" or whatnot. But the reality is armed civilians were subject to no warning lethal attacks - these reporters knew that - and chose to be with such a group. That decisions killed them. Unfortunate - but no one's fault but their own.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by August

He might as well have run around with a bunch of road flares taped to his chest.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Had there not been an NSC directive - then we could all discuss the issue of "did it look like an RPG" or whatnot. But the reality is armed civilians were subject to no warning lethal attacks - these reporters knew that - and chose to be with such a group. That decisions killed them. Unfortunate - but no one's fault but their own.

True. They knew what they were getting into.

The thing with the RPG, as difficult as it may be for some of us to fathom, is that time was a critical factor for the air crew and the people they were protecting. Had the camera actually been an RPG, the person carrying it could have made the decision to fire in the same amount of time as it took for the air crew to decide on firing. What would have happened then?

That chopper crew wasn't there for a sightseeing tour of Baghdad, they were there to support and protect friendly units in the area. And that is precisely what they did. Time was not on their side. They could not stop to take a closer look. The results weren't pretty, but neither was the task. Those of us who have never been to war will never fully understand that kind of environment - and like it or not, there are people who will use horrific video footage to make us angry at the people who are in the war.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Had there not been an NSC directive - then we could all discuss the issue of "did it look like an RPG" or whatnot. But the reality is armed civilians were subject to no warning lethal attacks - these reporters knew that - and chose to be with such a group. That decisions killed them. Unfortunate - but no one's fault but their own.

Hold up. This is like the 4th time you mentioned this supposed directive on this thread. This directive is either so obscure or so irrelevant that as I've mentioned, the US Army didn't even TRY to use it as a shield (as you are doing on their behalf) in their investigation report, even though depending on its exact wording it would have been the perfect pretext for the rather abrupt classification of "military-aged men" into "insurgents", thus justifying this mini-massacre.

Since every other piece of evidence presented has been put up on a spindle and poked at all over, would it be possible to present the directive for review?

[CaptainHaplo]

Kazuaki Shimazaki II - a fair question - and one that in answering I actually learned a bit - and am able to correct an error on my part.

It was not the NSC who made initially made militia's illegal - but rather it was Order 91: Regulation of Armed Forces and Militias within Iraq - which can be found here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Order_...as_within_Iraq

At this point - from 2004 and forward, any armed group operating outside the guidelines above is illegal. The Mahdi Army at no time has met the critera to be legal. Political considerations allowed tolerance of them, primarily due to Sadr supporting Al-Maliki. Jump forward to 2007 - and Al-Sadr withdrew his support from Al-Maliki. This is what precipitated Operation Law and Order (originally Operation Imposing Law)which began in Basra - and spread into the Sadr City sections of Baghdad.

Some instances where it can be demonstrated that the Mahdi Army are deemed illegal under Iraqi law at this point may be justified to insure there is no confusion.

"The news conference at the lone American Army and Iraqi combat outpost in Sadr City was given by Gen. Abud Qanbar Hashim, the Iraqi commander for Baghdad, and Maj. Gen. Jeffrey W. Hammond, who leads the American division charged with securing the capital, and began as bursts of gunfire rattled nearby streets.

... General Abud insisted that Iraqi security forces would take action against any militia brandishing arms.

“The main thing is that arms should be in the hands of the state,” he said. “And we will never allow any armed group to carry arms as an alternative to the state to provide security to the citizens.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/wo...nted=1&_r=3&hp

as well as :

"Al-Maliki said Iraq had become a "nation of gangs, militias and outlaws" and he was undertaking a "historic mission" in Basra to restore "the law of the land."

But the Sadrists have been angry over recent raids and detentions, saying U.S. and Iraqi forces have taken advantage of their 7-month-old cease-fire to crack down on the movement."

http://wbztv.com/national/iraq.basra....2.685861.html

Lets not forget "Iraqi goverment crackdown" -(underlining was done be me for emphasis):

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki demanded Sunday that the cleric disband his militia, which waged two uprisings against U.S. troops in 2004, or see his supporters barred from public office."

"The Mehdi Army has borne the brunt of an Iraqi government crackdown on what Iraqi and U.S. officials call "outlaw" militias in the past two weeks. The government's effort to reclaim control of the southern city of Basra in late March sparked clashes across southern Iraq and into Baghdad, leaving more than 700 dead, according to U.N. agencies."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...adr/index.html

Wait - there is more!

"Speaking at a news conference on Wednesday, Maliki said he would deal with the militias. "The state is the only one that has the right to carry weapons," he said. "We will deal with anybody who is outside the law."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PAR531634.htm

Want one more? The cities in question are Basra and Baghdad.

"Both cities are under an indefinite curfew due to ongoing clashes between government forces and the Mahdi Army, the Shia militia led by Moqtada al-Sadr."

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=77516

Information on the Siege of Sadr City can be found lots of places - but here is a decent start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sadr_City#cite_note-nytimes20080407-13


Now, with all that digested - we can decide this whole matter with a few questions and answer....

Where militias illegal? Yes
Armed citizenry on the streets illegal per Iraqi government? Yes
Were there armed citizens in the video in question? Yes
Was it the Iraqi government's decision that armed citizenry be dealt with via lethal force? Yes
Did the US provide support & assist with carrying out such decisions? Yes
Were such actions by the US military done under the legal auspices of the Iraqi government? Yes
Did the reporters who were killed know about the prohibition? Yes, given what their actual job was...
Did they knowingly enter a combat area with armed people who - by Iraqi government definition, met the conditions of "illegal militia" - and thus were subject to attack? Yes
Did this decision cost them their lives? Yes

Now I have laid this all out in a reasoned and logical way. Note that the sources I posted were CNN, Reuters affiliates, etc - so just dissing the source as some "conservative hackjob" isn't going to hold water. Feel free to use logic and sources to rebut the reasoning here.....

However, I am able to correct that it was not the NSC that outlawed the militias. It was the Iraqi government in general based of the Provisional Government's Order 91. After review - they (the Iraqi NSC) simply declared that any political group that did not disband their militias would not be allowed to participate in the political process. For the opportunity to correct that mis-statement, I offer a thank you to my friend Kazuaki Shimazaki II.

Where militias illegal?

No
some militias are legal and some are illegal, the list of legal militias has grown over time.

Armed citizenry on the streets illegal per Iraqi government?

No, some armed citizens are illegal while others are legal.

Wait - there is more!

"Speaking at a news conference on Wednesday, Maliki said he would deal with the militias. "The state is the only one that has the right to carry weapons," he said. "We will deal with anybody who is outside the law."

He said he would deal with the problem of the illegal militias not the militias as he cannot work without the militias and their political backers

After review - they (the Iraqi NSC) simply declared that any political group that did not disband their militias would not be allowed to participate in the political process.

So 6 major parties and about the same amount of minor ones cannot participate in the political process even though they lead the government on national and regional levels and are still standing for elections.

None of which has any bearing on the real issue which is the governments attempt at covering up the screw up.