Shocking video of US gunship killing Iraqis

[varun]

A video grab taken from the French cable channel Canal Plus from the show 'Merci pour l'info' (Thanks for the news) broadcast, 04 May 2004 shows a wounded man rolling away from a truck (L) which was hit by fire from a US helicopter dated - 01 December 2003 at an unknown location in Iraq. The channel which reportedly obtained the video from a European working as a subcontractor in Iraq shows a US helicopter killing three Iraqis, one of them wounded, who does not appear to be posing any threat. A French lawyer Patrick Baudouin told AFP that knowingly killing an enemy who is wounded constitutes a war crime under international law. The broadcast comes at a time when the United States is being questioned over its excessive use of force and the alleged abuse of coalition prisoners in Iraq...

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/videos/apache_NEW.wmv

[DoNotRefill]

1. this is ancient news...

eom

[Webster Green]

2. It sure is....

I saw it a long time ago.

Pretty horrible footage.

[DEMVET-USMC]

6. nothing

nothing

[maddezmom]

7. sorry you're in a bad mood

you might have time to self delete if you didn't mean it. :)

[bemildred]

15. OK.

It's easy to get mad.
Just remember that there are lots of dead on both sides.
The anger needs to be directed towards the assholes that
set this mess in motion.

[Just Me]

16. We all get cranky, believe me *LOL*!!!

We make up, though. :hug:

[Demonaut]

46. what about the CBS coverage of the soldier shooting a wounded

combatant, sorry cant remember the date and time.

[wubbathompson]

37. How can you tell they are civilians?

They just look like little white people to me.

[mn9driver]

40. Pretty obvious.

Tractor, grain drill behind, freshly planted earth behind that. Farm truck with seed and fertilizer bags. Pickup truck pulls up with tractor part. Farmer runs over to tractor to fix it, then everyone starts blowing up.

These guys were farmers.

Now, they're dead.

[DoNotRefill]

43. in the middle of the night?

what kind of farmers are out screwing around with grain trucks in the middle of the night?

[mn9driver]

45. First, let me say that I just now saw the full tape

which is much longer than the clip commonly shown. It does look like there was one or perhaps two "weapon" shapes tossed in the field during the early part of the video. Farmer/bad guys instead of just farmers?

It seems more likely, having seen the whole thing. That being said, I don't believe the IR camera on the apache would show a significant difference between a dawn/dusk scene and a full night scene. The time code in the upper left of the frame has been obscured.

Number one and two guys were unquestionably planting that field when number three guy drives up with something he's in a hurry to get rid of--he dumps it in the field, number two guy gets nervous and dumps his handgun---all this is going on while number one guy is running the tractor and isn't in the loop. He finally gets close to the truck and number two goes over to tell him to talk to number three---he never makes it.

Farmers? I still think so.
With an RPG and a handgun? Looks like it.
ROE complied with? Probably.
"Foreign terrorist fighters"? Very unlikely.
Did we make any friends in this small farming community?Probably not.
Do their relatives and friends have more RPG's and guns? Likely.
Will they use them against their "liberators" when they get the chance? Well, that's the real question now....

[DoNotRefill]

49. judging by the thermal signatures....

it was very late. In a dusk situation, the ambient temperature would have been higher across the spectrum. For example, the bodies of the trucks would still be radiating far more residual heat than they were if they had recently been exposed to direct sunlight. There was residual heat eminating from at least one of the truck motors (showing that it had recently been running), but the beds themselves were cold.

[not systems]

47. Ones that farm.

I remember tractors going all nights sometimes when I
was growing up in farming country.

[mn9driver]

48. I remember pulling all-night combine sessions

with my cousin: he bought an ancient White with a grain head for the soybeans. We had good lights, cold beer and a few doobies. Luckily, we didn't have any RPG's or guns--or any Apaches looking at us from a few thousand yards off.

Young and stupid, but I've still got all my appendages, thankfully.

[DoNotRefill]

50. with no lights on? with RPGs?

in a war zone? a short distance from an ambush?

Pretty freaking coincidental...

[not systems]

68. I would flip the lights off if a gunship was coming...

hell I'd hide under a truck and run around like a freak.

What you are pointing at is not evidence of anything except
a normal reaction to imminent death.

The question I have is what the hell are we doing
spending billions of dollars hunting people in fields
on the other side of the planet.

It sure isn't because they are a threat in any wild
stretch of the imagination.

You seem to think this is context free just a simple
application of force protection and the rules of engagement
it is not.

It is a pathetic and pointless killing in a unjustified
and illegal war of aggression and occupation complete
with abject dehumanization and subjugation of people
in their own land by a hostile foreign power us.

[DoNotRefill]

69. Then, no offense, you're a fool.

"I'd hide under a truck and run around like a freak."

Running around and hiding are not the acts of a remotely innocent person. They are rightly seen as aggressive acts.

When you're being pulled over by a cop, do you make exaggerated furtive movements, or do you sit still, with your hands in plain sight, and smile politely at the officer? Making lots of movement when dealing with a cop is an excellent way to get maced at least, shot at worst. being non-aggressive is a survival mechanism.

[not systems]

75. People should not live everyday worrying that some...

paranoid cop or invading crusader is going to
beat the crap out them or mow them down for kicks.

Fear is a untrained reaction to large flying objects
if you think running is abnormal then your the fool.

Hiding indicates nothing but fear of death as does running.

These are normal human responses, I'm not surprised it is hard
for you to understand.

Lots of sadists enjoy thrill killing or watching it.

Maybe these guys grandma had just been ridden around like a
donkey by some invader.

[DoNotRefill]

76. and a prudent person doesn't go looking for trouble.

When you went through driver's ed, didn't they teach you how to react if you got pulled over by a cop? You know, the keep your hands in plain sight, be nice, don't make unnecessary sudden movements, obey the officer, pull over in a safe spot, et cetera? If you spot a cop in your rear-view mirror, do you try to run away, or do you check your speedometer, and drive very carefully?

Running triggers a chase response. And when was the last time you heard a helicopter or airplane overhead and started running?

"These are normal human responses, I'm not surprised it is hard
for you to understand."

Actually, they're abnormal responses for innocent third parties. That's why cops can chase people who run from them. The Supreme Court has stated that flight constitutes probable cause that a crime has been committed. BTW, are you suggesting that it's hard for me to understand normal human responses because I'm not a normal human being? Some people might find that to be a personal attack.

[not systems]

80. A prudent person doesn't invade another persons country.

"These are normal human responses, I'm not surprised it is hard for you to understand."

It was no more a personal attack that you did with "Then, no offense, you're a fool."

I would say that is par for the course with a pattern of limited empathy for others
I have noted in this discussion of what I consider normal fear responses
to deadly threat.

Judging from your obsession with subservience to the authority of police
I would say your posts exhibit a very high level of hierarchical authoritarianism
make what you will of that I don't intend it as a personal attack but
an observation.

You really duck and dodge around the central fact that we are
killing people in their own country where no law of god or man
gives us the right to be.

[DoNotRefill]

83. Heh...

"Judging from your obsession with subservience to the authority of police
I would say your posts exhibit a very high level of hierarchical authoritarianism
make what you will of that I don't intend it as a personal attack but
an observation."

That's proof positive that you don't have the first clue about me. I've got a strong anarchistic streak. Even so, I recognize simple cause and effect. If you shoot at people who also have guns, they're going to be pissed off and shoot back at you, and your chances of dying go up dramatically. If you startle a cop, your chances of being injured increase dramatically. And if you run from somebody, regardless of your guilt or innocence, they're going to chase you. This is human nature, not "hierarchical authoritarianism."

"You really duck and dodge around the central fact that we are
killing people in their own country where no law of god or man
gives us the right to be."

Ideological righteousness is well and good, but if you ignore the practical reality of the situation, you do so at your own peril. Ever hear the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"? If you shoot at people, they're going to come after you. Cause....and effect. Shoot, they shoot back. Saying "Well, the invasion was illegal!" doesn't help in any practical sense.

[not systems]

86. Ok.

If you have a "strong anarchistic streak" I take it that
it doesn't include the belief that society should be construct
based on minimization of violent force.

I just find that looking at the people shooting at each other
without asking if they should be there shooting in the first
place removes the vital context of the situation.

Sure it suck for the solders to be in danger so bring them home.

That is not "ideological righteousness" but simple common sense
and cause and effect.

Why do you support the war?

[DoNotRefill]

88. I don't support the war, I support our troops.

and when people shoot at them with RPGs, I think they (or their buddies) are perfectly justified in returning fire, even if the people are running away, and even if they think they've escaped.

I'd like to see as little force used as possible. That doesn't mean I'm a pacifist. When somebody punches me, I punch them back. I'd rather they didn't punch me in the first place, but respect their right to make a choice. It's not out of a desire for revenge, it's out of a desire to make them stop punching me. After they've stopped punching me, I call the cops, and have them deal with them. That's what these guys did. They were attacked, and called for backup. Backup came, followed the people, and killed them. Of course, using rocket launchers on people is considerably more serious than punching somebody, so a more serious response was warranted. If somebody took a shot at me, I'd shoot them, without hesitation, unless they did something that makes it obvious that they're surrendering.

[not systems]

89. What if your country was occupied by a foreign power...

and for kicks they rode your 70 year old grandma around like a donkey?

If you were killed because you were suspected of trying
to get revenge for your Grandma and 15 year old brother who
was raped with a flashlight would you be OK with that?

No of course not.

Occupation in not a patriotic activity it is an idiotic one.

I support the troops returning home and beginning to find
peace for this stupid unneeded war they have be lied into
fighting when all most wanted was money for school.

FYI I mostly agree with what you said here but context counts
when judging the morality of actions. In the context of a
immoral war I can find very little to cheer about the killing
of human beings.

Maybe your not cheering if so we probably agree.

[DoNotRefill]

90. So what the fuck are our troops supposed to do....

when they're ambushed? Commit suicide en masse???

There's a fundamental human right for people to defend themselves. That applies to the Iraqis. And it also applies to US troops over there.

It's OK for the Iraqis to attack US troops. That's their right as human beings. At the same time, there's NOTHING immoral about US troops responding with deadly force when attacked with deadly force. If Iraqis don't want to take the risk of being shot and killed, fine. They shouldn't attack US troops. It's really that simple.

Or are you one of those people who thinks that US soldiers should be shooting their officers?

[not systems]

91. That's not what is shown on this video...

it appears that a wounded man was killed when there
was no way he could have done anything.

I didn't see anything on this film that looked
like an ambush unless it was the helicopter doing
the ambushing.

But in general I agree with you solders have no choice
to but to defend themselves I would also recommend apply
for objector status.

Are you one of those people?

I'm not going to be patriot baited by you I think the
problem is at the top and Bush and others should stand
trial for launching a war of aggression.

If given illegal orders like one to kill a wounded man
a person should refuse the order.

FYI people have the right to resist occupation in Iraq no
different than we would have that right if invaded and
occupied by some country that doesn't follow the law
against wars of aggression.

I think we agree that people roll the dice and take their chances.

[DoNotRefill]

92. The video wasn't created in a vacuum.

the REASON they were following the men was because of the convoy being ambushed. They tracked them down and shot them NOT because they were standing in a field in the middle of the night, but because they had shot up the convoy a few minutes beforehand with machineguns and RPGs.

IIRC, they talk about tracking them from the ambush site in the very early part of the video but well before they get orders to shoot, which is so often cut and not shown.

[not systems]

93. Damn straight it wasn't created in a vacum...

it was created in the context of an unjustified invasion and
occupation sold by lies and propaganda by empire building criminals.

[DoNotRefill]

94. feel better now?

eom

[not systems]

95. You?

I'm pissed about this war disgracing the nation.

Not these solders but the whole stupid killing joke.

[DoNotRefill]

96. Nope, I'm just shaking my head and chuckling...

in response to your posts.

[not systems]

97. Good for you.

I'm glad I could provide a bit of comic relief from
your daily grind of troop supporting.

What about my question about the donkey and the flashlight?

[DEMVET-USMC]

3. nothing

nothing

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

4. Hmmm....that's some cold blooded thinking my friend

Aren't there rules to war?

[DEMVET-USMC]

13. nothing

nothing

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

79. Why have you edited out your words?

Are you afraid of people reading the things you've said?

[maddezmom]

5. thought that was against the Genova Convention?

[Gman]

8. That video documents a bonafide war crime

The rules of engagement are explicit about wounded. That was a cold blooded murder. I hope these guys and their commanders stand trial in the International Criminal Court at the Hague. Actually, I pray to God they do.

[Voltaire99]

11. Hear, hear. (n/t)

[DoNotRefill]

65. How do you figure?

you should reread the conventions. Wounded are to be cared for ONLY if they've surrendered or are captured. If they haven't surrendered or been captured, it's not a war crime to shoot them, any more than it's a war crime to shoot people who are actively shooting at you. I suggest you read the conventions to find out what a war crime is before you make up your mind and start blatantly declaring that it's a war crime.

[NeoConsSuck]

9. War? I thought this was a LIBERATION?

why don't you "start getting real?"

[krkaufman]

17. Huhwah?@!?!

What makes/made those 3 men enemies? (What did I miss in the video showing they were doing anything untoward, or attacking the helicopter or other forces?)

And it's a war crime to kill a wounded combatant, unable to defend him/herself.

[DoNotRefill]

27. they were enemies...

because they had just returned from shooting up an American convoy. Early in the footage, you can see one of the persons throwing away what appears to be a RPG-7 grenade launcher.

It's against the Geneva Convention to shoot a wounded combatant that has surrendered. I didn't see anything to indicate that they had surrendered, did you? If they haven't surrendered, they're "fair game" under international law.

Also, I'm not sure if they were in uniform or not. If they are not in uniform, they're not covered by the standard rules of war. Remember that photo of the South Vietnamese Lt. Col. shooting the guy in the head with the revolver at point blank range? That wasn't against the Geneva Convention, because he was an enemy agent in plainclothes who was summarily executed after carrying out a military attack. That's kosher under International law, just as it's kosher to execute spies.

The Geneva and Hague conventions are not straightjackets, and are often misunderstood. They're there to prevent UNNECESSARY harm to innocent civilian populations, and to prevent abuses against people who have become POWs. Ancillary harm to civilians in the course of standard military operations is not a violation. For example, carpetbombing cities with valid military targets in it isn't a violation, even though many civilians are killed as "collateral damage". Targeting STRICTLY civilian targets IS forbidden. If the people involved are active participants in military operations, the law doesn't apply unless they surrender. Even if they DO surrender, if they're captured out of uniform, it still doesn't apply, and they can be treated as spies.

[Iceburg]

35. SICK SICK SICK A M E R I CA N S !

I have been virtually speechless after viewing the torture and abuse extravaganza. Now this,

HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

Your ex-friend from the north.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Ummmm.....do you REALLY have room to talk?

What about that Somalia torture/photograph thing with the Canadian paratroopers?



This kind of thing (the torture thing) happens in war. It's to be condemned, and the perpetrators punished. But you MIGHT want to check the record of your country's military before going off on how sick we as a nation are....since your hands are equally dirty.

[Iceburg]

38. I know the shameful history of the airborne division

and we the people did the right thing by demanding and having a PUBLIC INQUIRY ultimately resulting in total DISBANDMENT the entire DIVISION. When will America wake up and confess to the error of its ways?

Public Inquiry notwithstanding, we, I (as a Canadian)shall bear that shame until we meet our own destiny.

[DoNotRefill]

41. it's awfully early in the game....

to say we will not do the right thing.

IIRC, charges are already pending, and other investigations are underway. This has only been public for what, 3 days now?

[Iceburg]

67. It was first made public in January 2004 -- 5 months ago

I can't find the original article yet but this report substantiates the "january" claim.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-03-abuse-reprimands_x.htm

[DoNotRefill]

72. actually, we were talking about the torture bit, not the video.

the shootings in the video were justifiable under the international laws of war. They had weapons, they had just engaged in an ambush of an American column, and they didn't even try to surrender, even the guy who was wounded. As such, they could be shot and killed on sight, and it was 100% legal.

[Iceburg]

77. Understood -- the torture allegations ... see CNN Jan 20 link

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/20/sprj.nirq.abuse/index.html

Also see RAPE ROOM CHRONOLOGY
http://slate.msn.com/id/2100014/

[bpilgrim]

53. NUKE'M they haven't SURRENDERED YET! - no NEGOTIATION.

look at their hair cuts fer CHRISTSAKE!!! they are ENEMY COMBATANTS!!!

thats what the japanese said at NANKING, think about it... please

peace

[DoNotRefill]

62. So, what's the proper response...

when somebody's been lobbing RPGs at you? Using harsh language is generally ineffective when people are shooting at you.

Also, it's unreasonable to expect ANYBODY to try to negotiate after the other side ambushes you. Or are you supposed to stop and ask them to surrender when they're pointing their guns at you and in the process of pulling the trigger?

Warfare isn't a nice thing. People die during it. And the people decided their own fate when they decided to go out and shoot up the convoy. They took the risk, and they paid for it.

[Toucano]

10. The was shown in the U.S. months ago.

I believe it was on ABC World News Tonight.

Does this story imply that the footage is just now being seen around the world?

[krkaufman]

18. See the top post in the thread

Some French channel played it Tuesday night, bringing it back to the fore. (Probably because the video has more chance of instigating an investigation now, what with the prison abuse issue exploding.)

[demdave]

12. The film shows them delivering RPG's or AA weapons, it is unclear which.

Different sources of varying credibility have reported on this. I think a relevant point is that the original video includes scenes an dialog at the beginning which has now been edited off.

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/apache_video_040109.html

The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.

The pilots watch as the man pulls over and gets out to talk to another man waiting by a larger truck.

"Uh, big truck over here," one of the pilots is heard saying. "He's having a little powwow."

The pickup driver looks around, then reaches into his vehicle, takes out a tube-shaped object that appears to be about 4 or 5 feet long, and runs away from the road into a field. He drops the object in the field and heads back to the trucks.

"I got a guy running throwing a weapon," one of the pilots says. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, an ABCNEWS consultant who viewed the tape, said the object looked like a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, "or something larger than a rifle."

The pilots check in with their operational commander, who is monitoring the situation. When they tell him they are sure the man was carrying a weapon, he tells them: "Engage. Smoke him."

The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor driver.

I have also found still of the above mentioned scenes.

http://www.rense.com/general47/vid.htm





Frame 3 - right after the first guy is hit, this guy behind the tractor throws the stocking off and behind him very quickly which covers the RPG "something a soldier would do in that situation" and is immediately hit.



I have not been able to find the full length version of the video and would appreciate a link if anybody has it. Thanks.


Frame 1 - RPG which is wrapped in a protective gun stocking of some
kind is pulled out of the truck.



Frame 2 - a guy behind the tractor is off screen "left" and picks the RPG up that this guy drops half way between the tractor and the trucks. He seems to know he is in danger and runs to the left, and to the right as if to dodge the unforeseen danger. Most likely they could hear the Apache but not see it and knew they could be shot.

[krkaufman]

19. Thanks for the detail.

Yes, it would be good to find a copy of the full video. The shortened version definitely makes it look like those in the copter were going after unarmed Iraqis.

The question of "finishing off" a wounded soldier remains an issue, regardless.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

22. dont they do that anyway...

...finish off wounded enemy. I thought that happens alot in combat...

[krkaufman]

26. Perhaps, but I don't think it's something you'd want to have on tape. n/t

[DoNotRefill]

30. It does.

It's not a matter of inhumanity, it's a matter of protecting your people. History is rife with examples of people being killed while trying to help enemy wounded, or while checking to make sure that they are dead.

In the Pacific theater in WWII, SOP was to shoot people who were thought to be dead before approaching them. That way, they couldn't kill you when you approached them. If a combatant wanted to surrender, he had to make an affirmative action on his own, such as raising his hands and coming out. Even so, there were a LOT of documented examples of Japanese troops that were supposedly surrendering using their surrender to get American troops within range for one last attack. This is part of the reason that there were so few POWs taken in that theater.

[DoNotRefill]

28. not really...

unless there's something to indicate that they've surrendered.

During WWII's Operation Market-Garden, the British Paras left their positions manned by their non-walking wounded (the folks who were too badly hurt to be able to escape) while the rest of their troops turned tail and ran across the river. The Germans thought the British positions were still manned, since they were still taking fire. The German's firing on the wounded British paratroopers was well within the rules of war. They hadn't surrendered, and still posed a potential danger.

[huellewig]

57. I think this is the full video..

http://home.comcast.net/~antman01/apache_mission_in_iraq.avi


I'm on a 14.4 modem so I have no intention of watching this. But I think this is the full video.

[demdave]

60. MY GOD that sheds a different light on this. They deserved to die.

Without a doubt they were fair targets. Interesting that the first part of this has been left out.

[daleo]

61. Fair targets is one term, "deserved to die" is something else.

By the same token, to the Iraqi resistance (which is now most of the population) all U.S. (and other coalition) soldiers are fair targets. Do they "deserve to die", too?

[Merlin]

25. I doubted they were combatants, but just watched the video again. They are

The key is the action of the 2nd guy. Instead of taking cover, he is clearly unwrapping something. They were legitimate targets.

I'd sure like to know how the hell they didn't hear the chopper!

As to finishing off the wounded guy, I don't see it as a Geneva Convention issue because our guys would simply claim it wasn't clear whether he was going after a weapon.

[Just Me]

29. Yeah,...this isn't like the footage where an obviously unarmed person,...

,...had been killed. This is very, very different. It's too ambiguous to show a clear violation.

[greenleaf]

54. Well it's all sorted out then.

I'm satisfied that those indistinct,hazy and fuzzy images without a shadow of a doubt clearly show terrorists with RPGs.

Yeah terrorists with RPGs driving tractors - for a fast getaway- no doubt.

It's a relief that the US troops weren't on a turkey shoot
or anything, nah, cause if they just wanted to amuse them selves they would have captured them alive and then would have tested theories as to how the pyramids were built or something.

<sarcasm>

[Voltaire99]

14. What is more shocking than the atrocity...

...is that this video, copied and widely disseminated over the Net, has become a prime piece of right wing entertainment.

I have heard of one US congressperson's office where it has been distributed via the lan for the amusement of true believers.

[MisterP]

21. AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!

*weakly* Do you have a link handy?

[mn9driver]

51. Google it as "apache kill video" most of the sites that come up

are in the "Gee whiz, ain't that just the coolest shit!" category.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

20. I actually saw that video....

...a gunnut co-worker got online somewhere. Pretty wild, to say the least. Didnt know what to think....

[LibLabUK]

23. I think that there are two issues here...

Firstly, there is definitely the issue of a possible war crime being committed. The pilot (or weapons officer) clearly states that the man is wounded, and that they should "finish him off". A clear breach of the terms of the convention.

Secondly, WHY is this sort of thing being released for broadcast in the first place... is it purely to revel in the deaths of enemy soldiers or is it released under your FOI laws?

Would it be so different if one of the rebel groups released a video of them executing a wounded (or non-wounded) US soldier?

[Just Me]

24. Geez, I never considered the motivation behind the spreading it around.

That makes me feel sick,...I mean, not personally, as I would never disseminate such footage except to those who are interested, as I am, in examining it and ascertaining "the truth".

But, the thought that people are spreading it around for purposes of their personal "entertainment" makes me feel,...sick.

[DoNotRefill]

31. 2 points:

just because somebody is wounded doesn't mean that they are out of combat. They MUST surrender for the appropriate conventions to apply. The duty is on the person surrendering to surrender. If they don't surrender, they're still considered a combatant.

Secondly, in your example, it would depend on if they US serviceman had surrendered or not. If they had surrendered, it would be a violation. If they had not surrendered, it's not a violation.

[daleo]

56. How do you surrender to a helicopter in the dark?

While you are trying to hide under a truck? Should he have yelled "uncle"?

[tedzbear]

58. Our high tech air superiority is so immense it makes us evil.

This is NOT a level playing field. This video makes it painfully obvious that our gunners up in these aircraft are calm and business like as they systematically annihilate these insurgents (civilians?) on the ground. Our men know that they are in very little danger from the pathetic weapons on the ground as they hover in their invincible death machines.

This has the look and feel of genocide to me because of our technological advantage. This occupation is slowly dehumanizing all of us.

:nuke:

[DoNotRefill]

64. Warfare has NEVER been about a level playing field...

going back at least as far as Sun Tzu.

The people in the helicopters were in very little danger from the people on the ground. The Americans in the convoy they shot up with the RPGs were in considerably more danger from them.

When you start shooting at people, it's unreasonable to think that they and their buddies will not shoot back. It's like Global Thermonuclear War...the only winning move is not to play.

[DoNotRefill]

63. Generally...

raising your (empty) hands is seen as a universal sign of surrender.

Taking cover is generally NOT seen as a sign of surrender.

[daleo]

81. Do you really think it would have helped him.

I don't. I think he would have been just as dead, only a few seconds sooner. But, if things ever start exploding around me in the dark, I will be sure to raise my hands.

As an aside, I was walking home from a pub some time back, minding my own business, about midnight (on a sidewalk, along a busy well lit road, in a city of close to a million) when a police helicopter "spotlighted" me, for no particular reason. As I had consumed a few beers earlier on, I quickly got tired of their attentions, and gave them the one finger salute. They left me alone after that - I hope there never comes a time on this continent (I am in Canada) where a gesture like that is an invitation to be shot. They would have had a ready excuse, as they could have claimed I was pointing a gun at them.

I know that doesn't directly connect up with the Iraqi incident - I guess I am just saying that one's first reaction to helicopters in the dark is unpredictable.

[DoNotRefill]

84. When the helicopter spotlighted you...

you didn't run, though. If you had run, what do you think the cops would have done? Just gone on their way? Very, VERY doubtful.

The Iraqis know that if they raise their hands without weapons, odds are excellent that they'll be taken into custody. Hell, 1991 demonstrated that to most of their military on a first-hand basis. They chose not to try to surrender, but rather to run.

[MrSlayer]

32. In war you kill the enemy. These guys were enemies.

This is so old and I commented on it again last night but these guys had RPGs, which I'm sure they were not going to use for humanitarian purposes. The Apache crew did what was necessary to eliminate the enemy. That's war in all it's ugliness. If you want to be outraged, direct it against those who started this war, not the soldiers doing their job.

[Just Me]

42. Yes, we do HAVE to keep some focus on the REAL war criminals.

Those freakin' wacko right-wing freaks that have divided this country, usurped the blood and treasure of our people, and ruined our legitimate influence upon this world.

THEY are the ones who should bear the complete burden of the downward spiral of this country.

Of course, every individual bears his or her own cross by virtue of his or her decision.

But, there is NO FUCKING EXCUSE for the leadership that has led to so much torment,...for ALL of us.

[tedzbear]

59. I disagree. Our soldiers are passively accepting an evil enterprise.

Every time one of these gunners pulls the trigger he is willingly participating in the war crimes of his superiors. We are all culpable for this injustice. We should all do our part to stop it in any small way we can. It is our obligation to truth and peace.

Every time we participate in anti-war marches or peaceful civil disobedience, or write our congressmen, etc. we are doing what is right.

[DoNotRefill]

78. OK....

when are you going to turn yourself in?

:evilgrin:

[ufansdilligaf]

33. The thugs were planting roadside IED and were dealt with

Don't forget that there is still a war going on. Besides...it's old news.

[not systems]

52. Some people aren't as willing to support killing people in an illegal...

immoral war of aggression launched on lies by an unelected
dunce who think God talk directly to him.

Troop out!

Bush in!

Jail that is.

[DoNotRefill]

73. regardless of the legality of the war....

the video itself depicts a legal act. They had guns, they had used them on American forces, and American forces responded within international law.

[MrPrax]

34. Really...

I am shocked and horrified...

To find the SAME footage I saw on the CBC National News in Canada as a top story is NOW quoted as a French channel broadcast, cited from a Indian news source in an American democratic chatroom...!!

How many digital channels do I have to subscribe to to get the full story!!

[Iceburg]

39. All of them and none of them ....

It is easier to search for oil that it is for truth

[MrPrax]

44. Truth?

Is this being 'respect and dignity' or simply 'our side' wins...

It's much easier to search for an excuse rather than aa solution...

[Blue_Tires]

55. saw it a long time ago

you can go to a place like comsumptionjunction.com, and d/l a bunch of war videos...

[jsw_81]

66. This was posted a few months back on FR

The "pro-life" freepers were practically orgasmic.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

70. The operative term here is that of "hors de combat"

Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions covering conflicts that are not "international" such as this police action in Iraq provides that for those who have laid down their arms and are placed "hors de combat (i.e. out of immediate action) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely".

For those enemy combatants "hors de combat", the Geneva Convention provides absolute protection from "violence to life and person, in particular murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."

Thus the killing of enemy wounded who have surrendered is not the only prohibition. For example, those too wounded to be able to surrender are absolutely protected by the Geneva Convention. They are "hors de combat". A soldier cannot go willy nilly throughout the aftermath of a battlefield and dispatch dying soldiers who are too injured to speak their surrender or to raise white flags. If the enemy appears to be out of action and away from the reach of a weapon, then the Geneva Convention prohibits their killing.

It probably is a very difficult judgement call in the heat of battle in many cases. I saw the video and I wasn't expert enough to determine if the thing being thrown away was an RPG launcher or just a long piece of pipe. Was an investigation done following the event to confirm that these "farmers" were armed at all? And if it was an RPG launcher, wouldn't the act of throwing it away, coupled with the probable awareness by the "farmer" of the helicopter through its sound signal that the "farmer" was surrendering? Getting rid of a weapon is a strong indicator, and would fall within the protection of the "hors de combat" provision of the Geneva Convention. Throwing down a weapon IS a surrender, particularly when the possessor runs with it a certain distance and runs back until it is well out of his reach. I didn't see any clear hostile action taken against that helicopter by anyone in that film.

[DoNotRefill]

74. from what I recall reading when the story broke a while back...

it was in fact a RPG launcher, 2 of the 3 had been tracked from the ambush site where they had been participants in an attack on a US convoy, and none of them were in uniform. Apparently they "disposed" of the RPG launcher in the field much as a criminal "disposes" of evidence after commiting a crime. The third guy was IDed as their superior officer in the Fedayeen Saddam, who they were reporting to.

These guys didn't qualify as soldiers, since they were out of uniform and had no identifying mark recognizable at a distance, which would have made them militia. As such, they were classifiable as spies and saboteurs, and were subject to summary execution on sight.

If you want protection under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Accords, you've got to play by the rules. That means guerilla activity without a uniform or other identifying mark is a no-no.

Also, you've got a problem with "hors de combat". A wounded person who is unconscious is "hors de combat". They're incapable of taking offensive action, like pulling a trigger. Same deal with a peron who has surrendered and been disarmed, unless they attack a captor. A wounded person who is moving around isn't, and is quite capable of pulling a trigger. Remember the FBI's Miami shootout? The two participants were shot full of holes, and were still killing FBI guys until they finally bled out.

If these guys had raised their hands in surrender when they heard the helicopter, that would be one thing. Since they weren't in uniform, they could still be summarily executed, but it would have looked bad. They did nothing to surrender.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

82. Sorry But That Is NOT The Law

Article 3 states: “(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria”

The law specifically uses the word "and": "...those who have laid down their arms AND those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention..."

Surrender OR hors combat are BOTH protective, they are NOT the same thing, whereas you are saying that only formal surrender prevents the killing. Even if the enemy does not formally surrender, but is apparently out of action, he should not be killed. The latter requires a judgement to be made about that soldier. It does not allow free target practice at a helpless though still spiritually defiant enemy.

The fact that you would profess to KNOW with such certainty that an RPG launcher WAS disposed (i.e. that you could read the minds of these people) and not laid down as a surrender of arms at the sound of the helicopter really baffles me, as you CANNOT possibly know their intent, nor could the pilot of that helicopter possibly know. I'm glad however that I do not have to make those life-and-death decisions because I recognize that they are not as easy as you seem to feel.

I in fact do not profess to know one way or the other and appreciate the ambiguity and difficulty of fighting a war and of adhering tightly to the Geneva Convention as it is not practical. It is however the law.

Please show me in the Geneva Convention a provision that requires an identifying uniform that must be in evidence at distances of nearly one mile, in the dark. In fact, even a head band or an arm band could qualify as a uniform. To suggest that summary execution of individuals who appear from a distance in the dark not to be in uniform is appropriate is itself a criminal thought in my opinion.

As far as your understanding of the term "hors de combat" let me repeat that it IS a difficult judgment call. But it does not just apply to someone unconscious, contrary to what you suggest. A prisoner who cannot communicate in English, for example, who has been wounded and is simply trying to crawl to safety without an arm is "hors de combat" and CANNOT legally be killed. That's murder, not warfare. The law cannot be clearer: "including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms AND those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds...". Even if an enemy combant is stretched out on the battlefield, is unarmed, and slowly crawling across it, refuses to respond to a call to surrender, and spits in the eye of a US soldier coming up to him, that soldier cannot be legally killed if he is no apparent danger and is not reaching for a weapon. He is "hors de combat". I know it's not realistic to ask a soldier to make that kind of judgment in ever close case and that illegal killings are routine. But after the fact, I think we cannot be too quick to judge the killing of those Iraqis by the helicopter, one way or the other. I think it looks like an illegal killing, but I can't be too critical since I think war puts soldiers in a very difficult situation.

[DoNotRefill]

85. Heh...

"The fact that you would profess to KNOW with such certainty that an RPG launcher WAS disposed (i.e. that you could read the minds of these people) and not laid down as a surrender of arms at the sound of the helicopter really baffles me, as you CANNOT possibly know their intent, nor could the pilot of that helicopter possibly know."

If they were laying down their arms to surrender, then why did the guy run out into the field, drop it, and then run back? Why not simply drop the weapon and raise his hands?

"Even if an enemy combant is stretched out on the battlefield, is unarmed, and slowly crawling across it, refuses to respond to a call to surrender, and spits in the eye of a US soldier coming up to him, that soldier cannot be legally killed if he is no apparent danger and is not reaching for a weapon."

Horseshit. That's completely untrue. If that were true, then people with guns who just aren't pointing them at you couldn't be shot. After all, they pose no risk to you. When did ambushes become against the rule of war? Or when an ambush is sprung, are you supposed to stand up and request the ambushed force's surrender? When pilots drop bombs on military targets, even military targets without AA defenses, who do the people being bombed pose an immediate danger to? When an enemy attacks you, you repel the attack, and they retreat, is it a violation to shoot them? After all, they're leaving the area, not even facing towards you, and they pose no immediate threat. That is true even if it's a rout, and they drop their weapons in their haste to flee. Can you name a SINGLE case where somebody has been prosecuted EVER for shooting at a fleeing enemy during a combat action? I didn't think so. It hasn't happened. It's called "military necessity", and is recognized in the Conventions.

[ForrestGump]

71. Have you seen the C-130 gunship footage?

Pretty chilling, the firepower, regardless of who's being shot at. Hard to escape that kind of a weapon:

http://www.nata2.info/war/AC-130U_gunship_video_lo.wmv

Shot in Afghanistan, and I've no idea whether the people killed were legitimate targets or not. Very scary. The detached, desensitized conversation of the crew is also scary but, of course, you'd have to be detached and desensitized to handle that kind of job unless you were a true psychopath. It's also a pretty remarkable piece of military technology (a Hercules gunship, a Spectre, updated from the Vietnam-era 'Puff the Magic Dragon'), and I can't deny the 'wow' factor, but the ultimate goal of these things is to make people become dead, and it's pretty horrific how well this aircraft achieves that goal. There's one point where the crew send out something that makes an explosion worthy of a Rambo movie, all to get one dude who had already dodged fusilades in an effort to escape. I think they got him. A tad of overkill, though, to say the least. Still, at least it's a thousand times more 'surgical' than some of its antecedents...after all, this kind of stuff has gone on forever, only now we get to see it on TV.

Of course, to some people -- too many Americans -- this footage is like a cool video game. Either that or it's pandering to theirt blood lust for the elimination of untermenschen.





Ouch.

[1amc]

87. Skocking Video

Go to http://www.letsroll911.org/