Here’s a post where you can follow the news coming out of the D.C. press conference being held by Wikileaks. Some background on what’s happening here and here. It was initially believed that the secret video they’d be releasing would be related to this incident, but it appears to be an incident from Baghdad where 12 civilians and 2 Reuters journalists were allegedly killed by coalition forces.
UPDATE: Here’s the video:
Chilling!
Regardless of how you feel about the initial engagement I think even the trolls would find it hard to defend firing upon removing the injured from the field of battle.
What is even more remarkable is the fact that this video was even leaked out. I’m sure the military had it buried pretty deep.
@1
Regardless of how you feel about the initial engagement I think even the trolls would find it hard to defend firing upon removing the injured from the field of battle.
And not only that, but that the injured person was not an insurgent, but a Reuters employee.
I think they call the pilots of those helicopters “smart weapons”..
What a clusterfuck…
Nice war you started chimpie..
@2 Well, they wouldn’t know that, but that’s why we have rules of engagement. But it’s worse than this. There were a lot of indications early in the Iraq invasion that U.S. troops deliberately targeted journalists, including Americans. Dozens of journalists were killed in Iraq, so many, and under such suspicious circumstances, that it’s very difficult to attribute all these casualties to accidents or the “fog of war.”
And why shouldn’t we believe they were murdered by American troops? After all, American troops in Iraq also placed M-16 muzzles against the foreheads of children and old people, and pulled the trigger.
I suppose some chest-beating, flag-waving trolls are going to jump in now and call me “unpatriotic” and “un-American” and “anti-military” and all that crap. Nope, none of the above. I was patriotic enough to enlist and fight in a war I could have gotten out of, at a time when an awful lot of today’s prominent Republicans were dodging the draft by exploiting multiple student deferments (Cheney), ass pimples (Limbaugh), or simply going AWOL (Bush), or what have you. I volunteered, I was on the ground in Vietnam, I saw combat, some of my buddies were killed and one of them won the Medal of Honor — and, as soldiers, even though our officers were no good, we were professionals who adhered to the rules of engagement and didn’t murder anybody so don’t you asswipes dare question my patriotism.
Yeah, yeah, I know there was My Lai and a bunch of less publicized atrocities in Vietnam: That happens in every war. There were some rotten apples in our barrel, but what we mainly suffered from in Vietnam was lousy leadership, from the top civilian levels down to the lower levels of ticket punchers who only concerned themselves with awarding themselves medals they didn’t deserve and racking up the body count (by fair means or foul) to get their next promotion up the Army career ladder. I served under leadership like that, and if you want to know why we lost that war, look no further. The dogface G.I.s who actually fought the war, and gave it their all — and 58,000 of them gave all — sure as hell aren’t to blame.
This shit happens in every war — it goes with the environment, and is part of the nature of the beast. But atrocities and unlawful killings by a military organization are like dry rot — they indicate bigger problems in the structure. In Vietnam, the career officer corps was professionally incompetent and morally rotten. In Iraq, the permissive attitude of the same civilian leaders at the top who authorized torture and disregarded laws and lied to the public percolated down the command structure all the way to the the Marines who pressed those rifle muzzles to the foreheads of infants in Haditha and other places and pulled the trigger. These things happen in only two ways: When people who never should have been in the military get out of control (you always have a little bit of that, and use the Uniform Code of Military Justice to deal with it), or when the top civilian and military fail to control their organizations and subordinates — for which there is no excuse, absolutely none. And anyone who thinks bashing citizens like me who are concerned about that instead of fixing the problem is no patriot. He can wave the flag all he wants, but such a person is as far removed from being a patriot as it’s possible to get short of overt treason.
I agree with RR that things like this happen in war, but I still think that what is so chilling is the firing on the van that pulled up to remove an injured person from the field of battle.
RR, thanks for your service.
The true sacrifice is that we ask people, human beings, to become inhuman. We give them the ability to be able to pull the trigger and watch a living human being be torn apart by a cannon designed to take on armored vehicles.
Then to make it worse we bring them home, stick them back into society and tell them to be normal.
Unfortunately there are some who cross that line and never come back.
It’s because of this sacrifice we must always be very wary about committing ourselves to war. Our civilian leaders at the time, having never served, didn’t understand that when we chose to invade Iraq.
corrections to last paragraph of #4:
These things happen in only two ways: When people who never should have been in the military get out of control (you always have a little bit of that, and use the Uniform Code of Military Justice to deal with it), or when the top civilian and military leaders fail to control their organizations and subordinates — for which there is no excuse, absolutely none. And anyone who thinks bashing citizens like me who are concerned about that instead of fixing the problem is patriotism, is no patriot. He can wave the flag all he wants, but such a person is as far removed from being a patriot as it’s possible to get short of overt treason.
I didn’t have a chance to view this video until I got to the public library because I can’t stream video over my POTS line at home.
Regarding the shooting of the people in the van attempting to recover the wounded man, although much information about the context is missing from the video, on its face this appears to be a war crime.
None of the individuals had weapons, and the pilots knew this was a precondition to engaging, so despite the fact they were given permission to fire by a controller, they knew or should have known this was an unjustified killing. You simply don’t shoot unarmed people carrying a wounded person in a stretcher — especially from a standoff position such as an armed helicopter in which you are in no danger yourself.
Friendly ground troops were only minutes away. The proper procedure would have been to move them there and take the wounded man prisoner pending identification and intent.
The guys laughing about the vehicle running over the body provides all the explanation you need about how and why this happened — these guys had been in the war zone too long, or were sick bastards to start with, who were desensitized to the point of inhumanity.
And inhumanity — apparently illegal inhumanity — is what this video depicts.
Censored military video attempts to sanitize war. What people back home don’t realize is what modern military weapons due to human beings. There is nothing sanitary about war. Military weapons burn, tear, shred, puncture, and mutilate — sometimes beyond recognition.
Thanks RR for giving answers and insight from both Vietnam as well as this! I watched this earlier from another blog and was just horrified. Figured a LOT of that might be going on in Iraq & Afghanistan but this captures it on video.
These soldiers seemed to really be getting some ‘jollies’ while doing this. Then, when they discovered the two kids in the van injured, NOPE can’t take them to the better equipped U.S. hospital, ship them to a local hospital where they likely faced a shortage of quality care with less chance to survive. Kids!
This was so sick and inhuman. Thankfully the News Service the two Journalists worked for kept persisting until this slaughter could be shown to the world! It’s now going viral.
For some reason, I thought Reuters obtained this tape through Freedom of Information Act. However, apparently the military wasn’t handing over:
“WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.
WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.” …snipped…
http://collateralmurder.com/en/index.html
12 civilians? The first group were carrying AK-47’s and at least one was equipped with an RPG. In the context of the insurgency, these “civilians” were armed combatants. War is hell.
In the video, starting at the 3:50 mark, one member of this group starts preparing what clearly looks like an RPG launcher, as well as some individuals with AK-47s. The launcher then reappears at the 4:06 mark as the man wielding it sets up a shot for down the street. In 2007 Baghdad, this would be a clear threat to US and Iraqi Army ground forces; in fact, it’s difficult to imagine any other purpose for an RPG launcher at that time and place. That’s exactly the kind of threat that US airborne forces were tasked to detect and destroy, which is why the gunships targeted and shot all of the members of the group.
Another accusation is that US forces fired on and killed rescue workers attempting to carry one of the journalists out of the area. However, the video clearly shows that the vehicle in question bore no markings of a rescue vehicle at all, and the men who ran out of the van to grab the wounded man wore no uniforms identifying themselves as such. Under any rules of engagement, and especially in a terrorist hot zone like Baghdad in 2007, that vehicle would properly be seen as support for the terrorists that had just been engaged and a legitimate target for US forces. While they didn’t grab weapons before getting shot, the truth is that the gunships didn’t give them the chance to try, either — which is exactly what they’re trained to do. They don’t need to wait until someone gets hold of the RPG launcher and fires it at the gunship or at the reinforcements that had already begun to approach the scene. The gunships acted to protect the approaching patrol, which is again the very reason we had them in the air over Baghdad.
War correspondents take huge risks to bring news of a war to readers far away. What this shows is just how risky it is to embed with terrorists, especially when their enemy controls the air. War is not the same thing as law enforcement; the US forces had no responsibility for identifying each member of the group and determining their mens rea. Legitimate rescue operations would have included markings on the vehicle and on uniforms to let hostile forces know to hold fire, and in the absence of that, the hostile forces have every reason to consider the second support group as a legitimate target as well. It’s heartbreaking for the families of these journalists, but this isn’t “collateral murder” — it’s war.
So you’re saying it is OK for the US Gov’t to shoot militants carrying AK-47s or other such military type hardware and any noncombatants that are in their vicinity.
So the question remains, how do you identify a militant? Do the Huntaree qualify? Did our Gov’t do wrong arresting them instead if just shooting them from helicopters with 30mm cannon?
What about the Michigan Militia? I don’t know if they have done anything criminal, but they do carry guns and are preparing themselves to shoot people, presumably other US citizens. Should our Gov’t shoot them from helicopters with 30mm cannon?
Or is it because our guys killed Iraqis in their own country that makes it OK?
@12….last I checked, the michigan militia was not operating in a war zone.
@13, Now we are getting somewhere.
If you are in a war zone where all around you are people with guns and bombs and who want to kill you, then you should not arm yourself.
But if you are in a safe place like Michigan where nobody is shooting at anybody, then you should arm to the teeth so you can kill you neighbors.
So if something goes wrong and the Pres declares martial law in Michigan, then you should put down your guns and bombs because if you don’t then it is OK for our Gov’t to shoot you from helicopters with 30mm cannon.
thats a strange twist of logic you have there ekim.
Ever heard the term reductio ad absurdum, Max?
Naaah, I didn’t think so.
Max @15, all I ask is you explain why it is OK to kill Iraqis in a compound in their own country but not OK to kill Michigan Militia in a compound in Michigan.
If your argument is solely that of being in a war zone, then if for some reason Michigan becomes a war zone and the Michigan Militia takes up arms to defend themselves, then it is OK for our Gov’t to shoot them and any noncombatants around them from helicopters with 30mm cannon.
@16, @17
Man, I forgot to come back to this comment thread. Always funny to see a wingnut not able to figure out when he’s being made fun of… :)
I will take that comment with a bit of laughter lee..especially coming from a pot smoking degenerate…
Ekim asks:
“So you’re saying it is OK for the US Gov’t to shoot militants carrying AK-47s or other such military type hardware and any noncombatants that are in their vicinity.”
“So the question remains, how do you identify a militant? Do the Huntaree qualify? Did our Gov’t do wrong arresting them instead if just shooting them from helicopters with 30mm cannon?”
“What about the Michigan Militia? I don’t know if they have done anything criminal, but they do carry guns and are preparing themselves to shoot people, presumably other US citizens. Should our Gov’t shoot them from helicopters with 30mm cannon?”
They weren’t just “carrying”, Ekim:
In the video, starting at the 3:50 mark, one member of this group starts preparing what clearly looks like an RPG launcher, as well as some individuals with AK-47s. The launcher then reappears at the 4:06 mark as the man wielding it sets up a shot for down the street. In 2007 Baghdad, this would be a clear threat to US and Iraqi Army ground forces; in fact, it’s difficult to imagine any other purpose for an RPG launcher at that time and place.
If either the Huntaree or the Michigan Militia had been killing law enforcement personnel for several years (as the former are being charged with plotting) and a military unit was sent to deal with them, and found them in the open, not only carrying, but preparing their weapons to engage that unit, then you’re darn right that it would be quite appropriate for that unit, whether on the ground or engaging from a helicopter, to take them out, along with any who came to their aid.
It’s called “war”, Ekim, and it’s hell.
The “alleged” is in the wrong place in the article. It should be in front of ‘journalist’.
The so called RPG does not look like an RPG to me. The RPG-7 is a rather slender weapon. What the video shows is a bulky object. Could be a weapon. But also could be a video camera such as carried by journalists.
What more, this so called RPG was not spotted until they had reported 5 to 6 individuals with guns and requested permission to engage, which was granted after their controller had made sure none of his people were in the area. The choppers were then moving into position to engage the group of men when the “RPG” guy was spotted.
It was a full 40 seconds after “RPG” guy was spotted before the choppers started shooting, yet this guy did not tell his companions and so instead of scattering, they were just standing there when they were gunned down.
its kinda comical that a bunch of people sitting behind their computers are going comment on and judge the actions of soldiers during a battle – especially in an environment where the enemy dresses up as civilians AS PART OF ITS STRATEGY – and having to deal with the fog of war….
my response would be: maybe you all should shut the fuck up – and perhaps enlist of you wanna talk shit.
and as a side note: just because someone was in the military years ago, does not give them carte blanche to sit behind their computer in their home and act as if they know what the hell is going on. Bottom line: you were either there dealing with the situation or you werent. Perdiod.
– you’re gonna love my nuts..
I could only identify for certain 2 individuals carrying what looked like AK-47s. You could tell the 2 identified journalists had carry straps which apparently were identified as 2 more AK-47s. The choppers had counted as many as 20 men in the immediate area. When the choppers started shooting they shot at everyone they could see.
So you’re saying it is OK for the US Gov’t to shoot militants carrying AK-47s or other such military type hardware and any noncombatants that are in their vicinity.
@24…noncombatants get killed in wars, especially ones that are mixed up in the middle of a battle, all the time.
instead of being all out of sorts against our guys, why the fuck don’t you guys start a thread and get all outraged that the enemy uses noncombatants as shields and camouflage? Why arent you up in arms that the enemy FORCES noncombatants to act as shields, or the fact that the enemy’s strategy is to blend in with the civilian population?
I guess its easier, and perhaps in some(especially left leaning) circles its in vogue, to go after our own soldiers, than it is the enemy.
@24…and PS, what “you” can identify doesnt mean shit. Where “you” there? NO? then maybe “you” dont have a fucking clue.
– you’re gonna love my nuts..
Then who’s job is it? These soldiers are acting in our name. If they were violating the rules of engagement then what they did were war crimes.
What more, the rest of the world is also seeing this video and it makes us look like a bunch of trigger happy thugs. You’re OK with this?
@26….isn’t it a war crime to dress up as a civilian and engage in battle? or to use civilians as shields? Funny, I dont see you getting all bent out of shape about that.
No, you decide to get bent out of shape from a grainy video whose context you have no clue of. Nice armchair soldiering there…how convenient it must be for you to sit all comfy-style and “judge” the goings on at a firefight or battle based upon a grainy video and your inexperienced base of knowledge.
…and I am not concerned about what the rest of the world thinks.
– you’re gonna love my nuts..
You have proof they were soldiers as apposed to a neighborhood militia? A militia who was protecting their neighborhood because there are no police or soldiers to protect them from bad guys?
And using civilians as shields? Are you really that stupid. They are standing around talking to a couple of reporters. They have no idea they are in danger until they are shot dead.
You might be bent out of shape. I’m asking questions. On one hand, there were ROE cards issued to all of our troops and nowhere do they say to shoot anyone who was not actively threatening anyone. On the other hand, there was no ROE if you read what our vets have to say.
According to the published ROE there should not have been a “firefight or battle” in the first place. And according to RR, killing non combatants carrying out first aid is a war crime. He is a vet, retired lawyer and retired judge. He might know the law a bit better than you.
That is obvious.
All too true…
@28..please tell me you are not that naive. It is common knowledge, even during the very first hours of if Iraq invasion, that Iraqi army personnel, and later the insurgents, dress as civilians as part of their strategy…
I could care less what RR thinks – he is a party hack who will lie and distort the facts to support “his side”(whatever the hell that is)..he has even admitted as much. HE should also know better than to pass judgement based on limited information – but then again he has an agenda. And he is not the only person here that has been in the service.
go back to the armchair there big boy…
the good thing is that I seriously doubt the people at Fort Lewis or Fort Hood give a fuck what people like you think.
– you’re gonna love my nuts..
What strategy of theirs? It is common knowledge, Bush had them in custody and Bush let them go.
You must really be stupid.
@30…”bush had them in custody”…LMFAO…
Ah, yes, he did. But then Bush also said the war was going to be over quick and would only cost a few billion dollars and would be paid for in oil dollars.
Insurgent:
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
This is an interesting point. The current gov’t is a puppet put in place by Bush after an illegal invasion. That makes us the established authority as well as foreign invaders.
And the Iraqi people who are trying to win back their country from the foreign invaders would be insurgents.
So, who has the moral high ground?
As a side note I remember a movie the flag waving right was so fond of, Red Dawn. The plot is similar. Invasion followed by insurgent uprising followed be arbitrary civilian murders by the invaders who could always justify every action as necessary. The country invaded was ours and the heroes (insurgents) of the movie were some high school kids.
@33…..well then why dont you go join them.
BTW, I like Red Dawn…cool movie back in the day.
hey ekim, go join this guy and his buddies..
“http://video.yahoo.com/watch/5031560/13378554”
Iraq War Vet: “We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us”
So, who has the moral high ground?
Iraq War Vet: “We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us”
So, are we winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?
Iraq War Vet: “We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us”
So, is it any wonder the suicide rate among our troops is at an all time high?
Iraq War Vet: “We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us”
So, only the bad guys use human shields?
Why did we go to war in Iraq? The real reasons, not the fake ones drummed up by Bush to justify it.
What constitutes victory in Iraq?
What do we win when we win?
When can we bring our troops home?
An American journalist told this story about an Iraqi colleague of his.
One day his friend just disappeared for several months. When he reappeared, the Iraqi told him his family had been murdered by American soldiers. Collateral damage. He wanted revenge. He tried to join the insurgents. They didn’t want him. They already had more volunteers than they could handle. He also tried to volunteer to be a suicide bomber. They didn’t want him either. They had more volunteers than they needed. So finally, the Iraqi returned to his old job, reporting on the destruction of his country.
The cost of the war
US armed forces: 4,379 dead as of February 23, 2010.
Comment: Our gov’t policy was to evac mortally wounded soldiers so their deaths would not be recorded among the Iraq war casualties.
Iraqis: Anywhere from 95,000 to over a million.
Comment: Our gov’t policy discouraged counting the dead
$850,000,000,000: The amount of appropriations for the Iraq war.
Comment: This does not include the estimated further war related costs of around $2,000,000,000,000. We need to take care of our soldier’s widows and orphans, rehabilitation and psychiatric care for our wounded and mentally traumatized soldiers. We need to replace our weapons and munitions reserves which have been depleted. And we need to rebuild our military, which is now stretched to its limits and ready to break.
You righties sure did run up a large tab. Makes the health care bill look cheap, doesn’t it?
Some of us were winners though.
Dick Cheney’s Halliburton went from from bankruptcy to multi-billion dollar profits, thanks to those sweetheart no bid cost plus contracts the White House issued without review or oversight.