Additional Protocol I to the Geneva conventions would be a source of law these soldiers might have violated. It is not required that a country be a signatory to them, as most of the relevant articles are now considered binding customary international law. The United States military determines its rules of engagement based on these laws (the rules of engagement can never exceed the laws of war; in fact the ROE are generally stricter than the laws of war would allow. For instance, see Snite’s post above stating the ROE’s required hostile intent and/or acts which are not required to attack/kill under the laws of war).
Article 48 provides the basic rule. Articles 48-57ish would be relevant to this encounter.
These would translate to questions such as:
(1) Was it necessary to attack? (Art. 48)
(2) Was it a valid military objective?
(3) Did you indiscriminately attack a lawful military objective? (Art. 51)
(4) Were all feasible precautions taken? (Art. 57)
It’s hard to tell just from a minute or two of video. It’s devoid of context. We know civilians/reporters were killed, but you don’t use hindsight to determine whether the laws were violated. They used an Apache helicopter using non-explosive bullets to attack a group of people believed to be insurgents carrying AK47’s. Most likely no laws of war were violated.
Yes. One of the recruitment criteria for pilots is excellent vision. I’ve been right up close and personal with a British Apache and the front sensor pod is an impressive bit of kit. The gun, OTOH, looks fragile and like a toy, but isn’t either, of course.
The Army investigation conducted in July 2007 leads me to believe that the Rules of Engagement were followed, that a clear, imminent threat was present and that all subusuquent actions by the Apache crews was justified.
While it is unfortunate that apparently two Reuters newment were killed and two children were wounded I don’t believe the outcome was illegal in any sense. While I am not a lawyer nor conversant in international law that is my opinion. I’ll leave the moral issues to others.
Nothing illegal happened here. That there were multiple weapons found at the scene immediately afterwards lends credence to the pilots, but they don’t need it. The scene was in an area that had been in the midst of fighting all that day. As the report states, “there was no information leading anyone to believe or even suspect that noncombatants were in the area.” All the appropriate ROE were followed. The group was spotting the US patrol that was close by–that’s what was happening when they were peeking around that corner. It was probably only a matter of minutes before they fired on it.
The bottom line is that the newsmen were embedded with an enemy cell. There was nothing found afterward (much less able to be seen before the shooting) that identified the crew as media. That the kids got shot is the worst part about it, but why are insurgent supporters driving into a fresh kill zone with their kids in the vehicle? There was no way to identify the kids, so it’s not like anyone was negligent when designating the van as a target.
It’s sad and tragic, but nothing illegal happened.
No comment on the issue at hand except to note that in both Iraq and Afghanistan, private citizens routinely have access to AK’s and even RPG-7’s. Does not necessarily make them combatants.
Watching the video… The copter pilot circles the crawling wounded man saying something like “come on, just pick up a weapon.” He obviously believes this is a wounded combatant, and honestly follows the rules that say unarmed wounded persons are not to be shot; but someone who tries to pick up a weapon in the area where hostilities with your troops have been taking place is a combatant.
I’ll go along with Snite. An unmarked vehicle aiding and abetting what appeared to be armed combatants is itself a valid target. Notice the pilot verified the permission to engage, rather than firing wildly like a crazy cowboy; and the chain of command took a while to think about it.
What happened is unfortunate, but what can you do? If you allow Red Cross or Red Crescent markings a free ride - well, the Israelis found that then some combatants will use that to their advantage. No doubt any system of identification that could be gamed by the insurgents would be.
So the problem is that people were behaving like combatants - making their way to the firefight carying things. Did they not realize that a helicopter, even 4 km away, could be deadly? Did they not realize that carrying odd equipment in an area where there are surveillance systems looking for people with that sort of behaviour - that was suicidal?
I suspect the insurgents are happy when collateral damage happens because every innocent civilian wounded or dead helps their cause… and if you live in Bagdad and say otherwise, they’ll find you and kill you.
Speaking of imperfect information…I’ll buy that the van was unlabeled, but you’ve made some other strong assertions here that, it seems to me, are checkable.
Was the incident in a “hostile zone?” What rules of engagement actually governed the area in which the incident took place? How hostile was the zone – did the military expect noncombatants to be present?
Were the men armed?
If so, was it okay for them to be armed? We all know there are dangerous areas over there, and the whole country is armed to the teeth. Here in the US we vigorously defend our right to be armed for self-defense. For all I know, the “armed” men might have been bodyguards for the press guys – it’s even conceivable that the US military suggested that the press guys hire armed bodyguards. Obviously I am speculating, but (so far) I haven’t seen a thing indicating that “being armed” necessarily meant the people in question were doing anything wrong.
It seems like these research-able facts would be good to have in hand before coming into the thread and giving an opinion about how one feels.
Uh…that’s got to be disingenuous (of the report, not you). It’s crystal clear that pretty much every urban area on earth contains noncombatants. Certainly Iraq and Afghanistan are packed with noncombatants, and the bad guys often operate quite close to them, in part specifically to bring about this kind of incident for propaganda purposes.
I’ll make it easy for the US military – from now on,* every urban area you are currently looking at* contains noncombatants. Sure, there’s an off chance that such a rule will occasionally be wrong, but statistically it’s almost a sure bet.
According to a pentagon spokesman I heard interviewed on NPR, yes. A RPG and spare rockets for the RPG was found on the scene after the fact.
This is more IMHO, but AK-47’s would be normal for bodyguards, but probably not RPGs?
Perhaps the journalists were covering some insurgents, and got caught in a legitimate attack? The van showing up later is just the kind of error that will occur whenever people are fighting in an urban area.
There was a firefight a few blocks away. The helicopters were not cruising looking for random people to shoot, they were looking for combatants related to that firefight. They see a group of adult males, carrying things which look like guns and RPG’s, headed for the firefight.
You would think non-combatants would learn to go hide inside the house when guns and explosions start going off. People walking towards the fight are objects of suspicion from their actions.
Then we have the question of who the other people are. I can see a pair of correspondents having a 2 or 3 bodyguards; I can’t see them having a dozen, plus a van on call; the US Military wrote their reports, I gather, before the issue became contentious. They claim they found weapons. If you think there’s reason they made this up, I’ll listen open-minded; I’m not American, I think the war was a big mistake on the part of the US, but I can’t blame ground/air troops for actions that seem pretty logical and level-headed.
If a pair of corrspondents are embedded in a group of hostile combatants, then should they be surprised if they are mistaken as part of the group and suffer the same fate? I’m sure correspondents embedded with the US military were accorded the same treatment as US soldiers by the insurgents. The Reuters organization trumpets who these two were, but little detail as to the 5 or 8 others killed.
Was the capability of the helicopters a complete surprise to the correspondents or the rest of the group (insurgents or not)? How long do you have to cover this war until you figure out that being out in the open, even when the helicopters are miles away, is lethally risky?
How long do the helicopters have to wait to be sure the alleged combatants have hostile intent? They walked toward the firefight, sheltered around the corner and poked what looked like a rocket launcher around the corner toward the fight. Likely it was a camera with a big lens. So what? What if the Bradley tank down the street saw them and hit them with a shell - would that have been OK?
If there is an onus on the US forces to be somewhat sure, there is an onus on nohostiles to at the very least not look like they were engaging in hostilities.
I chalk it up to a sad mistake where the correspondents did not realize the capability of the US forces and put themselves in mortal danger.
I agree entirely. Why don’t you get started on the research now?
Given that the government reports state there had been a convoy ambush nearby a little earlier, that weapons were found at the scene, and that the helicopter was called in as a result of the earlier attack to look for insurgents, I’d say you have a lot of work to do, and more so if you want to make some comment about cover-ups, or even if, like the target of your snarky comment, just want to offer your opinion (which is better done in another forum).
And once again a link to the reports: Centcom.mil
I spent a year in Baghdad. It is a city of about 7 million people. There are groups of people in the street constantly. I saw Apaches flying overhead constantly. They were not firing on random groups. As others said they need other criteria before they can engage. The Apaches were there because of enemy action, not because they saw some random group walking around.
The only eyesight criteria for army pilots is 20/20 vision (Lasix OK) at the time of flight school. Extra special vision not required.