# US military WikiLeaks video release **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047 "2010-04-05T17:37:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/121 "2010-04-06T03:25:40Z")
The US military has [released some documents](http://washingtonindependent.com/81446/u-s-military-in-iraq-responds-to-wikileaks-releases-portions-of-internal-investigation) from its earlier investigation in response to the video. [Direct link to the PDFs.](http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View=%7B41BA1AAF-785A-481A-A630-12470AFCD6FD%7D) I transcribed some relevant text from the PDFs that gives background on the incident: From the mission order: > [@](#): > > ATTACK MISSION REQUEST > > A7. Justification … BN LEVEL DELIBERATE CLEARANCE: From recent INTEL, the Al-Amin area has increased with IED/EFP activities, 7th St with the most activities occurred. Previous SIGACTS IVO 7th St, was an RPG/SAF attack on CF when conducting patrols, a possible IED and an IED attack. > > TACTICAL AVIATION COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS > Supported Unit Mission Statement: 2-16 IN deliberate clearing operations between 5th street and 8th street on 120600JUL07 IOT allow CF freedom of movement along all routes in AO Ranger. > > EAD and direct fire threat: (what does the enemy have in this area that poses a threat to helicopters?) > Possible small arms, rooftop weapons teams, possible RPG-29 A sworn statement from one of the helicopter personnel (I think the gunner), and then a transcription of his questioning by a Lt. Colonel > [@](#): > > SWORN STATEMENT: > On 12 July 07, while conducting combat operations, in support of 2-16IN (?) in Zone 30, responded to a TIC, ground unit was taking small arms and RPG fire, from grid [redacted] spotted 11 individuals w/ AK-47 & RPG overlooking the ground unit, Immediately noticed individual with RPG come around the corner and attempt to fire at ground unit, requested immediate clearance of fire and was granted by H26 & Bushmaster 6… > [@](#): > > LTC: When did you first identify the van? > > CW3: The initial indication, sir when we rolled up and checked in, they said we had a black car, blue car, cant remember probably black, 4-door passenger vehicle that keeps dropping off enemy personnel and picking them up from that area. So our initial indication of that was when we first arrived on the scene. After the engagement, it had to have been two to three minutes maybe a little more, but we noticed another vehicle pull up. Initially [redacted] was looking at the corner for more weapons and possible bad guys up there. The van pulled up, guys jumped out, before we had the chance to get the line of sight down there, I noticed individuals moving to where the bodies were and where the weapons were. That’s why I immediately called the ground guys and said we have guys extracting personnel and weapons. > > LTC: That’s good information. I didn’t read the anything about the vehicle in your statement. Did the ground guys indicate that a black or blue sedan was there? > > CW3: They said a black 4-door sedan. It was dropping folks, and it was doing it all day they said. I forgot to put that in my debrief, but … > > LTC: The van comes up, you engage it. Did you acquire or see at anytime the size or shape of people in the van? > > CW3: I saw, when they opened up the doors, three to four individuals. I saw them go in and out, extract the personnel and weapons, and carry the guy back to the van. I did clear the individuals in the van. > > LTC: Did you see anything in the van? > > CW3: I couldn’t see inside the van, but they ran around right after I had seen them extract weapons and individuals. > > LTC: As you saw on the tape, they didn’t have any weapons. So, what drove you then? What threat made you want to engage the van? > > CW3: Well the friendlies were 300 meters away and from the initial report that a black car, sedan had been coming in and dropping off insurgents, taking them out, moving them to different locations. That was my whole thought process. And a statement from another of the helicopter personnel > [@](#): > > On 12 July 2007 in support of combat operations CZ18/19 responded to a TIC (Troops in Contact) in Zone 30. I was in the lead aircraft CZ18. Prior to arrival in Zone 30 I contacted Bushmaster 06 for a situation report. Bushmaster 06 informed me that the elements on the ground had been receiving small arms and RPG fire from the east of their position and he wanted the team too search for the AIF teams. CZ 18/19 proceeded to search for AIF, CZ19 spotted approximately 10-15 AIF with weapons preparing to engage the friendly forces. I then got the AIF in my TADS and observed the individuals with AK-47’s and RPG launchers. One AIF was leaning around a corner with an RPG preparing to engage friendly forces so I called Bushmaster 06 to ask for clearance of fire. … ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/122 "2010-04-06T03:38:22Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] Seconds to make a decision or what? One wounded insurgent gets taken to a hospital? The split-second decision thing matters if the cost of not acting is high - if you think a guy might be pulling out a SAM to take out your helicopter, or may be about to shoot your forces on the ground, such a snap judgement is understandable. But what’s the downside here, one half-dead insurgent gets away? That’s not the sort of terrible downside that requires risking killing a rescuer. [/QUOTE] I don’t know what the rationale was for attacking the van, as I said in a latter post. I agree, it does not seem like it was necessary to engage the van. > [@](#): > > Your analysis leaves no room for how reasonable their judgements and beliefs are. You are essentially saying that so long as they can articulate a reason, no matter how justified, then you can’t second guess them. If they saw a 5 year old walking on the street with an ice cream cone but somehow thought it was a hand grenade, they could be justified in saying “that sick fuck! He’s licking a hand grenade! He’s dangerous!” and blowing him away. I exaggerate only slightly. Well, the devil is in the level of exaggeration. What we had was a group of men who, while under observation appeared to have weapons, in an area where attacks had been reported. We didn’t have a 5 year old holding an icecream or a rubber knife here. And we have at least some of the presumably real gun camera footage. So…it’s not just a matter of some trigger happy gun bunnies looking to zap anything that moved. The military has a process that defines when and how troops can engage the enemy, and under what conditions. Those rules are a bit looser when in a war zone such as Iraq certainly was in 2006. > [@](#): > > The helicopter crew seemed to be itching for a reason to engage that targets and were using any flimsy evidence they could to justify their actions. The guy on the other end making the decision as to whether to give permission or not only has their report to go on - and their report is clearly designed to get them the permission they seek. That’s not how I saw it, watching the video. To me, they were itching to engage because they were certain that these guys were hostile, and armed…and they knew that they had only a very small window in which to do so, before these guys moved into buildings or separated. True, the guy at the other end only had these guys word for whether or not they were potentially armed hostiles, or a troop of 5 year old’s toting ice cream cones. And you have to trust the guys at the sharp end to be able to distinguish between the two (or between a group of unarmed civilians and a group of armed civilians). But you also have to understand that under conditions like those in this event, mistakes can easily happen. We have a process for dealing with mistakes in the military, especially egregious or deliberate ones. This even WAS investigated. Perhaps that investigation was whitewashed…but then again, perhaps it wasn’t. Based on the little actual evidence that has been presented in this thread (which boils down to me and everyone else essentially talking out of their ass about a grainy, choppy and confusing video with a bunch of subtext helpfully spliced in by a group that, to be gentle, is probably not unbiased), I don’t see how one can really say one way or the other. That said, and to be perfectly honest (and after thinking and forcing myself to watch it again several times), I do think that the attack on the van was unnecessary and was probably a mistake. As I said earlier, even if the van was full of insurgents, it was posing no immediate threat, and was clearly engaged simply in removing the wounded from the field. > [@](#): > > Why isn’t their judgement subject to question? You seem to think that so long as they came to the conclusions they did, even if they were essentially trying to make the vague facts fit what they wanted, then they’re justified. I call BS. Would every Apache crew have made the same decision there? Would a more cautious crew investigated further or decided not to attack? Their judgement is definitely in question here. I never said their judgment wasn’t subject to question, merely that you throw the book at them for being wrong. Not without being able to demonstrate that they were criminally negligent, which, based on the video, I’m not seeing. > [@](#): > > As for your attacks on the guy driving the van - quite frankly I find them kind of disgusting. The guy seems to be a hero - he saw someone bleeding to death and decided to help him. Let’s say this was a car bomb or IED instead of a helicopter attack - what happens then? The guy rushes in, picks up the half-dead reuters reporter, rushes him to a hospital, and gets labelled a hero. But in this case, because he rushed to the site of a helicopter attack that he couldn’t see, he’s an idiot instead? This man should not be demonized for trying to do the right thing. Well, feel disgusted all you like. I still don’t see it as reasonable to bring your children into such a situation. If this attitude disgusts you, well…I’ll try and carry on somehow in light of your bad opinion of me. > [@](#): > > Even then - maybe he did know it was a helicopter attack. Maybe he was one of the Iraqis that actually liked the Americans or at least respected them, so he thought “well, even if was an air attack, the Americans are too decent to attack me if all I’m doing is trying to rush a wounded guy to the hospital.” Woops. Sadly, the helicopter crew could not ask him what his feelings were, or check to see that there were children inside the van. As I’ve already conceded that I am puzzled by the attack on the van, I don’t think I really need to go over this again…especially in light of your disgust. I’ll just leave it that I think it was a mistake on the part of the authorizing officer, and that it looks to me (from what little evidence we actually have here) that there was no good reason to engage the van in the manner it was engaged in. > [@](#): > > Again, they did at 9:15. The helicopter crew obviously knew that this wasn’t actually happening, but they didn’t report that fact to their command, so the guy on the other end of the radio may still think the van is full of insurgents picking up the weapons. It probably played a role in his decision to authorize them firing on the van. They say that the van is going in to pick up bodies. Then, later, the guy speculates that the van is there to pick up ‘weapons and bodies’…but it’s pretty clear he’s speculating, and that the van hasn’t even stopped yet. Things happen rather fast after that…they continue the dialogue saying that they see the guys getting one of the wounded, and by 9:50 they are given permission to engage. I don’t see that they tricked the (I presume from the call sign) commanding officer, only that things are happening really fast. There is also some other chatter on the line, so the authorizing officer is probably not just sitting there talking to this crew alone. You are probably right…it most likely DID play a role in his decision to authorize the crew to attack, but that’s the fog of war. I’m sure this disgusts you as well, and, frankly, it doesn’t make me feel all that great either, since I think it was a mistake (and the thought of those kids in there makes me ill every time I look at this thing). > [@](#): > > Look, I honestly normally take the “it’s easy to be critical in hindsight, but when people are shooting at you and you don’t have all the information available to you, it’s easy and justifiable to make mistakes” side of the argument. But this is bullshit. You might be able to justify the original attack (I don’t think the men are armed, but they may be), but the attack on the van was pure bullshit and unjustifiable. The crew in question here was just begging for the people down there to do anything to justify killing them, and they stretched the facts in reporting to their command in order to get permission to do so. They clearly wanted to make this attack happen. It’s hard to say without the overall context of what had happened in the area before this attack, but it seems like the crew were going beyond what was necesary in order to make this attack. And I don’t see it this way, although I usually play the devils advocate and ‘pro’ military punch bunny on this board, so I’m possibly (probably) biased. I really see this as a fog of war event, with a hugely compressed time table, and a crew that really believed that these guys were armed enemy, and wanting the fat assed officer on the other end of the line to get off his butt and let them engage before the bad guys got away. While this attitude is also ‘disgusting’, it’s also very human. The van incident was, at least from what I’ve seen so far, over the top, and probably was a combination of buck fever and that fog of war with the compressed time frame, plus a lot of confusion and extraneous radio chatter from other sources (if you can stomach it, go back to the part between the the van pulls up and the attack, and you can see some unknown speakers saying stuff like ‘yeah, they are asking for authorization’…obviously neither the crew of the helicopter or the officer on the other end). > [@](#): > > I mean, really - you need some threshold of confidence that you’ve identified an enemy to justify attacking him. What point is that at? If you’re 1% sure they’re an insurgent, are you justified in killing them? 20%? 50%? If your life, or the lives of others, are in immediate obvious danger, then you can shoot with lesser confidence. But there was no urgency here - the helicopter was in no danger, the people on the ground were just walking around, not on the attack or acting threatning in any way. A vague notion, or a low probability, that they may be insurgents just does not justify an attack. They were killed just on the vague notion that they were holding something that a few pixels suggested just maybe could be a weapon, or maybe not. This was not a life or death split second decision, this was a deliberate judgement to kill people for who there was little evidence of their evil intent. If the helicopter crew misreported the situation in order to ensure they got permission to open fire from command, then they should be punished in some way. If the helicopter crew followed proper procedures, and it’s our policy in Iraq to just blow up anyone who vaguely may be an insurgent even in a non-life-or-death situation, then the people making our policy should be punished. Then you change the ROE to be ‘you can engage the enemy only when fired on’, or something like that…and you pay the other side of the consequences (both politically, in morale and militarily) for that decision. There IS no optimal solution to something like this (except to not be there in the first place), not magic solution that will work every time. You put soldiers (kids really) out there in harms way, then you give them guidelines to work under…and then you hope they don’t make too many mistakes, or fuck up to often. Because they ARE going to make mistakes, they ARE going to fuck up. Situations like this ARE going to happen, especially when the people you are fighting look, dress and even act exactly like the population they are moving through. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/123 "2010-04-06T03:42:15Z")
Well, thanks to toadspittle, I guess we know why they engaged the van now at least. -XT ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/124 "2010-04-06T04:03:53Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > I saw a bunch of guys standing around in the street. I did not see any hostile actions, any large number of guns, anything that could threaten the helicopter, or any indication at all that they were insurgents. I don’t see anything that precludes that they could have been just hanging out in front of the drug store. That is kind of what it looks like. So, if you can show that they weren’t in fact just hanging out in front of the drug store, please do so. Having viewed the video (and I really don’t care to see that sort of thing again if I don’t have to), I think there are plenty of reasons to think the Apache gunners were entirely too quick on the trigger, and that the military turned a blind eye to the murder of a dozen or so unarmed civilians, but this was clearly not a situation of ‘guys hanging out in front of the drug store’. It seems reasonable to me that the neighborhood was aware that there had been some sort of action in the general area, that American ground troops were a few blocks away and (my opinion) that some of the people of the neighborhood were showing the Reuters reporters the general direction and location of the action they had heard or seen. The helicopter gunners pretty clearly mistook the Reuters reporters’ cameras for weapons. Everyone else on the radio link apparently assumed this was true, but there is little sign that anyone other than the Apache crews had a direct view of the location, so they controlled the narrative. One could argue that the first engagement was, if one is being generous, a tragic error of judgement, but the second engagment, where the Apaches shot up the van, can hardly be seen as anything other than gratuitous overkill, and, in my no doubt worthless opinion, should have resulted in prosecution for the parties involved. In conclusion, I cannot see this incident as anything other than a gross embarrassment to our military. I am fully aware that such tragedies are a dime a dozen in urban conflicts, but we must do better. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/125 "2010-04-06T04:13:31Z")
> [@](#): > > …Well, thanks to toadspittle, I guess we know why they engaged the van now at least. Not sure why you think so. The respondent “CW3” says twice he “saw them extract…weapons”. Apparently, this is offered to support the legitimacy of the “engagement” But then… > [@](#): > > …LTC: As you saw on the tape, they didn’t have any weapons. So, what drove you then? What threat made you want to engage the van? > > CW3: Well the friendlies were 300 meters away and from the initial report that a black car, sedan had been coming in and dropping off insurgents, taking them out, moving them to different locations. That was my whole thought process… I don’t think the answers follow the questions, here. Confronted with the fact that there were no weapons, the respondent starts talking again about a black sedan. I get that he’s suggesting that his actions were taken to protect advancing friendlys. But protect them from what, when there were no weapons? His answer ignores the question. If they “extracted weapons”, then they had weapons, unless they threw them away! Did anyone see any weapons in these outakes? I sure didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/126 "2010-04-06T04:19:15Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Not sure why you think so. The respondent “CW3” says twice he “saw them extract…weapons”. Apparently, this is offered to support the legitimacy of the “engagement” [/QUOTE] Because there was obviously some confusion in the mix about this other, alleged car that had been dropping off insurgents throughout the day. Assuming the commander had been receiving such reports, and had it in mind that a black car was doing this in the area, I can see how this could be conflated (in the mind of the commander) to equate to this vehicle, when it showed up. Unconfirmed though reported black car…sighted black van, driving directly into an area where his helicopter just engaged a group of (presumed) armed hostiles, and clearly seen picking up the wounded. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the answers follow the questions, here. Confronted with the fact that there were no weapons, the respondent starts talking again about a black sedan. I get that he’s suggesting that his actions were taken to protect advancing friendlys. But protect them from what, when there were no weapons? His answer ignores the question. If they “extracted weapons”, then they had weapons, unless they threw them away! Yeah, he’s pretty obviously realizing that he fucked up, and that he had jumped to conclusions that turned out to not be true. It’s easy to see in hindsight how this thing went so horribly wrong, and I think (based on the reading of the transcript above) that this guy realized this was the case, when he was asked the question after reviewing the video material and the radio transcripts. > [@](#): > > Did anyone see any weapons in these outakes? I sure didn’t. No, though in fairness, a lot of the action was happening behind the van, from the perspective of the helicopter crew. The video shows the camera zoomed in on the passenger side, but the wounded guy and the two guys (and driver) were all on the drivers side, except briefly when the driver comes over to the passenger side for some reason. They engaged the van before the camera finished panning to the drivers side, and after that it was too confused with smoke and cannon shells going off to see much of anything. -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/127 "2010-04-06T04:24:53Z")
> [@](#): > > …and clearly seen picking up the wounded… The report that the van was picking up the wounded was sent before the van had even stopped moving! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/128 "2010-04-06T04:27:27Z")
Ah…never mind as well then. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/129 "2010-04-06T05:34:47Z")
Fuck this war. ---
**Author:** ![Mekhazzio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@Mekhazzio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mekhazzio)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/130 "2010-04-06T09:08:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The report that the van was picking up the wounded was sent before the van had even stopped moving! The context here is that while they were prognosticating, they were doing so for a common event. Early in the Iraq adventure, I remember hearing grousing from military types about how restrictive the ROE was. An anecdote from one fellow was that he watched two guys come up, set up a mortar, and start plinking the base he was guarding with mortar fire. Having then obtained permission to do so, he shoots the mortar team. Then before a US team can get out there, three more guys come up and proceed to haul away the mortar, its ammunition, and the wounded/killed mortar team. Since the salvage guys were not making directly hostile actions, they were not valid targets, despite the fact that they were almost certainly enabling the opportunity to come back in the near future and do some more shelling. This happened constantly and thus, as things heated up, the rules of engagement were changed to cover that, under the theory that application of sufficient military force can defeat an insurgency. A van racing to get to the combat scene before the US troops can does look like a salvage operation. I’ve commented on how strange I find it that the van didn’t need to actually perform any equipment gathering. To play devil’s advocate, I suppose the idea is that if the request to engage waited until they were scooping up the “weapons”, they could’ve driven off before clearance came back, but that still isn’t kosher. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/131 "2010-04-06T09:48:01Z")
A lot of this thread seems to hinge on whether the victims actually were holding AK47s or not. Why is holding an AK47 _a priori_ justification to engage? From what I’ve read, foreign nationals who go to work in Iraq immediately buy long arms to protect themselves from prospective kidnappings, etc. I can see many civilians also wanting to arm themselves, too, in the near-anarchy of Iraq. (Of course, the real outrage here isn’t just the killing itself, but the stonewalling after the fact. Swearing blind that the victims were killed in a battle and denying FOIA requests is pretty sickening. If WikiLeaks hadn’t decrypted the video, nobody would have known better). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/132 "2010-04-06T12:34:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I’ve gathered that it is standard practice for us. I recall reading about how in our attack on Fallujah, we made a point of occupying the hospitals and of shooting anyone trying to rescue the wounded. Or flee, for that matter. Let’s see a cite for this. A credible one. Any other response is an admission that you made it up. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/133 "2010-04-06T13:30:48Z")
> [@Terraplane](#): > > _sigh_ I guess what I’m wondering is just how many _unarmed_ people does a gunship have to blow away before you decide that somebody fucked up and should be held accountable for their actions? The answer is “all of them”. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/134 "2010-04-06T13:39:55Z")
> [@](#): > > EAD and direct fire threat: (what does the enemy have in this area that poses a threat to helicopters?) > Possible small arms, **rooftop weapons teams** , possible RPG-29 Wait, the small arms were only possible, the RPG was only possible, but there definitely were rooftop weapons teams? I didn’t hear that mentioned at all. > [@](#): > > SWORN STATEMENT: > On 12 July 07, while conducting combat operations, in support of 2-16IN (?) in Zone 30, responded to a TIC, ground unit was taking small arms and RPG fire, from grid [redacted] spotted **11 individuals w/ AK-47 & RPG overlooking the ground unit** , Immediately noticed individual with RPG come around the corner and **attempt to fire at ground unit** , requested immediate clearance of fire and was granted by H26 & Bushmaster 6… Overlooking the ground unit where? They were all standing in a group looking at each other. Where was this ground unit located during the encounter? And when did he see someone with an RPG try to take a shot? I never even saw the RPG, much less someone lining up a shot with one. Either there is footage or other points of view we’re not seeing, or this guy is just trying to cover his ass. > [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Having viewed the video (and I really don’t care to see that sort of thing again if I don’t have to), I think there are plenty of reasons to think the Apache gunners were entirely too quick on the trigger, and that the military turned a blind eye to the murder of a dozen or so unarmed civilians, but this was clearly not a situation of ‘guys hanging out in front of the drug store’. It seems reasonable to me that the neighborhood was aware that there had been some sort of action in the general area, that American ground troops were a few blocks away and (my opinion) that some of the people of the neighborhood were showing the Reuters reporters the general direction and location of the action they had heard or seen. By ‘hanging out in front of the drug store’ I mean ‘going about normal business, and not being hostile insurgents’. They weren’t doing anything to warrant being gunned down. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/135 "2010-04-06T13:52:23Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > They weren’t doing anything to warrant being gunned down. That part I agree with. ---
**Author:** ![capeo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@capeo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capeo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/136 "2010-04-06T14:27:54Z")
Even in the this low-res version of the video it is clear, as the LTC says in his questioning, that there were no weapons visible and certainly NOT five or fucking six AK’s and an RPG. It’s also clear nobody was taking fire from that group. The gunner was lying to get permission to engage. It’s that simple. And he should be prosecuted for it. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/137 "2010-04-06T14:46:02Z")
It seems absolutely clear to me now that 1) the helicopter pilots were under a certain amount of pressure to clear the street for oncoming American forces, 2) they exaggerated the threat based on unclear information, 3) they gave erroneous info in order to receive clearance to fire, and 4) at least one of them told bald-faced lies during his sworn testimony. There were no units overlooking the ground. There was no confirmed sighting of an RPG. How is any of this crap acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/138 "2010-04-06T15:17:22Z")
I’m not sure how the Army works exactly, but I think the “permission to fire” thing has much less to do with the ROE than people think. It’s more about battlefield awareness and command and control. Permission to engage can be denied for several reasons. Perhaps these aren’t really bad guys, but rather friendly forces, possibly even undercover friendly forces. Perhaps there are friendlies nearby that might take collateral damage. Perhaps C&C has intel that a camera crew is in the area and it believes the gunship might be mistaken. Perhaps HQ has decided to let the enemy go in order to track them to their safe houses. Perhaps there’s available intelligence that says this group of hostiles is holding hostages and shouldn’t be engaged. The gunship crew doesn’t have a good picture of either the overall mission objectives or the battlefield at large, which is why they get permission before engaging. It’s less of “Do you believe my story about these guys being bad guys” and much more about “Do you perhaps know something that I don’t know about this situation that would preclude me from engaging this target.” The only advantage to exaggerating the threat is perhaps to get an answer faster, but I seriously doubt that the guy granting approval would ever say something like, “Only 2 AKs? They don’t sound that dangerous. Maybe they’re not really a threat.” ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/139 "2010-04-06T15:26:06Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > It seems absolutely clear to me now that 1) the helicopter pilots were under a certain amount of pressure to clear the street for oncoming American forces, 2) they exaggerated the threat based on unclear information, 3) they gave erroneous info in order to receive clearance to fire, and 4) at least one of them told bald-faced lies during his sworn testimony. There were no units overlooking the ground. There was no confirmed sighting of an RPG. > > How is any of this crap acceptable? Exactly. Credibility is a soldier’s most important quality. And these were _officers_! If the U.S. military can’t trust its own officers to provide accurate information, its problems run very, very deep. ---
**Author:** ![Terraplane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@Terraplane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terraplane)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047/140 "2010-04-06T15:41:32Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > How is any of this crap acceptable? Hey man, it’s just SOP in war, you know. > [@U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal](#): > > We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there’s danger, they’re asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. **However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I’ve been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it.** That doesn’t mean I’m criticizing the people who are executing. I’m just giving you perspective. **We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force**. Sure, ensuring that our targets aren’t harmless civilians might save hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent people, but it could also slightly increase the risk to our trained volunteer soldiers. I think we should maintain our policy of ‘when in doubt, shoot’ because after all, can you really put a value on [del]a life[/del] an american life? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-wikileaks-video-release/535047.md?page=8)