US military WikiLeaks video release

[XT]

@Latro

The fact that it is numbered the 4th might be a clue to that there already was a Geneva Convention before the war.

And your point is? Leaving aside that the US was involved in the other 3, at least peripherally, the fact that there were 3 previous GC’s does not negate the statement that ‘Elucidator is right, the U.S. was one of the main driving forces behind the post-WWII development of international humanitarian law, but I think you’re too willing to find “war crimes” without a firm understanding of what precisely “war crimes” means.’, and that much of that had to do with the 4th convention protocols.

You obviously have a bug up your butt about the US, but you aren’t seriously trying to say that because there were 3 earlier GC’s that the US did nothing post WWII except hang some German war criminals…are you?

-XT

[Algher]

@ivan_astikov

The biggest crime is that they tried to pass off this incident as if there was no wrong-doing whatsoever, and would have kept this evidence from the world, but for a whistleblower’s actions.

Now, whatever your views, I’m sure you’d have to admit that this incident would not be used as a recommended practice video for how to behave in future circumstances.

Except that they held an investigation. The results of that were that the Military investigation did not find that a crime had been committed.

[elucidator]

What? A genuine, honest to goodness military investigation? Well, that certainly settles that!

[Algher]

@elucidator

What? A genuine, honest to goodness military investigation? Well, that certainly settles that!

What would you prefer?

A witch-hunt like we have going on here?
The International Criminal Court, which does not offer the same protections to the defendants as the US system?
US Criminal Court?

or is the UCMJ sufficient? It has been in use for a long time, has many excellent investigators, and has no problem investigating and convicting people on a regular basis.

We have a system, the system was used, and the result was not what some wanted. I get it. But it is disingenuous to infer that nothing was done about this.

[ivan_astikov]

Is it disingenuous to imply that the military were a little backward at coming forward with the information Reuters were after, and that they’d prefer little annoyances like this event never to reach the public ears? Is that how you’d like the military to operate, free of interference from do-gooder members of the public? Yes, let’s just leave the military to their own devices; they seem to have everything under control.

[Algher]

@ivan_astikov

Is it disingenuous to imply that the military were a little backward at coming forward with the information Reuters were after, and that they’d prefer little annoyances like this event never to reach the public ears? Is that how you’d like the military to operate, free of interference from do-gooder members of the public? Yes, let’s just leave the military to their own devices; they seem to have everything under control.

I think that the military cringes when people see the results of their votes. When you elect a government that sends men to war, this is what happens. People are shot, burned, blown-up, mutilated, disfigured, widowed, orphaned, etc.

If you don’t like the results of war, then don’t engage in it. Once you engage in war, however, do not act surprised when war actually happens. War is not two fighters in a duel, it is much large and much uglier. Bombs are dropped from high above, artillery destroys from miles away, helicopters fire machine guns from a distance, and snipers hit without coming close.

Please feel free to discuss with your elected representatives that the rules of engagement should be changed. Perhaps you can trigger a national debate on how and when someone can pull a trigger. It will no doubt become interesting, and some of the memories of Vietnam can be pulled back out into the sunlight for discussion.

[ivan_astikov]

Can you tell me how big the enemy’s army is and what sort of weaponry they have access to?

I know they seem to have a lot of IED’s that we just can’t get the hang of avoiding.

[Perciful]

@Algher

Except that they held an investigation. The results of that were that the Military investigation did not find that a crime had been committed.

So they thought they were shooting at bad guys and the cameras were weapons. I must admit that watching this clip really made me nervous. The shooter was demanding permission over and over to keeps shooting the wounded reporter. Then if that wasn’t bad enough he had to blow up the rescue van. He was blood thirsty. He wanted his pound of flesh and he got it.

It almost seemed as if the shooter, not his commanding officer was in charge? He was practically begging for permission to fire. It would not have hurt seeing the military advantage they had to stand down until they found out what target they had just taken out.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Perciful

So they thought they were shooting at bad guys and the cameras were weapons. I must admit that watching this clip really made me nervous. The shooter was demanding permission over and over to keeps shooting the wounded reporter. Then if that wasn’t bad enough he had to blow up the rescue van. He was blood thirsty. He wanted his pound of flesh and he got it.

It almost seemed as if the shooter, not his commanding officer was in charge? He was practically begging for permission to fire. It would not have hurt seeing the military advantage they had to stand down until they found out what target they had just taken out.

That’s not exactly what happened. They weren’t demanding permission to re-engage the wounded, crawling reporter. They said something akin to “just pick up a weapon, fella” so they could justify shooting at him again.

Where they were practically begging for permission was to engage the van.

[XT]

It’s amazing that in 9 pages none of this stuff has been brought up yet! Perciful, thanks for the new insights into this event. I can’t believe no one else has discussed any of this…

-XT

[ivan_astikov]

My sarcasm meter has just blew up.

[XT]

You need to get the new StraightDope industrial strength Sarcasm and Irony meter 2010 (deluxe edition…comes with fuzzy dice and a screen cover to protect from projectile vomit and sudden cola related accidents), and calibrate it to the ‘Unbelievable mon’!’ setting.

-XT

[Perciful]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

That’s not exactly what happened. They weren’t demanding permission to re-engage the wounded, crawling reporter. They said something akin to “just pick up a weapon, fella” so they could justify shooting at him again.

Where they were practically begging for permission was to engage the van.

Thanks for explaining it to me. I was pulling for the reporter to get cover and was happy to see him put into the van… Until the shooter got permission to blow that up.

[ivan_astikov]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

They said something akin to “just pick up a weapon, fella” so they could justify shooting at him again.

And you think that was okay? Do you, or maybe the helicopter crew, think even a battle hardened insurgent would have had the slightest clue where that hail of death came from, nevermind want to point a weapon in that direction?

[busterpickle]

Welcome to war people. This is what it is. How or why did you think it would be any different? Oh no, wait, its just like the movies where everything is clearly defined like a video game!

Although I am in the military right now, I am glad this video is out so people can see a real scenario pan out and see what our guys are dealing with on a daily basis. How decisions are made and the following fall-out. I just feel bad for those pilots and the guy who made the call to shoot.

But, I watched the video and, given a REAL-TIME situation, in a WAR ZONE, with KNOWN INSURGENT ACTIVITY, I can clearly see why. In the beginning of the video, I can see what I would clearly identify as weapons. No question. I also see two guys walking around with black bags, maybe some IEDs to take out some HUMVs or a market? And, around 2:47 (or so) I clearly see a guy with a fairly large object, kneeling behind the building, looking in the direction of the helicopter. Which I can easily see being misconstrued as someone ready to fire a RPG or similar device at me, in the helicopter, and taking cover via the corner of that said building. I could go on and on as others have but given the same situation I would have reported the same. You have to “live in the moment” of the recording, realize that there is a very high chance that someone will fire something at you, and you will then die. Now, look at the objects, and tell me that they do not look like weapons.

But, also, situational awareness? I mean, people just got lit up by a 30mm and you are going to go towards that area? Really? So, if you were in a “bad part of town” and heard gun shots, your first reaction is to run right in there, right? I dunno about you but, fuck them, I am going in the opposite direction.

Also, a lot of people are relating their civilian lives to what just happened. Yeah, being someone who came in at 27, the military existence is not at all like the civilian existence. There are some parallels but it is a totally different society. I think taking hindsight, a lack of military experience, and being a sea-lawyer, is the reason why so many people are unable to understand the video.

Get involved in public policy and pay attention to what the government is doing overseas? Stop us from interfering in other cultures? Oh, no, wait, everyone is an expert and “we” all know what is best for everyone. Time to start voting for people who don’t want to interfere with other countries.

If the military is making life or death decisions based on shadows that make cameras look like weapons there are deeper problems than the tragic deaths of a dozen civilians.

Have a problem? Join up and make us better! Oh, wait, you DON’T want to do that. Or, maybe vote people out of office who support war. Not the military itself but the actual act of war. No, didn’t do that either, huh?

[elucidator]

Hell, yes, we did, electronbee. Seems sometimes like I spent half my adult life pissed off about one military adventure or another. (I’ll never forget Grenada, but everybody else has…)

But we’re wimpy sniveling cowardly peaceniks, and its tough to get people to listen to us, once they start beating that goddam drum, everybody seems to lose their minds! Lot of us tried, we screamed, hollered, tore our hair and set ourselves on fire! It rolled merrily along as though we weren’t even there.

But I guarantee you we’ll try, and that’s all I can promise you. Someday, you’ll stop lacing up your boots and become a civilian. Maybe you’ll give us a hand. Lord knows, we can use it.

Thank you for your service. Home safe, God willing.

[CoolHandCox]

@electronbee

Although I am in the military right now, I am glad this video is out so people can see a real scenario pan out and see what our guys are dealing with on a daily basis. How decisions are made and the following fall-out. I just feel bad for those pilots and the guy who made the call to shoot.

Do you think there is anything in that video that a military would not want their enemy to see? For example…our ROE at the time (“pick up the weapon”)? Technology the enemy may not know existed? How the relay of communications worked? I’m just guessing, but anything like that? Would knowing any of that stuff benefit an enemy?

I’m trying to determine any possible reasons for not releasing the video after it was requested.

[XT]

@CoolHandCox

I’m trying to determine any possible reasons for not releasing the video.

I can think of several. One, it would be bad for morale…both military and public (ETA: remember, this was in 2007 when public morale especially was in the toilet about Iraq). Two, it would be open to the very kinds of things displayed in this thread, i.e. of people who know nothing about how the military works, and who are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of the pilot or gunner or thinking in terms of the chaos and fog of war, making snap judgments based on their own prejudices and predispositions. Three…there was no need to submit this to the public, since there was an investigation into the events, and, at a guess, the proper public representatives in the government were informed and probably show either the video in question or at least given a brief on the events and the investigation.

There are probably other reasons for them to not want to release it that I can’t think of off the top of my head as well. I’d say that the 1st and 2nd were probably the main factors though. Military intelligence was probably well down the list, though if released in 2007 it might have given away some intelligence on how our helicopter gunships were operating, a bit about our radio protocols and discipline, and a bit about how our ROE were being implemented in the field.

-XT

[CoolHandCox]

@xtisme

I can think of several. One, it would be bad for morale…both military and public (ETA: remember, this was in 2007 when public morale especially was in the toilet about Iraq). Two, it would be open to the very kinds of things displayed in this thread, i.e. of people who know nothing about how the military works, and who are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of the pilot or gunner or thinking in terms of the chaos and fog of war, making snap judgments based on their own prejudices and predispositions. Three…there was no need to submit this to the public, since there was an investigation into the events, and, at a guess, the proper public representatives in the government were informed and probably show either the video in question or at least given a brief on the events and the investigation

…

-XT

Just quickly…I edited my post, but you must have quoted me before the edit. It may make a difference, though. I added “after it was requested.” It being the video and being requested by Reuters.

I agree that the military would not want to voluntarily release the video for all the reasons you suggest.

But, I believe (going off memory) Reuters requested the video through the Freedom of Information Act. If so, then the Gov’t must turn over the video, unless an exemption applies stating they don’t have too. The most logical exemption to me is the National Defense exemption. I really don’t know what falls under the national security exemption, but something that would give an enemy insight into exactly how we fight likely would. Hence the ROE, radio protocol, or how the helicopters operate in the field as you suggested (ie, apparently far enough away that they can’t be heard).

[Algher]

@CoolHandCox

Just quickly…I edited my post, but you must have quoted me before the edit. It may make a difference, though. I added “after it was requested.” It being the video and being requested by Reuters.

I agree that the military would not want to voluntarily release the video for all the reasons you suggest.

But, I believe (going off memory) Reuters requested the video through the Freedom of Information Act. If so, then the Gov’t must turn over the video, unless an exemption applies stating they don’t have too. The most logical exemption to me is the National Defense exemption. I really don’t know what falls under the national security exemption, but something that would give an enemy insight into exactly how we fight likely would. Hence the ROE, radio protocol, or how the helicopters operate in the field as you suggested (ie, apparently far enough away that they can’t be heard).

Interesting question - here is what the Navy says are reasons for declining requests:

http://foia.navy.mil/foia/requests.asp

In limited instances, information may be withheld from disclosure if it is:
currently and properly classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy;
related solely to internal personnel rules and practices, the release of which would allow circumvention of a statute or rule;
protected by a statute that specifically exempts the information;
trade secrets and commercial or financial information which was obtained from a private source which would cause substantial competitive harm to the source;
pre-decisional opinions and recommendations, inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that show foreseeable harm if released. Also, attorney-client privilege and attorney-work product are covered;
personnel and medical information the release of which would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and/or

investigatory records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, which (a) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (b) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (c) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (d) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, (e) would disclose investigative techniques, and/or (f) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.