It may be found here.
Bill Roggio has his explanation also.
It may be found here.
Ignoring all facts, photos and runups....
IMHO the excited tone of the gunner says it all... he had tasted blood and would have fired on the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders if they had been there...
I observed this in soldiers (myself included) when they had attacks of frustration and fury when someone else "got one" and they did not... insane jeasousy of those who did not, "I'mtheman-I'mthe man-I'mtheman" playing in the back of the head of the guy who did....
This guy probably high fived himself menatally.
I suspect when he is older, married and has kids of his own he will see the light, especially as far as the kids are concerned....
Discipline is supposed to keep such phenomena sufficiently in check.
Monday Morning Quarterbacks?
I am a little surprised by the general comments on this one. I think most of you should go back and read the Rules of War (FM27-10) and then the ROEs. (You might also want to get jmm99 involved in this one.) If I am a civilian and pickup a weapon on the battle field I become a combatant and btw, if I drop the weapon, I do not become a non-combatant again. This group of Iraqi "civilians" engaged our troops with AK-47s and RPGs. They were then treated like insurgents. They were tracked down and they were killed. If they are not tracked down and killed, they will reture to kill you (or Iraqi civilians, usually the ones on our side) later. The war crime was not US soldiers killing civilians but the war crime was insurgents using civilians as shields.
Maybe you should go read the GC IV and the additional protocol I.Originally Posted by Polarbear1605
You better not argue that the GC is applicable, for article 51 and 57 of the additional protocol I pretty much declare the Apache gunners to be war criminals while articles 28, 34 and 35 of GC IV and article 51 GC IV additional protocol I could teach you what illegal human shields are in reality (and there were none in the video).
The popular understanding of "human shields" is badly blurred because the topic has been used too often for (often wrong) accusations in IO/propaganda since Desert Storm.
So better leave out the international law; it damns only the uniformed side of that video.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument
Finally the GC III text for completeness' sake (only relevant to POW "human shields")
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004a9e68
(I happened to have a closer look at the topic last year, that's why I have these links and articles that readily.)
GC??? Who said anything about GC?
I love the military mind, it automatically fires before it is aimed by turning doctrine into dogma.
Hey Fuchs, FM 27-10 is a US Army Field Manual that applies to all US Militray personnel and I agree you need to stay away from the GC because it is basically setup for state-on-state affairs and therefore rewards treachery. Like it or not combat is always governed by rules of war and they are clear on insurgents and combatants. If you want to debate GC and treachery go back and read the Lieber Code...no reward for treachery there..and you might want to read up on "strategic legalism".
Last edited by Polarbear1605; 04-06-2010 at 06:29 PM.
Who cares about a field manual? It's been approved by soldiers (at most "by order of the secretary of the army"), not by a parliament.
The GC ranks much higher than any FM. It's been signed by the POTUS and ratified by congress. It has the force of a law.
FM 27-10 is pretty much an interpretation guidance booklet, not the rule book itself.
We can stay away from the (usually highly unpleasant, for various reasons) GC in this discussion.
It's not legal to ignore it in a war zone, though.
By the way; the GC III is relevant to the Iraq War 2003-201x:
(Iraq ratified.)Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(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, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(...)
Imagine this is in Afghanistan today and go tell McChrystal...
First let me commend Small Wars Journal for having the guts to post a thread about this.
Glen Greenwald at Salon.com has made the obvious deduction; this is how America makes war; all the time. Each time an incident of this nature makes it into the media, we are first asked to believe that what happened was unfortunate but completely justified and when that excuse is shredded, we are told that the event was an "isolated incident".
It is quite obvious that these incidents are not "isolated"; there have been too many of them for that. They are a direct result of policy, training and culture. The suppression of the video by the military, the refusal of the Obama Administration to release photographs of torture victims, the deliberate targeting of journalists, the "whitewash" investigations and trials that always seem to lead to acquittal, all point to the same thing; this is standard operating procedure.
I know at some stage someone will explain the rigorous rules of engagement and controls in place that are supposed to prevent these incidents, however it is quite obvious that they are honoured in the breach. The military don't give a damn about brown people getting killed, they just don't want it to get into the media, and if it does, they want a defence to limit career damage. There is no technical (in the widest sense) solution to this problem. To put it another way, the military would not have suppressed this video if it did not show a shameful act.
The heart of the American problem is the basic hypocrisy at it's core; when challenged over an incident like this, the ultimate fall back position is; "Well, these are little brown people, and we don't live here, so we do what we have to do." This is the same attitude that gave all of us the banking crisis and numerous other disasters; "Yeah, I know we said we were trustworthy, but we gotta make a buck". "Yeah, I know we have a Constitution, but waterboarding works".
Let me ask the obvious question. What is the point of "Hearts and Minds" campaigning at all when you also do this? How much goodwill has just been lost? How many recruits to jihad has this and similar incidents created?
To borrow a quote; ""Aiding the enemy? If the truth aids the enemy then we are in the wrong war."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
Last edited by walrus; 04-06-2010 at 06:00 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks