The Wikileaks collection

[Danny]

We have a successful history of treating participants in the fight the same way regardless of whether they are carrying a weapon.

See:

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48166

To curb insurgents’ ability to communicate, Costa decided on a revolutionary move: He and his unit would dismantle the enemy’s communication lines by neutralizing the threat from signalers. Sparing no time, he set a tone in Ramadi that signalers would be dealt with no differently from their weapon-wielding insurgent comrades.

By successful, I obviously mean "it worked."

HPS

[Cecil Turner]

You cannot shoot your neighbour next door just because you suspect he's got a weapon. You gotta wait till he threatens you with it.

Totally inapt. This isn't a backyard outing, it's a wartime engagement in which the convoy in question had already been fired upon. This group of insurgents had offensive weapons, were obviously part of the larger attack, and were pointing optics on the convoy. They were obviously combatants with hostile intent. The ROE in effect defined it as: "evidence of hostile intent is considered to exist when a foreign force or terrorist(s): is detected to maneuver into a weapon launch position; is preparing to fire, launch or release weapons . . ." There was no requirement to wait until they aimed, or whatever split-second point before firing you believe is when they "threaten."

And on the van thing, you're also wrong. It was not marked (red cross or crescent), and hence not an ambulance. The presumption of them being civilians is not plausible as they run into a fire zone to rescue combatants, and the law of war does not obligate shooters to allow combatants (even wounded ones) to escape.

[Fuchs]

Totally inapt. This isn't a backyard outing, it's a wartime engagement in which the convoy in question had already been fired upon.

Thanks, that's what I waited for.

This is the core of the problem. Any attitude like "we are soldiers in a war zone, thus we are above the law and our lives are more worth than civilian lives, we can kill civilians for the smallest of reasons" is simply wrong.
It may have become institutional culture in some places, but that doesn't change the fact that it's just wrong. It merely casts a damning light on the institution.
Soldiers are not above the law, they cannot re-define terms, they are not allowed to shoot civilians trying to evac wounded.


In addition to that, you seem to purposefully ignore the Geneva Convention quoted earlier in this thread.

GC III was ratified by the U.S. and Iraq and forbids the attack on the van without doubt. It needs no red-white paint job at all.

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;
(...)

You guys should really have a milieu change and get out of the "war and soldiers are special" group think. Murder is murder, crime is crime and the van scene was beyond doubt a war crime.
The only thing that's so special about war in this regard is that a murder has been turned into a war crime. Killing unarmed people who merely want to move a wounded man into a hospital with aimed fire is a crime, no matter war or peace.



The whole affair will simply add to the reputation, national security and foreign policy problems of the U.S..
Pro war crime excuses on an internationally accessible forum only add to the unappreciated effect. Every excuse of the attack on unarmed medevac effort by civilians simply tells the world: "This is what we do and we think it's right. Expect more."

This extreme unreadiness to correct own faults is a recurrent theme in U.S . policy and the GWOT. Take the Guantanamo example. First this extralegal extradition (much of it outright illegal, such as abduction of people in Europe) and then the unreadiness to correct it by accepting these abducted persons either in a domestic prison for criminals or in a POW camp.


Guess what? This kind of #### is the reason why you have so many troubles with foreigners in the first place (and it certainly sabotaged the military mission in both Iraq & AFG).

[Polarbear1605]

To Cecil Turner: Hear, Hear Sir!
To Fuchs:

our lives are more worth than civilian lives

"Ours" meaning US Soldiers and Marines, YES! if the choice is America parents and wives welcoming their sons and daughters home at the airports after a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan and watching Iraqi parents and wives cry, I will always vote and work for seeing happy americans. Like I said before:

I have a hard time listening to anyone you says the US military does not go to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties

[Rex Brynen]

"Ours" meaning US Soldiers and Marines, YES! if the choice is America parents and wives welcoming their sons and daughters home at the airports after a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan and watching Iraqi parents and wives cry, I will always vote and work for seeing happy americans.

While I fundamentally disagree with Fuchs on what the helicopter footage shows, it is worth remembering that coalition forces are now in Iraq and Afghanistan with the permission of the local government, in part for the purpose of securing the local population. Any attitude which suggests that protecting host nation nationals is secondary to preserving the lives of coalition troops deployed there runs counter, in my view, to the very purpose of the mission.

[Ken White]

While I fundamentally disagree with Fuchs on what the helicopter footage shows...

Not that. We're in total agreement on that aspect.

This:

...Any attitude which suggests that protecting host nation nationals is secondary to preserving the lives of coalition troops deployed there runs counter, in my view, to the very purpose of the mission.

I strongly agree with that and would hope that in a combat situation I'd remember it always. I'm fortunate in being able to say that so far, I've done that. I was lucky and everyone cannot say that.

That's due to the fact that in similar circumstances but other places, I've several times seen Soldiers and Marines from several nations as well as the US, mostly good people who meant well, allow their fondness for their friends and allies as opposed to concern for real or potential antagonists to cause a certain loss of objectivity or rearrangement of priorities in favor of the former and with some disregard of mission parameters. Under some circumstances, even those who should be enforcing the mission goals and discipline in general have got caught up in the excitement...

People are pesky critters, they just won't behave as they're supposed to -- or as we wish...

[Cecil Turner]

Thanks, that's what I waited for.

Soldiers are not above the law, they cannot re-define terms, they are not allowed to shoot civilians trying to evac wounded.

You seem to think there is some universal definition of self-defense that applies equally in a war zone during a firefight or in a civilian situation. There isn't. The insurgents were not civilians, and they weren't entitled to maneuver in peace until they got into a favorable firing position.

In addition to that, you seem to purposefully ignore the Geneva Convention quoted earlier in this thread.

GC III was ratified by the U.S. and Iraq and forbids the attack on the van without doubt. It needs no red-white paint job at all.

No, you ignored my response.

Fuchs went to the trouble of finding the treaty, but then failed to read the pertinent notes section, which includes in part: "An escape, or an attempt at escape, by a prisoner or any other person considered to be ' hors de combat, ' justifies the use of arms for the purpose of stopping him."

[Fuchs]

No, you ignored my response.

I ignored it because it's irrelevant in this case. The wounded person to be recovered by the civilians with the van was not attempting anything but possibly breathing.

Furthermore, the recovering people (with the van) were fired at at the same time and they were protected persons according to GC III Article 3.
To recover a wounded person is not = "taking part in active hostilities".
Besides, they were unarmed and thus at the very least equal to combatants who laid down their weapons, another category of protected persons according to GC III Article 3, an international treaty with the force of law in Iraq and the U.S. which you insist to ignore.

[Cecil Turner]

I ignored it because it's irrelevant in this case. The wounded person to be recovered by the civilians with the van was not attempting anything but possibly breathing.

How about "escaping"? And your persistence in assuming the people in the van are civilians is hardly convincing. The speed with which they arrived on the scene, despite generally deserted streets, and their actions in taking a combatant away from a firefight with US ground forces in close proximity strongly suggests they were fellow combatants. (And hence a legitimate target.)

If the goal was medical attention for the wounded, the best thing they could've done was stay put. But of course they'd have been captured.

[patmc]

Just watched the video after reading the other posts and some of the linked sites.

From my viewing, I think there are legitimate questions about both the video and the events shown. WikiLeaks has a slant and an agenda and the material is presented as such. Cameras and journalists are identified, but rifles and RPG are not. The full back story of the TIC and AO are not presented fully. As pointed out elsewhere, the majority of civilians are inside, away from the action, likely because they knew something was going on. This area of Baghdad in 2007 was not a nice place and groups of civilians with weapons were usually not picking up garbage.

The two journalists unfortunately seemed to have embedded with insurgents. They don't appear to be wearing hunting vests or safety vests (or something more appropriate) to identify as non-combatants, they're in civilian attire with cameras. It is easy to point out they are just cameras after the fact, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were viewed as suspicious. I remember from reading "Thunder Run" that several journalists were mistakenly identified as spotters or scouts for the enemy during OIF I and were targeted in the Palestine Hotel (?). The unit was receiving fire and saw someone with a lens that looked like optics or a range finder and they engaged. In retrospect, it is easy to say they were journalists, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were engaged. Someone pointed out that spotters were treated as combatants in Ramadi and targeted as such. During my tour in OIF IV, we conducted convoy security and a indicator of enemy action was cameramen. Under our understanding of the ROE, it was conceivable a cameraman was a legitimate target under specific circumstances (ie: filming the site of an IED ambush at the moment of ambush). Thankfully, we never tested that one.

US forces see several armed men amongst a larger group of men, around the corner from a US patrol and assume they are hostile. Has anyone discovered if the armed men were not in fact insurgents? If they were not, they should have tried to reasonably identify themselves as not-hostile. If you walk around an active combat area with weapons, you are increasing your chances of being engaged. The group of men moved to the corner down from the US and started observing the Americans. The pilots thought they saw a RPG being aimed and they engaged. The photo found in the camera confirms how close they were to the US patrol. If it had in fact been a RPG and it killed American Soldiers, were the pilots overly cautious and negligent in their mission of overwatching? Not easy questions or answers. I think they acted in good faith in engaging the first target.

The van, I'm still not definite either way. If your unit engaged the enemy in a firefight and a van pulled up to take away bodies or wounded, would you engage? What if your unit fought a battle, then put some scouts or overwatch to kill the follow ons, would that van be legitimate? It was very easy to point out the children inside after the fact, but under the circumstances, it is understandable why they engaged. They requested permission and received it.

What should also be pointed out, once the infantry arrived on scene and realized there were wounded children, they ran them off for medical aid. They didn't put more rounds in them or leave them to die. If higher then diverted them to an Iraqi hospital, there may be other reasons not presented. The running over the body appeared to be an accident. The commentary from the aircrews, a little over the top, but I was expecting worse. Anyone who has been under fire has heard worse and it didn't mean anyone was callous or inhuman.

The Army withheld the video for obvious reasons, watched without context or background, it does appear overly aggressive, and as demonstrated, those with an agenda could highlight portions to their liking. Wikileaks asks others to leak secret information. My INFOSEC is rusty, but isn't requesting or encouraging the leaking of classified information a crime?

The video is not as bad as I expected, but again, it is unfortunate that journalists, children, and possibly innocent civilians may have been killed. The intent was not coldblooded, unprovoked murder. Operations in civilian areas are worse in every way, because of the unknowns and increased chance for incidents like this.

In early 2006, I was leading a convoy that received sniper fire in a village outside Balad. I spotted the sniper on a rooftop and my gunners aimed at him, but I saw people moving inside the building behind him, so I told my Soldiers to hold their fire. We moved on a few minutes later and received small arms fire in the village. My gunners returned controlled fire at their targets. It still bothers me whether I should have given the fire order to kill the sniper. He may have killed Americans the next day. I don't know. The pilots were in the same boat. If they just watched and a RPG destroyed a humvee, they'd have to live with that. War is terrible and it's easy to distort incidents based on one's politics or background. Wikileaks went one way, the Army the opposite, the reality was probably somewhere in between.

A few missions, we received air coverage from some Kiowas. They scouted the route ahead of us or covered us while we were halted. One time we received fire and they called me to say I was shot at. I thanked them for the update. I asked if they got the shooter, they said, no, he ran away. Now, had they spotted a group of men forming up and watching the route ahead of me, I think I would have been supportive of them engaging a target. I think our technology and communication allow a level of checks that are much better than other militaries, but it also allows instant action. A lot can happen in a split second and that is why leaders have to make the best decisions they can. The Army could use this video for Discussions or Professional Development, and let Soldiers decide what the right action would be. Like many incidents, I don't think this one is clear cut either way.

[Entropy]

Fuchs,

Whether you are right or not ultimately boils down to a judgment call on what constitutes a combatant when combatants are visually indistinguishable from civilians. For this incident, such calls are not always cut-and-dry in the time allowed to make a decision. Your judgments have the benefit of hindsight, the benefit of not having any skin in the game, the benefit of time, the benefit of reviewing the video multiple times in multiple formats (as well as annotation by wikileaks) at your own leisure, the benefit of viewing the video on a large screen on a stable platform among other factors. The people who actually made the decisions had none of those benefits that you enjoyed. As Ken says, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you might want to consider those factors in your analysis before determining those involved are criminals beyond a any shadow of a doubt. Just a suggestion.

For the council, Iraq is not my theater of expertise and my memory is suspect, but I seem to remember that some of the armed insurgent groups used vans similar to what's shown in the video to transport/medevac fighters. Can anyone confirm/deny?

[Firn]

Just watched the video after reading the other posts and some of the linked sites.

From my viewing, I think there are legitimate questions about both the video and the events shown. WikiLeaks has a slant and an agenda and the material is presented as such. Cameras and journalists are identified, but rifles and RPG are not. The full back story of the TIC and AO are not presented fully. As pointed out elsewhere, the majority of civilians are inside, away from the action, likely because they knew something was going on. This area of Baghdad in 2007 was not a nice place and groups of civilians with weapons were usually not picking up garbage.

The two journalists unfortunately seemed to have embedded with insurgents. They don't appear to be wearing hunting vests or safety vests (or something more appropriate) to identify as non-combatants, they're in civilian attire with cameras. It is easy to point out they are just cameras after the fact, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were viewed as suspicious. I remember from reading "Thunder Run" that several journalists were mistakenly identified as spotters or scouts for the enemy during OIF I and were targeted in the Palestine Hotel (?). The unit was receiving fire and saw someone with a lens that looked like optics or a range finder and they engaged. In retrospect, it is easy to say they were journalists, but under the circumstances, one can understand why they were engaged. Someone pointed out that spotters were treated as combatants in Ramadi and targeted as such. During my tour in OIF IV, we conducted convoy security and a indicator of enemy action was cameramen. Under our understanding of the ROE, it was conceivable a cameraman was a legitimate target under specific circumstances (ie: filming the site of an IED ambush at the moment of ambush). Thankfully, we never tested that one.

US forces see several armed men amongst a larger group of men, around the corner from a US patrol and assume they are hostile. Has anyone discovered if the armed men were not in fact insurgents? If they were not, they should have tried to reasonably identify themselves as not-hostile. If you walk around an active combat area with weapons, you are increasing your chances of being engaged. The group of men moved to the corner down from the US and started observing the Americans. The pilots thought they saw a RPG being aimed and they engaged. The photo found in the camera confirms how close they were to the US patrol. If it had in fact been a RPG and it killed American Soldiers, were the pilots overly cautious and negligent in their mission of overwatching? Not easy questions or answers. I think they acted in good faith in engaging the first target.

The van, I'm still not definite either way. If your unit engaged the enemy in a firefight and a van pulled up to take away bodies or wounded, would you engage? What if your unit fought a battle, then put some scouts or overwatch to kill the follow ons, would that van be legitimate? It was very easy to point out the children inside after the fact, but under the circumstances, it is understandable why they engaged. They requested permission and received it.

What should also be pointed out, once the infantry arrived on scene and realized there were wounded children, they ran them off for medical aid. They didn't put more rounds in them or leave them to die. If higher then diverted them to an Iraqi hospital, there may be other reasons not presented. The running over the body appeared to be an accident. The commentary from the aircrews, a little over the top, but I was expecting worse. Anyone who has been under fire has heard worse and it didn't mean anyone was callous or inhuman.

The Army withheld the video for obvious reasons, watched without context or background, it does appear overly aggressive, and as demonstrated, those with an agenda could highlight portions to their liking. Wikileaks asks others to leak secret information. My INFOSEC is rusty, but isn't requesting or encouraging the leaking of classified information a crime?

The video is not as bad as I expected, but again, it is unfortunate that journalists, children, and possibly innocent civilians may have been killed. The intent was not coldblooded, unprovoked murder. Operations in civilian areas are worse in every way, because of the unknowns and increased chance for incidents like this.

In early 2006, I was leading a convoy that received sniper fire in a village outside Balad. I spotted the sniper on a rooftop and my gunners aimed at him, but I saw people moving inside the building behind him, so I told my Soldiers to hold their fire. We moved on a few minutes later and received small arms fire in the village. My gunners returned controlled fire at their targets. It still bothers me whether I should have given the fire order to kill the sniper. He may have killed Americans the next day. I don't know. The pilots were in the same boat. If they just watched and a RPG destroyed a humvee, they'd have to live with that. War is terrible and it's easy to distort incidents based on one's politics or background. Wikileaks went one way, the Army the opposite, the reality was probably somewhere in between.

A few missions, we received air coverage from some Kiowas. They scouted the route ahead of us or covered us while we were halted. One time we received fire and they called me to say I was shot at. I thanked them for the update. I asked if they got the shooter, they said, no, he ran away. Now, had they spotted a group of men forming up and watching the route ahead of me, I think I would have been supportive of them engaging a target. I think our technology and communication allow a level of checks that are much better than other militaries, but it also allows instant action. A lot can happen in a split second and that is why leaders have to make the best decisions they can. The Army could use this video for Discussions or Professional Development, and let Soldiers decide what the right action would be. Like many incidents, I don't think this one is clear cut either way.

I think this sums it up pretty well. Life is a string of choices made under uncertainty and with limited knowledge. In war the fog can be denser, the timespan shorter and the outcome bloodier and with no rewind either.


Firn

[motorfirebox]

In addition to that, you seem to purposefully ignore the Geneva Convention quoted earlier in this thread.

GC III was ratified by the U.S. and Iraq and forbids the attack on the van without doubt. It needs no red-white paint job at all.

Hilariously, when you quoted GCIII, you actually bolded the part that invalidates this argument. GCIII, Art 3: "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character..." The action in Iraq is most definitely of an international character, so Article 3 does not apply. Therefore, we must look to GCI, Art 39-40, which clearly state that medical personnel must mark themselves as such in order to receive special protection under the Conventions. The van, nor the personnel, were not marked, ergo they had no special protection under the Conventions.

[Fuchs]

@ Entropy:
You mentioned mostly extenuating circumstances that don't influence the question of "guilty or not?".

@motorfirebox:
Actually, it's a civil war with foreign participation. That's not an international conflict.

"They can involve third States or multinational forces fighting side by side with the government. The situations that come to mind include, for example, the Darfur region in Sudan, Colombia, Eastern DRC or today’s Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. The Geneva Conventions cover all of these situations. Indeed, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions deals with any armed conflict not of an international character. That is to say that any armed conflict that it is not an inter-State conflict falls within the scope of common Article 3 of the Conventions."
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...atement-120809

Point me at a single printed GC commentary or at a single neutral (non-U.S.) scholar on IL who agrees with you that article 3 of GC III and IV is not applicable in this case.

- - - - -

Medical personnel is obliged to mark itself as such in order to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. This does not rule out that civilians can spontaneously recover wounded and still be protected.

[Cecil Turner]

Medical personnel is obliged to mark itself as such in order to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. This does not rule out that civilians can spontaneously recover wounded and still be protected.

Yes, but if fellow combatants recover their wounded, they are legitimate targets. That is precisely what the witness statements in the investigation claimed here, and the most reasonable interpretation of what was going on.

The actions of the photo team may have been misinterpreted, but there is simply no innocent explanation for the two RPGs found on the scene.

[motorfirebox]

@ Entropy:
You mentioned mostly extenuating circumstances that don't influence the question of "guilty or not?".

@motorfirebox:
Actually, it's a civil war with foreign participation. That's not an international conflict.

Foreign "participation"? Foreign instigation, foreign control and direction of the conflict. To characterize the fight in 2007 as an internal Iraqi matter augmented by foreign forces is ridiculous.

Medical personnel is obliged to mark itself as such in order to avoid misunderstandings as much as possible. This does not rule out that civilians can spontaneously recover wounded and still be protected.

That's not what happened. The van's arrival and their attempt to aid the wounded were not at all spontaneous. That much is obvious from the video: just as the van drives up, two other men appear from an adjacent courtyard. Without even stopping to discuss it, the driver of the van gets out, opens the cargo door, and gets back into the driver's seat. Meanwhile, the two pedestrians immediately help the wounded guy to his feet and start moving him towards the van's cargo door. Their behavior doesn't indicate spontaneity, it indicates coordination and cooperation with the first group.

[Fuchs]

To characterize the fight in 2007 as an internal Iraqi matter augmented by foreign forces is ridiculous.

Tell that to the State Department, because this "ridiculous" interpretation is the official and on the national level legally binding version.

[mendel]

That's not what happened. The van's arrival and their attempt to aid the wounded were not at all spontaneous. That much is obvious from the video: just as the van drives up, two other men appear from an adjacent courtyard. Without even stopping to discuss it, the driver of the van gets out, opens the cargo door, and gets back into the driver's seat. Meanwhile, the two pedestrians immediately help the wounded guy to his feet and start moving him towards the van's cargo door. Their behavior doesn't indicate spontaneity, it indicates coordination and cooperation with the first group.

Do you any evidence that your version of events is more than wishful thinking?

There were witnesses to this scene in buildings around the open space; one of them could have phoned for help; there might have been somebody else who saw this from a sidestreet who might have run to flag down a vehicle on a thoroughfare; it took 4 minutes (from the first attack) until the van arrived; as has been noted, the streets were empty.

That nobody stops to to discuss may be testament that they're in a hurry to get Saaed to a hospital, and that occurrences such as these have happened all too frequently in Baghdad.

The widow of the van driver has stated that her husband was on his way to drop the two children off at a "special school".


Sombody else held against them that they were moving on a street that was otherwise empty. Another reporter says that whenever a journalist gets out of his car, people come out and cluster around him because they want to tell their story. There's tragedy in that.

This isn't a WW1 type trench warfare no-man's-land; people live there. Not everybody who might be an enemy is one.