Wikileaks, the US Government, and the slaughter of civilians

[Garth Vader]

Many, many reasonable people would have an instinct to help a dying man trying to crawl away. Especially if you are clearly unarmed and have children with you in a ****ing minivan.

As you can see from this thread there are a lot of unreasonable people out there. The instinct to help people seems to be lost on many Americans.

[Kuciwalker]

Civilians are not supposed to run into firefights to take care of the wounded

Dude, this isn't a formal battlefield. You're talking about people who were minding their own business in their own city when they come across a dying man slowly dragging himself along the ground. There wasn't even an active firefight going. As others have already said, the helicopter was kilometers away and the people likely had no idea it was there. This was not an active firefight, this was in the calm aftermath of one with no military in sight.

So your opinion is the laws of war didn't apply to the situation in the first place?

[Patroklos]

Except that the fire in this "battle" came exlusively from one side, there apparently were no belligerents, and there was no firefighting at all when the van came to the scene.

I am not sure why you think the irrelevancies and falshoods in the above sentance are relevant to what you quoted.

You were butchering the realities of protected status for medical personel, I provided you with the means to remedy your ignorance.

[Asher]

So your opinion is the laws of war didn't apply to the situation in the first place?

Which law of war, exactly, specifies that civilians are not permitted to be outside in an occupied country?

[Ecofarm]

What kind of an idiot (read: plant) takes his kids to the scene of an "accident"?


Hey, there's some guys with AKs and RPGs all shot up. Maybe I should drive over there with my kids.


Yea, ok. I'll believe that :rollie eyes:

Human shields for retreat. Plain as day. Nobody takes their kids to the scene of a multiple shooting; it's amazing how people with agendas can ignore the obvious.

[Riesstiu IV]

I actually got to watch the entire video and the attitude of the pilots is pretty sickening. They were eager to kill anyone.

Iraq is not a warzone, it's an occupied country. Even those people did have weapons, it wouldn't automatically means they are insurgents since each household is allowed an AK-47. There are also no laws against open carry of weapons. Shooting the Van with the two kids and launching 3 Hellfire missiles into a building which had 3 families inside, all of them killed were probably most sickening of all.

Really wonder what reactions here would be if some FBI helicopter circled over a Tea Part rally, saw what looked to be guns being held be two or three protestors, and began firing 30mm rounds into the crowd or shot the hell out of the Hutaree compound and wounded a few kids in the process. The same nuts who jack off over war videos of 'hajis getting smoked' would be up in arms over it because the victims would be white Americans instead of brown and foreign.

Occupying a foreign nation does not give carte blanche to mow down civilians like animals. 'War is Hell' is not excuse for the pilot.

The fact none of you can even remotely sympathize with those who were died or wounded is really telling, but I guess that's what you get from years of killing and dehumanizing people in the Middle East.

[Ecofarm]

I wonder if the embeds knew an ambulance/retreat using children was on standby.

[Jon Miller]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA

I think this is the US military report.

JM

[Ecofarm]

The van arrives as if on cue, and is immediately joined by two military-age males...

As usual, I'm right.

[Patroklos]

I actually got to watch the entire video and the attitude of the pilots is pretty sickening. They were eager to kill anyone.

Not really accurate as they specifically don't kill wounded not still resisting.

There are also no laws against open carry of weapons.

False.

[Asher]

I actually got to watch the entire video and the attitude of the pilots is pretty sickening. They were eager to kill anyone.

Iraq is not a warzone, it's an occupied country. Even those people did have weapons, it wouldn't automatically means they are insurgents since each household is allowed an AK-47. There are also no laws against open carry of weapons. Shooting the Van with the two kids and launching 3 Hellfire missiles into a building which had 3 families inside, all of them killed were probably most sickening of all.

Really wonder what reactions here would be if some FBI helicopter circled over a Tea Part rally, saw what looked to be guns being held be two or three protestors, and began firing 30mm rounds into the crowd or shot the hell out of the Hutaree compound and wounded a few kids in the process. The same nuts who jack off over war videos of 'hajis getting smoked' would be up in arms over it because the victims would be white Americans instead of brown and foreign.

Occupying a foreign nation does not give carte blanche to mow down civilians like animals. 'War is Hell' is not excuse for the pilot.

The fact none of you can even remotely sympathize with those who were died or wounded is really telling, but I guess that's what you get from years of killing and dehumanizing people in the Middle East.

[Asher]

Not really accurate as they specifically don't kill wounded not still resisting.

Holy hell. An unarmed man crawling to safety is "resisting"? Resisting what? Death?

[Jon Miller]

I feel terrible about those people getting shot, and am not willing to watch the video.

It was terrible. The fight (overall) was probably the correct call, although obviously some of the details were wrong (and sick).

JM

[Wernazuma III]

I am not sure why you think the irrelevancies and falshoods in the above sentance are relevant to what you quoted.

Hein? You said, "Civilians shouldn't run into a firefight" - I said there was none when the van arrived. You said civilians aiding on a battlefield further blur the lines between belligerents and non-b.'s, I said there were no other belligerents (on the video) than the US helicopter. There is some reference to enemy shooting in the first part of the video, but it's quite clear that it didn't come from the scene of the bloodshed.
What lines are there to blur? If you can show me ANYTHING about the behavior of the van driver that is possibly hostile or a danger, OK, but there isn't.

You were butchering the realities of protected status for medical personel, I provided you with the means to remedy your ignorance.

You know, regular battlefields are so 19th century...
But anyhow, regardless from the special protection for impartial medical personal, every combattant group has to ensure that article 12 about "wounded and sick soldiers who are out of the battle should be humanely treated, and in particular should not be killed, injured, [...]". Every provision that follows is based on that core, just a derivation. Now you possibly tell me that the wounded was no soldier, so it doesn't apply. Now see, you're right.
The "obligation" of clear marking with a red cross etc. is NOT a necessity. It simply means that if you don't wear such a clear distinction, you might be mistaken as a soldier in the heat of the battle, but not that you have to be mistaken as such.

One excerpt from the "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field"

Art. 5. Inhabitants of the country who bring help to the wounded shall be respected and shall remain free. Generals of the belligerent Powers shall make it their duty to notify the inhabitants of the appeal made to their humanity, and of the neutrality which humane conduct will confer.
The presence of any wounded combatant receiving shelter and care in a house shall ensure its protection. An inhabitant who has given shelter to the wounded shall be exempted from billeting and from a portion of such war contributions as may be levied.

But beside the battle for the judicial accuracy of applying the term "war crime" in the sense of International Law, it's ridiculous how you try to hide behind words like a pettifogger even though it's obvious that these soldiers had fun killing without necessity and their recorded comments are morally obscene.

[Patroklos]

Holy hell. An unarmed man crawling to safety is "resisting"? Resisting what? Death?

They didn't shoot him for crawling to safety. In fact the specifically DIDN'T shoot him when the observed this, which is why they were waiting for him to get a gun.

They shot the people attempting to rescue a believed combatant. You can take issue with that, but at no point did they ever justify engagment merely to kill a wounded guy. If that was the case, why wait for him to go for a weapon of the van to show up in the first place?