Collateral Murder (Of The Truth)
Apr. 6th, 2010 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyThere is a shocking video floating around today, which you too can view at collateralmurder.com
It is described by its makers as "a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff."
Surface Truth: in two incidents a few minutes apart, apparently unarmed men (and two children, out of sight in a van) are chewed on by remotely directed 30mm cannon fire. If you look very closely, you get glimpses of what appear to be long sticks.
Lie: the men were unarmed, the shooting was baseless, their deaths were murder. Representing the Lie (or Big Lie) I have selected Glenn Greenwald's article, where he says:
"That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital."
Deeper Truth: the men were armed insurgents, with two RPGs and an AK, and the cameramen were dressed like them engaged in behaviors that made them appear to be supporters. One was taking pictures of a US ground unit less than 100 meters away with a long-barrel camera in such a way as to look like he is firing on them; the other was talking on a cell phone, a common part of both tactical communications and IED (bomb) detonations. All of this took place in a closed military zone which nearby American ground forces were actively sweeping and clearing while under small arms fire.
New facts? Yes, lots. See a recent CNN article for the context the video and its adroit packaging deprives you of. See also here: one of the Army investigations into this matter. This forty-three page report goes into great and graphic detail.
The laws of war are clear: you hang with a group, you take your chance of sharing their fate. This is one purpose behind Red Cross and Red Crescent -- here, let's hang a big red sign on you which makes you less likely to be shot at. This is also why combatants are required by the laws of war to wear uniforms -- here, let's hang something on you that makes it less likely that civilians will be mistaken for you.
But I will not bore you with mere facts. Here is graphic evidence which a man died to bring you:
These three photos were taken from the memory card of a camera belonging to one of the dead journalists. Photos of a nearby American military vehicle.
You take photos like this of combatant forces in active combat operations, you risk sudden and immediate death. As happened.
A veteran comments further here:
"This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened ... [to] any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by [friendly fire] in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists."
So behind the lie, a deeper truth. This is not atrocity, this is war. This is soldiers doing their job well, a job their country called them out to do. Be sickened by it, please. Don't send our soldiers out to war unless you are willing to own all the consequences. And once you have, don't blame them for what you chose for them to do.
It is described by its makers as "a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff."
Surface Truth: in two incidents a few minutes apart, apparently unarmed men (and two children, out of sight in a van) are chewed on by remotely directed 30mm cannon fire. If you look very closely, you get glimpses of what appear to be long sticks.
Lie: the men were unarmed, the shooting was baseless, their deaths were murder. Representing the Lie (or Big Lie) I have selected Glenn Greenwald's article, where he says:
"That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital."
Deeper Truth: the men were armed insurgents, with two RPGs and an AK, and the cameramen were dressed like them engaged in behaviors that made them appear to be supporters. One was taking pictures of a US ground unit less than 100 meters away with a long-barrel camera in such a way as to look like he is firing on them; the other was talking on a cell phone, a common part of both tactical communications and IED (bomb) detonations. All of this took place in a closed military zone which nearby American ground forces were actively sweeping and clearing while under small arms fire.
New facts? Yes, lots. See a recent CNN article for the context the video and its adroit packaging deprives you of. See also here: one of the Army investigations into this matter. This forty-three page report goes into great and graphic detail.
The laws of war are clear: you hang with a group, you take your chance of sharing their fate. This is one purpose behind Red Cross and Red Crescent -- here, let's hang a big red sign on you which makes you less likely to be shot at. This is also why combatants are required by the laws of war to wear uniforms -- here, let's hang something on you that makes it less likely that civilians will be mistaken for you.
But I will not bore you with mere facts. Here is graphic evidence which a man died to bring you:
These three photos were taken from the memory card of a camera belonging to one of the dead journalists. Photos of a nearby American military vehicle.
You take photos like this of combatant forces in active combat operations, you risk sudden and immediate death. As happened.
A veteran comments further here:
"This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened ... [to] any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by [friendly fire] in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists."
So behind the lie, a deeper truth. This is not atrocity, this is war. This is soldiers doing their job well, a job their country called them out to do. Be sickened by it, please. Don't send our soldiers out to war unless you are willing to own all the consequences. And once you have, don't blame them for what you chose for them to do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 03:47 pm (UTC)In preparing the Rules Of Engagement for the Iraq War, the Army itself acknowledged two things that you're disagreeing with: yes, it is a war crime to open fire on someone who is unarmed and providing medical assistance, medic uniform or no medic uniform, and no, you may not assume that someone is a combatant just because they're carrying a weapon. The ROEs in Iraq specifically say that it is illegal for US soldiers to open fire on someone unless they are now actively engaged in combat or have been seen to have been engaged in combat.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the helicopter crew mistook the photographer's telephoto lens for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher (RPG), which means that yes, when he ducked low behind a corner so he wouldn't be seen and aimed that camera at a US convoy down the block, it did look to the helicopter crew like he was aiming an RPG at them. (Ironically, it was almost certainly this exact fear that caused him to crouch furtively in the first place.) So they got permission to open fire on him, and then did so. There are people reacting badly to how happy the chopper crew were over having killed him and everybody around him, but that's just war; nobody who knows anything about war is criticizing it up to his point. It's what happens after that that turns this into a war crime.
First of all, notice what happens when they see that one of the people they opened fire on is still alive, but wounded. An unarmed wounded man is not a combatant. Frankly, if they thought he was a Baathist or Al Qaeda in Iraq insurgent, they should have wanted him captured. Instead, they spend every minute from then to the end of the tape begging their superiors for permission to open fire, until they finally get it.
You are correct that if armed men pulled up to that battle site and began evacuating the wounded, they would be targets. Notice that not even the US Army claims that the men in the van were armed at the time they opened fire on it. Flatly legally indefensible.
And finally, notice that the Army is still behaving as if they know they've done something wrong: the Army report keeps insisting that an RPG was found at the site. Look up their report. Look at the two photos they say "prove" that there's an RPG on the site. One consists of two blurry white pixels that could be anything. The other is a photograph taken by the first troops to arrive on the site, and is labeled "RPG -->" ... only the arrow points to something that is hidden by a censorship box. What's the only actual evidence they SHOW that there's an RPG? Troops on the ground say they saw one.
Frankly, so many US soldiers have falsified their after-action reports to cover up attacks on civilians by now that I no longer give the benefit of the doubt. The helicopter crew knew, by the end of the engagement, that they were killing civilians to eliminate the witnesses, and Army brass has been helping them cover it up ever since. How do I know which side to believe in this? Because we have YET to find a single journalist "crying wolf" over this accusation. Every single time, in the whole history of the Iraq War, that journalists have reported that the Army knowingly slaughtered civilians and the Army denied it, the Army has turned out to be lying.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 06:59 pm (UTC)I've been wrong before, but I'm fairly certain that in this case The Truth Will Out, and soon. If skulduggery occurred, and I am as skeptical about formal reports and internal investigations as it gets, we will find out.
Unfortunately, there is no potential for physical evidence because the weapons collected at the scene were turned over to Iraqi forces. In a policing context, I find any break in the chain of custody of key evidence, and the failure to follow normal procedure and collect important evidence, to be clear and convincing evidence in itself of misconduct. So when a Federal agency at Waco misplaced one of the metal front doors, that looks really overwhelmingly bad for ATF's actions that morning. The military uses written reporting and photographic evidence instead, so by analogy if someone clearly pokes a hole in the military's own formal statements and photos, the house of cards crumbles. I have not seen that hole poked . . . yet.
I have not read recent US military statements, nor do I consider them to be much other than a PIO's opinion of what happened. Googling around, the closest I've come is this article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/) which quotes a CENTCOM spokesman. I'm primarily reviewing documents from CENTCOM found here: http://www.centcom.mil/en/press-releases/link-for-foia-documents-on-july-2007-new-baghdad-combat-action.html and re-released elsewehere as seen on scribd.
>> yes, it is a war crime to open fire on someone who is unarmed and providing medical assistance, medic uniform or no medic uniform
This is not accurate and I'd appreciate a cite on this. Geneva protects medical personnel and marked medical vehicles and hospitals. I am not aware of any Geneva protection for first aid or for casevac by other combatants.
>> and no, you may not assume that someone is a combatant just because they're carrying a weapon.
As was demonstrated in a civilian context at Ruby Ridge. The totality of the circumstances must be considered. The key point here is the RPGs on the one hand, and the necessary inverse of your statement on the other.
You cannot assume someone is not a combatant just because they are not carrying a weapon.
>> The ROEs in Iraq specifically say that it is illegal for US soldiers to open fire on someone unless they are now actively engaged in combat or have been seen to have been engaged in combat.
The ROEs are more restrictive than war crimes law, and this is a good thing IMHO. However, the meaning of "engaged in combat" is something I'd want to see a military lawyer's view on. The first engagement we've agreed was legitimate operations of war. The 2nd engagement, starting when the van arrives, is the question here.
>> You are correct that if armed men pulled up to that battle site and began evacuating the wounded, they would be targets.
Why does it matter whether they are armed or unarmed? Medical personnel continue to enjoy the protections of Geneva even when armed for self-defense. Combatants have no protection through being unarmed. A truck driver is just as much a lawful target as an MP or a gunner.
specifics of that morning
Date: 2010-04-07 06:59 pm (UTC)>> Notice that not even the US Army claims that the men in the van were armed at the time they opened fire on it. Flatly legally indefensible.
According to the helicopter gunner's own sworn statement, "Soon after our engagement, a van and 4-5 military aged males arrived at the engagement site and began loading personnel and weapons into the van. Bushmaster cleared us to engage the van and personnel. Crazy Horse 18 initiated fire and I fired approximately 40 rounds at the personnel and the van. We remained above the engagement site while Bushmaster sent ground forces to the site. Bushmaster arrived and reported 11x AIF KIA and found RPGs and RPG rounds at the site. We also witnessed a loaded RPG lying 2-3 blocks south of the engagement site that had been dropped by fleeing AIF."
Policing up weapons and helping other combatants flee.
>> And finally, notice that the Army is still behaving as if they know they've done something wrong: the Army report keeps insisting that an RPG was found at the site. . . . Look at the two photos they say "prove" that there's an RPG on the site. One consists of two blurry white pixels that could be anything. The other is a photograph taken by the first troops to arrive on the site, and is labeled "RPG -->" ... only the arrow points to something that is hidden by a censorship box.
I hope we see some expansion on this. I chased down the original PDF, which is floating out there, and it contains the censorship boxes as well -- I see nothing that could be classified information covered by that box except perhaps some sort of intelligence tag. It's not enough that the Army is convinced that there was an RPG there -- I think these photos should be uncensored. I just don't see them having the gumption to falsify them and then release them publicly.
>> What's the only actual evidence they SHOW that there's an RPG? Troops on the ground say they saw one.
And also the troops in the air, and the drone operators, and you can see it on the video here. The double cone of the shaped charge warhead is very distinctive.
>> The helicopter crew knew, by the end of the engagement, that they were killing civilians to eliminate the witnesses, and Army brass has been helping them cover it up ever since.
Where's the cover up? They admit engaging the van with 30mm cannon fire. I genuinely don't understand this comment.