Reuters access previously censored footage via WikiLeaks.

One_of_the_strange said:
<snipped>

This is an information war. The truth is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the perceptions inside the minds of the people we need to influence to achieve our goals.

<snipped>

Yup - and I doubt the websites used by the people we need to influence are fully of heated discussion about LOAC and ROE; or about how the US military has changed since the time of the incident; or about how you can't appreciate the choices facing the Apache crew if you ain't been there. I don't read squiggly, but I can guarantee the discussion on those sites is of the latest 'evidence' that the US kills innocent Muslims.

C_C
 
As you might know by now, the video was cobbled together and does not reflect an accurate timeline of the engagement.
 
Since the good old Yellow Card 1982 was my ROE (I really am that old!) could someone explain this ROE? Because it seem more like a tick box exercise:
Two legs - check
Droopy 'Tach - check
Dark and Swarthy - check
Pulse - Check

Roit den!
Open Firrrre!
 
That was a tad silly, but Jesus, can you imagine the shit flying if that was a Brit Crew?
 
See the posts here Linky that include an interesting perspective of a US Army Apache pilot who has a well-regarded military blog.
 
LAIT said:
Boris3098 said:
Since the good old Yellow Card 1982 was my ROE (I really am that old!) could someone explain this ROE? Because it seem more like a tick box exercise:
Two legs - check
Droopy 'Tach - check
Dark and Swarthy - check
Pulse - Check

Roit den!
Open Firrrre!

The precise definition of ROE are classified. But you're not quite hitting the mark with your post... :D

With those ROE in the early 80s, any squaddie coming back holiday with a sun tan would be a target..
 

outoflineinf

Clanker
omegahunter said:
Engagement Two

A man wounded by by the initial attack is loaded into a vehicle. None of the occupants appear to be armed. The Apache engages anyway. This seems to be a violation of the RoE and possibly article 3 of the Geneva convention.

There seems to be a legitimate reason for the first attack, and maybe the third, but I see absolutely no reason for the second.

Completely with you on your analysis. I can see no legal justification for the second engagement. On the 18 min video at 8.35 it is apparent to me that the gunner has clearly identified this wounded man as 'hors de combat'. He holds back from engaging him as he does not constitute a military target. However, he eggs on the wounded man, 'Come on buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.' And at 8.54 'We also have one individual moving. We're looking for weapons. If we see a weapon we are gonna engage.' Up until now there is an obvious connection between bearing arms and being a target. No weapon, no target. What changes so that the wounded individual once again becomes a legitimate target?

Throughout the video the various callsigns verbally articulate why they are engaging particular targets, '5-6 individuals with AK 47s'. etc.

During the second engagement, when the van first appears it is stated that 'it is picking up the bodies'. At 9.14 Crazyhorse says: 'We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.' Chatter. 'Can I shoot?' Someone else interjects at 9.34, 'Picking up the wounded?' An impatient shout at 9.39 'Come on let us shoot!' When Crazyhorse gets through to Bushmaster asking for authorisation to engage he relays the scene, 'We have a black SUV-uh bongo truck picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.'

While an assertion was made that the van might be picking up weapons, this is not corroborated and from the footage I cannot positively identify any of the individuals from the van picking up weapons. When the request to engage is made, it seems to be on the basis of preventing a Casevac/removal of the deceased.
 

Iolis

LE
Some impressive posts on this thread on a contentious issue.

Enjoy it while you can.

The Digital Economy Bill being rushed through Parliament in the so-called 'washup' prior to the dissolution of Parliament and the general election is devoid of any real debate or scutiny but has cross-party support and is just as well.

The video from Wikileaks was released by them on the very day the Bill was to be fast-tracked through all of its commitee stages and into its third reading.

Lord Mandelson's Bill was presented to MPs and to the public as having the main or dominant purpose of protecting the intellectual property of the music and film industry from being rendered meaningless through the act of 'illegal file sharing'. The Bill will provide for 'technical measures' to be taken against anyone known or 'suspected' or engang in such activity. The right of appeal will be through a court for which the invidividual suspected of engaging in such activity will bear the cost.

The real purpose of the Bill is to penalise anyone who seeks to access and promulgate information considered to be embarrasing to government. Those who 'blow the whistle' on government misfeasance such as 'Wikileaks', Guido Fawkes and others who are deemed by a Minister to be infringing copyright, or being likely to do so including 'Crown Copyright' will find themselves subject to 'technical measures' to restrict or put an end to their internet access.

Thus, information relating to the dumping of toxic waste as evidenced by information obtained in documents originating from Trafigura, or the cockpit flight recordings of Matti Hull's convoy being shot up, or of documents leaked to the Telegraph' containing details of MPs and Lords expenses obtained and put out in the 'blogosphere' are all caught within powers the Act grants to individual ministers to control the flow of information that is potentially damaging.

All with the cross -party support of the LibLabCon who used the 'Trojan Horse' justification of losses to the entertainment business as the justification for its passage through Parliament without too much debate or scrutiny and while the Press is distracted in its election coverage.

You have to hand it to Mandelson, he is extremely clever!

Just as the Inquiries Act 2005 subverted inquiries and kept embarrasing details out of the hands of Parliament and within the control of Ministers, so too, does the Digital Economy Bill seek to keep out of the public domain, information such as this recording promulgated through Wikileaks, that falls into the hands of the public though the internet.

And like all draconian laws, it happened while you were distracted by people who despise the public but need their votes!
 
Iolis said:
The Bill will provide for 'technical measures' to be taken against anyone known or 'suspected' or engang in such activity. The right of appeal will be through a court for which the invidividual suspected of engaging in such activity will bear the cost.

The real purpose of the Bill is to penalise anyone who seeks to access and promulgate information considered to be embarrasing to government.

Sounds a bit like the recent dust up in the new enlightened--remember those "wonderful" synchronized robots at the recent Olympics that caused all the warm and fuzzy oohs and ahhs around the world--- (Peoples Republic of) China over the evil Google allowing its billions to actually see what may be happening in the rest of the world.
 
littlejim said:
I've never flown in an Apache.

I've never been a guard in a concentration camp either.

But I know sheer unmitigated evil when I see it.

The men who did this were murdering sh*ts. If they belonged to another army I might suggest they'd dishonoured their uniforms. But the American Army has been slaughtering innocent civilians since Wounded Knee. It's what they do best.
......Blather, rant, whine, crying jag, hum the Internationale.....


It'll also be the day this war stops being fun for scum who get their kicks playing real life video games with real live targets.
Real weapons were recovered by the ground element, to include an RPG which was destoyed by EOD. I seriously doubt you've ever served in any combat zone since you seem too hysterical to be allowed to handle live ammunition around other men.

But dont let that stop your hoop twitching over Americans, we can't help your feelings of inadequacy Jim.

I could mention Australias treatment of Aboriginal peoples was similar to Wounded Knee and the taking of children to live with White Australians but I wont tar all Australians just because your a douchebag wearing a che t-shirt. In closing eat a shotgun you boring socialist asshole.
 
Goldbricker said:
littlejim said:
I've never flown in an Apache.

I've never been a guard in a concentration camp either.

But I know sheer unmitigated evil when I see it.

The men who did this were murdering sh*ts. If they belonged to another army I might suggest they'd dishonoured their uniforms. But the American Army has been slaughtering innocent civilians since Wounded Knee. It's what they do best.
......Blather, rant, whine, crying jag, hum the Internationale.....


It'll also be the day this war stops being fun for scum who get their kicks playing real life video games with real live targets.
Real weapons were recovered by the ground element, to include an RPG which was destoyed by EOD. I seriously doubt you've ever served in any combat zone since you seem too hysterical to be allowed to handle live ammunition around other men.

But dont let that stop your hoop twitching over Americans, we can't help your feelings of inadequacy Jim.

I could mention Australias treatment of Aboriginal peoples was similar to Wounded Knee and the taking of children to live with White Australians but I wont tar all Australians just because your a douchebag wearing a che t-shirt. In closing eat a shotgun you boring socialist asshole.
\
I am beginning to wonder if some US military member "kicked sand in his face" at some point in his past.
 
jumpinjarhead said:
Goldbricker said:
littlejim said:
I've never flown in an Apache.

I've never been a guard in a concentration camp either.

But I know sheer unmitigated evil when I see it.

The men who did this were murdering sh*ts. If they belonged to another army I might suggest they'd dishonoured their uniforms. But the American Army has been slaughtering innocent civilians since Wounded Knee. It's what they do best.
......Blather, rant, whine, crying jag, hum the Internationale.....


It'll also be the day this war stops being fun for scum who get their kicks playing real life video games with real live targets.
Real weapons were recovered by the ground element, to include an RPG which was destoyed by EOD. I seriously doubt you've ever served in any combat zone since you seem too hysterical to be allowed to handle live ammunition around other men.

But dont let that stop your hoop twitching over Americans, we can't help your feelings of inadequacy Jim.

I could mention Australias treatment of Aboriginal peoples was similar to Wounded Knee and the taking of children to live with White Australians but I wont tar all Australians just because your a douchebag wearing a che t-shirt. In closing eat a shotgun you boring socialist asshole.
\
I am beginning to wonder if some US military member "kicked sand in his face" at some point in his past.

shh.... small pee pee syndrome...
 
Goldbricker said:
littlejim said:
I've never flown in an Apache.

I've never been a guard in a concentration camp either.

But I know sheer unmitigated evil when I see it.

The men who did this were murdering sh*ts. If they belonged to another army I might suggest they'd dishonoured their uniforms. But the American Army has been slaughtering innocent civilians since Wounded Knee. It's what they do best.
......Blather, rant, whine, crying jag, hum the Internationale.....


It'll also be the day this war stops being fun for scum who get their kicks playing real life video games with real live targets.
Real weapons were recovered by the ground element, to include an RPG which was destroyed by EOD. I seriously doubt you've ever served in any combat zone since you seem too hysterical to be allowed to handle live ammunition around other men.

But don't let that stop your hoop twitching over Americans, we can't help your feelings of inadequacy Jim.

I could mention Australia's treatment of Aboriginal peoples was similar to Wounded Knee and the taking of children to live with White Australians but I wont tar all Australians just because your a douchebag wearing a che t-shirt. In closing eat a shotgun you boring socialist asshole.

Well said Goldbricker, obviously little Jim thought he was a Bigman when he vented his frustration at the good ole USA. Course, he will also be one of the 1st people to come running to the very same USA when the shit hits the fan down under............The Japs are coming, the Japs are coming :)
 
20mins cut out of it somewhere is unlikely to change the brute fact of impatiently brassing up unarmed individuals evacuating casualties, nor undo the PR damage of having professional servicemen looking for excuses to pull the trigger, and laughing when an APC runs over a dead body. It would have to be a strange sort of 20mins to re-spin the evidence from "very bad, quite possibly war crimes" to "find and dandy, stop fretting". It seems that whatever the complete story is, there is nonetheless going to be a problem of some sort.

One obviously can't be too precious about war and killing, but there's no denying that this sort of thing - the dead journos, the attitude of the guys, and the cover up - do serious harm and could be avoided.
 
Invictus_88 said:
20mins cut out of it somewhere is unlikely to change the brute fact of impatiently brassing up unarmed individuals evacuating casualties, nor undo the PR damage of having professional servicemen looking for excuses to pull the trigger, and laughing when an APC runs over a dead body. It would have to be a strange sort of 20mins to re-spin the evidence from "very bad, quite possibly war crimes" to "find and dandy, stop fretting". It seems that whatever the complete story is, there is nonetheless going to be a problem of some sort.

One obviously can't be too precious about war and killing, but there's no denying that this sort of thing - the dead journos, the attitude of the guys, and the cover up - do serious harm and could be avoided.

As I have said repeatedly, if they (those involved in the attack and any in the chain of command if there was a cover up) broke the law or violated orders (ROE) they should be punished in accordance with established procedures. My point in the previous post was merely to show all aspects of the situation as a reminder that none of us know exactly what happened (context etc.) on the scene or in terms of a cover up. A proper investigatipn will determine that.
 
jumpinjarhead said:
As I have said repeatedly, if they (those involved in the attack and any in the chain of command if there was a cover up) broke the law or violated orders (ROE) they should be punished in accordance with established procedures.

Should, not "have been". Most likely "will not". And that isn't a dig at the US.

My point in the previous post was merely to show all aspects of the situation as a reminder that none of us know exactly what happened (context etc.) on the scene

True enough - but many of us have been in combat and we can make our own judgements - the language, knowing that you are being recorded, makes me wince.

in terms of a cover up. A proper investigatipn will determine that.

Very, very unlikely - the proper investigation, that is. Unfortunately, we've seen the results of US "proper investigations" into bad shooting calls. Being fair, I don't think this comes so much from a desire not to see actual wrongdoers punished but from a politically guided (whether by senior uniformed people or actual politicians) effort to present all US service personnel as the "bravest of the brave and the truest of the true." Coupled with a total, official (and, some would argue, constitutional) disregard for the principles of international law, including the Law of Armed Conflict, as opposed to US law and the UCMJ.

I'm neither professional aircrew nor a FAC, so I've kept out of the analysis. For what it is worth, I think the first shoot seems to be a legit, if subsequently shown to be bad, call. I think a lot of the rest shows the aircrew (not the US, not even the US Army) in a bad light. MHO.
 
Idrach said:
jumpinjarhead said:
As I have said repeatedly, if they (those involved in the attack and any in the chain of command if there was a cover up) broke the law or violated orders (ROE) they should be punished in accordance with established procedures.

Should, not "have been". Most likely "will not". And that isn't a dig at the US.

My point in the previous post was merely to show all aspects of the situation as a reminder that none of us know exactly what happened (context etc.) on the scene

True enough - but many of us have been in combat and we can make our own judgements - the language, knowing that you are being recorded, makes me wince.

in terms of a cover up. A proper investigatipn will determine that.

Very, very unlikely - the proper investigation, that is. Unfortunately, we've seen the results of US "proper investigations" into bad shooting calls. Being fair, I don't think this comes so much from a desire not to see actual wrongdoers punished but from a politically guided (whether by senior uniformed people or actual politicians) effort to present all US service personnel as the "bravest of the brave and the truest of the true." Coupled with a total, official (and, some would argue, constitutional) disregard for the principles of international law, including the Law of Armed Conflict, as opposed to US law and the UCMJ.

I'm neither professional aircrew nor a FAC, so I've kept out of the analysis. For what it is worth, I think the first shoot seems to be a legit, if subsequently shown to be bad, call. I think a lot of the rest shows the aircrew (not the US, not even the US Army) in a bad light. MHO.

I do not share your pessimism about the situation. I do not know whether you are being a bit tongue in cheek, naive or what in your assertion that merely because you or I may have been in combat that we can know for sure the entire story of this or any other situation that is depicted on a video like this.

I stand by my point that none of us on these wise fora know all the facts and just as so many on ARRSE remind me when there is a post about some alleged or apparent wrongdoing by a member of the UK forces, comments are usually withheld until the matter is sorted.

As I also keep saying (and have said in every thread I have posted on involving violations of the LOW or ROE) if anyone involved has broken the law or violated orders, then they should be dealt with according to proper procedures to ensure their rights as well of those of the government are protected. ANYONE who tries to justify or minimize the wanton killing of noncombatants (when the facts are established etc.) is simply wrong-headed.

You (nor I as I keep saying) do not know what, if any action, has been taken in this particular case thus far and knowing the system as I do (and with respect I would hazard a guess that I know the US military justice system a bit better than you) and I am very confident that if there has not been a proper investigation thus far due to a cover up etc. (something that happens in every military from time to time--for example remember the little unpleasant incident in Somalia by the peace-loving Canadians that resulted in a cover up and the eventual and very unfortunate disbanding of its Airborne Regiment? and if memory serves there have been and continue to be cases from Iraq involving alleged wrongdoing and cover-ups by UK military members)
 
Which part of this (emphasis added) ...

jumpinjarhead said:
My point in the previous post was merely to show all aspects of the situation as a reminder that none of us know exactly what happened (context etc.) on the scene

True enough - but many of us have been in combat and we can make our own judgements

Leads you to this?

what in your assertion that merely because you or I may have been in combat that we can know for sure the entire story of this or any other situation that is depicted on a video like this.

Anyway

I stand by my point that none of us on these wise fora know all the facts

yes ...

and just as so many on ARRSE remind me when there is a post about some alleged or apparent wrongdoing by a member of the UK forces, comments are usually withheld until the matter is sorted.

I'll stand by my judgement on the US corporate reputation (which may be unjustified but it definitely exists) for not 'covering up' but investigating and officially completely exonerating personnel involved in overly-enthusiastic application of fire-power - blue on blue or blue on civilian. Just as, with the information I have seen, I'll stand by my judgement on the shooting. More information comes forward, my judgements may change. But what more evidence would we expect to uncover from an action nearly 3 years ago?

While the point about knowledge is fine and there is a general limitation on commenting on trials, you see lots of comment on here?

You (nor I as I keep saying) do not know what, if any action, has been taken in this particular case thus far and knowing the system as I do (and with respect I would hazard a guess that I know the US military justice system a bit better than you) and I am very confident that if there has not been a proper investigation thus far due to a cover up etc.

Personally, I have got my information about what has been officially done in this case from here. I appreciate that it is not going to be complete but it is the official record as produced. I'm also quite interested in some of the redactions - although it's against site policy to post names, it's not too hard to discover who were Brigade Commander and Deputy Commander 1st Air Cav, for instance. A couple of seconds of google-fu got both their bios and current appointments.
 
Top