Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

[adam_grif]

Except that it doesn't logically follow that they are insurgents. That's a leap in logic. Even if you think the guys before were bad guys, there is no logical connection between those guys and the guys in the van. However, if I were driving and I saw someone by the side of the road, clearly injured, I'd stop to help him and I'd expect any moral person to do the same.

I know all that, and this is the primary reason why the situation was totally unacceptable. The reason they shot them was because they were blindly assuming that only durka durka terrorists would dare help the other insurgents they just shot.

Given that they didn't have guns, the people gunners clearly did not have a positive ID on anything. The issue is they were out looking for people with guns, so that's what they "found".

Should they be looking for things other than people with guns? In the middle of Baghdad?

The false IDing was probably the least damning thing out of all the things that happened in that video, because that's a mistake that isn't difficult to make.

I'm not familiar with the makes and models of RPGs. However, I am very familiar with video equipment. So if you would, could you post photos of these weapons that look so much like video cameras that a person reasonably familiar with one or the other could confuse the two?

Just your standard RPG. When the guy peeks around the corner and he goes THERES AN RPG in the video, it looks like the front of the RPG minus the warhead. I'm sure the proportions are wrong (because it wasn't an RPG), but the people in the chopper already think they're armed with guns, and then saw what kind of looks like an RPG, so it fits the schema they've got for the insurgents. They certainly didn't have the benefit of freeze frame analysis that we do.

Further, the argument goes both ways. You say people watching the video are biased because we know that's video equipment and not weapons, but does the argument not cut the other way as well? If you start with the assumption that they MUST be armed, then you can justify any action they take as nefarious.

Did you not see where it genuinely looked like they had rifles of some description? It was in incorrect assumption, yes, but not a wholly unreasonable one. It did look like they were armed. They weren't starting with the assumption from zero, they only made that assumption after people started reporting that they had "AK's".

When you have a hammer, you should never get into the mindset that all problems consists of nails, because that's a good way to ruin a screw. That's why the gunners are responsible.

I know the gunners are responsible here

The point of contention isn't that they fucked up big time and shouldn't have, it's that the early stages of what went wrong was at least understandable. Not necessarily justifiable, you understand, but that it's not difficult to see what went wrong and why.

Agree or disagree, but don't try to have your cake and eat it too by justifying their actions and then saying that you don't think its justified as a cavaet so no judgment is reflected on you. Take a stand. If you think what the gunners did was reasonable, then say so, don't try to defend them but stay on the fence.

I'm not fence sitting, I'm explaining. Understandable and Justifiable don't mean the same thing.

The gunners are accountable, but I also kind of feel sorry for them at the same time, because it wasn't really intentional malice on their part. Not only will they (if they haven't already) get burned for this, they also have to live with this terrible thing they did, all because they were too eager on the trigger finger and didn't think things through enough.

[ArmorPierce]

[were lucky they weren't arrested/mown down by an apache then. Seeing as how any group of 4 or more people is apparently hostile.

It's happened before
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/23/at-l ... rocession/

Drones attacked what they suspected was a “militant hideout” early today, killing at least 17. When mourners gathered to offer prayers for those slain in the first attack, the drones struck again, attacking the procession itself and bringing the overall toll to at least 80, according to witnesses.

Actually, it seems to be a accepted tactic.

The funeral attack was reportedly aimed at Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Baitullah Mehsud, though officials acknowledge that he was not killed in the salvo.

Whoops lol.

I was watching a BBC documentary and they stated that Taliban insurgents drag their dead away so that Coalition forces can't count how many were killed, presumably in addition so that they aren't ID'd as well.

Or maybe they wished to properly bury their comrades according to their religious beliefs? No couldn't be, they are monsters, they don't care about comrades getting killed! What about Americans retrieving their dead?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I pointed this out earlier, but killing civilians in an area you occupy is a violation of Articles 27 and 32 of Convention IV. Try reading the thread next time.

How sad that the US never signed or ratified the later Conventions (which are really terrorist-protection conventions); but the immediate post-WWII Convention, which is a lot different.

Ah... the immediate post-WWII convention is Convention IV. It goes like:

Convention I: 1864
Convention II: 1906
Convention III: 1929
Convention IV: 1949

So I'm afraid you're talking out your ass on this one.

Shep is referring to the 1977 Amendment Protocols I and II, Simon. The US indeed has never assented to those, and Protocol I and II cover almost entirely protection of civilians, so it's quite probable those amendments to the fourth convention include those provisions, though I'd have to look it up. US policy is to only support Geneva conventions which have the general aim of protecting our soldiers, as the chance of an enemy ever inflicting hurt on the American homeland is quite unlikely.

[MKSheppard]

Shep is referring to the 1977 Amendment Protocols I and II, Simon.

Yep. I don't keep the Geneva treaties all itemized in my brain so I got them confused and mixed up.
[line 2]

[Master of Ossus]

Oh, please; these "Oh, just pick up a weapon so I can shoot you" guys weren't that close and they were in no danger. They weren't afraid; they were just looking for an excuse. Something they could label a possible weapon so they could open fire.

By that time they had already made the choice to fire, because they had already misidentified what the people were carrying. They weren't "looking for an excuse," at that point. And, again, answer the question: what do you do about people who are sure of things but mistaken, in retrospect? Do you not think that that's what happened, in this case? You can argue about the reasonability of their mistake, but regardless of how you define the ROE, people who are "sure" can still be mistaken. Mind you, I don't know what the ROE were, or if they were followed, or if they could've been changed to make things like this less likely to happen, but surely you see the issue that requiring "certainty" is meaningless in the case of identification--you can't just demand that people "be sure" and expect them to be 100% accurate in their assessments as a result of this commandment.

Because they were just looking for an excuse to label anything they saw an enemy and open fire. Naturally they "misidentified" their targets. That's pretty much been standard behavior for us in Iraq. Someone getting out of a car? That might be a car bomb! Open fire!

They're looking for hostile targets, of course there's a bias to identify suspicious-looking people within weapons range as hostile.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Shep is referring to the 1977 Amendment Protocols I and II, Simon.

Yep. I don't keep the Geneva treaties all itemized in my brain so I got them confused and mixed up.
[line 2]

Because of course, any provision aimed at protecting civilians from wholesale slaughter in areas we occupy only gives aid and comfort to terrorists. I mean, the soldiers suspected them of being terrorists so they must have done something wrong!

[Lord of the Abyss]

Oh, please; these "Oh, just pick up a weapon so I can shoot you" guys weren't that close and they were in no danger. They weren't afraid; they were just looking for an excuse. Something they could label a possible weapon so they could open fire.

By that time they had already made the choice to fire, because they had already misidentified what the people were carrying. They weren't "looking for an excuse," at that point. And, again, answer the question: what do you do about people who are sure of things but mistaken, in retrospect? Do you not think that that's what happened, in this case? You can argue about the reasonability of their mistake, but regardless of how you define the ROE, people who are "sure" can still be mistaken. Mind you, I don't know what the ROE were, or if they were followed, or if they could've been changed to make things like this less likely to happen, but surely you see the issue that requiring "certainty" is meaningless in the case of identification--you can't just demand that people "be sure" and expect them to be 100% accurate in their assessments as a result of this commandment.

False dilemma. They weren't even close to "sure". This isn't a matter of a cop shooting a guy with a replica weapon; these are soldiers shooting a guy trying to rescue wounded people.

Because they were just looking for an excuse to label anything they saw an enemy and open fire. Naturally they "misidentified" their targets. That's pretty much been standard behavior for us in Iraq. Someone getting out of a car? That might be a car bomb! Open fire!

They're looking for hostile targets, of course there's a bias to identify suspicious-looking people within weapons range as hostile.

Which, again, amounts to "shoot anything that moves". In a city.

[MKSheppard]

I love you too, Alyrium.
[line 2]

[Alyrium Denryle]

I love you too, Alyrium.
[line 2]

You referred to the following provisions as terrorist protection amendments.

How the fuck are these terrorist protection protocols?

Part I
SCOPE OF THIS PROTOCOL
Article 1.-Material field of application

1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.

2. This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.
Article 2.-Personal field of application

1. This Protocol shall be applied without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria (hereinafter referred to as "adverse distinction") to all persons affected by an armed conflict as defined in Article 1.

2. At the end of the armed conflict, all the persons who have been deprived of their liberty or whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to such conflict, as well as those deprived of their liberty or whose liberty is restricted after the conflict for the same reasons, shall enjoy the protection of Articles 5 and 6 until the end of such deprivation or restriction of liberty.
Article 3.-Non-intervention

1. Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked for the purpose of affecting the sovereignty of a State or the responsibility of the government, by all legitimate means, to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the national unity and territorial integrity of the State.

2. Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked as a justification for intervening, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the armed conflict or in the internal or external affairs of the High Contracting Party in the territory of which that conflict occurs.
Part II
HUMANE TREATMENT
Article 4.-Fundamental guarantees

1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.

2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:

( a ) Violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;

( b ) Collective punishments;

( c ) Taking of hostages;

( d ) Acts of terrorism;

( e ) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;

( f ) Slavery and the slave trade in all their forms;

( g ) Pillage;

( h ) Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

3. Children shall be provided with the care and aid they require, and in particular:

( a ) They shall receive an education, including religious and moral education, in keeping with the wishes of their parents, or in the absence of parents, of those responsible for their care;

( b ) All appropriate steps shall be taken to facilitate the reunion of families temporarily separated;

( c ) Children who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall neither be recruited in the armed forces or groups nor allowed to take part in hostilities;

( d ) The special protection provided by this Article to children who have not attained the age of fifteen years shall remain applicable to them if they take a direct part in hostilities despite the provisions of sub-paragraph ( c ) and are captured;

( e ) Measures shall be taken, if necessary, and whenever possible with the consent of their parents or persons who by law or custom are primarily responsible for their care, to remove children temporarily from the area in which hostilities are taking place to a safer area within the country and ensure that they are accompanied by persons responsible for their safety and well-being.
Article 5.-Persons whose liberty has been restricted

1. In addition to the provisions of Article 4, the following provisions shall be respected as a minimum with regard to persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained:

( a ) The wounded and the sick shall be treated in accordance with Article 7;

( b ) The persons referred to in this paragraph shall, to the same extent as the local civilian population, be provided with food and drinking water and be afforded safeguards as regards health and hygiene and protection against the rigours of the climate and the dangers of the armed conflict;

( c ) They shall be allowed to receive individual or collective relief;

( d ) They shall be allowed to practise their religion and, if requested and appropriate, to receive spiritual assistance from persons, such as chaplains, performing religious functions;

( e ) They shall, if made to work, have the benefit of working conditions and safeguards similar to those enjoyed by the local civilian population.

2. Those who are responsible for the internment or detention of the persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall also, within the limits of their capabilities, respect the following provisions relating to such persons:

( a ) Except when men and women of a family are accommodated together, women shall be held in quarters separated from those of men and shall be under the immediate supervision of women;

( b ) They shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards, the number of which may be limited by the competent authority if it deems necessary;

( c ) Places of internment and detention shall not be located close to the combat zone. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be evacuated when the places where they are interned or detained become particularly exposed to danger arising out of the armed conflict, if their evacuation can be carried out under adequate conditions of safety;

( d ) They shall have the benefit of medical examinations;

( e ) Their physical or mental health and integrity shall not be endangered by an unjustified act or omission. Accordingly, it is prohibited to subject the persons described in this Article to any medical procedure which is not indicated by the state of health of the person concerned, and which is not consistent with the generally accepted medical standards applied to free persons under similar medical circumstances.

3. Persons who are not covered by paragraph 1 but whose liberty has been restricted in any way whatsoever for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be treated humanely in accordance with Article 4 and with paragraphs 1 ( a ), ( c ) and ( d ), and 2 ( b ) of this Article.

4. If it is decided to release persons deprived of their liberty, necessary measures to ensure their safety shall be taken by those so deciding.
Article 6.-Penal prosecutions

1. This Article applies to the prosecution and punishment of criminal offences related to the armed conflict.

2. No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. In particular:

( a ) The procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;

( b ) No one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;

( c ) No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under the law, at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;

( d ) Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law;

( e ) Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;

( f ) No one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

3. A convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.

4. The death penalty shall not be pronounced on persons who were under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offence and shall not be carried out on pregnant women or mothers of young children.

5. At the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained.

[adam_grif]

Earlier on people were claiming that the Heli was called in because gunshots were reported in the area. Where was this stated?

Can I get a quote?

[Big Phil]

I wonder if any of you douchebags are recognizing your own confirmation bias in this very thread. There's something really ironic about that considering the context.

Some of you are insisting that the behavior of the helicopter crew was criminal, intentional, and that they should have known better, but you're not providing any reasonable explanations to support the position.

Others are arguing that the cameras clearly looked like rifles or RPGs, and that the crew was justified in firing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wonder if any of you douchebags are recognizing your own confirmation bias in this very thread. There's something really ironic about that considering the context.

Some of you are insisting that the behavior of the helicopter crew was criminal, intentional, and that they should have known better, but you're not providing any reasonable explanations to support the position.

Others are arguing that the cameras clearly looked like rifles or RPGs, and that the crew was justified in firing.

Honestly, I try very hard not to attribute to malice what I can more parsimoniously attribute to gross incompetence and mind-boggling arrogance.

"Well its their fault for bringing their kids into a battle" Jesus fucking christ. Didn't think for a second, even after shooting at children, that they may have made a bad call. They congratulated themselves on the deaths of human beings.

If they cannot positively ID weapons, perhaps they should have been trained better, or I dont know... used a set of optical binoculars before opening fire.

[thejester]

I was right, this entire incident is described blow by blow by David Finkel in The Good Soldiers, which was published in 2009. Finkel was on the ground nearby at the time (with the commander of 2-16, whose Bravo Company were the first soldiers on the scene) and heard the Apache's fire. The tape is clearly his primary source for describing the incident. Al Amin was hostile, 2-16 had had various minor engagements all day, and indeed the reason the Reuters men were there is because of the shooting.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I wonder if any of you douchebags are recognizing your own confirmation bias in this very thread. There's something really ironic about that considering the context.

Some of you are insisting that the behavior of the helicopter crew was criminal, intentional, and that they should have known better, but you're not providing any reasonable explanations to support the position.

Others are arguing that the cameras clearly looked like rifles or RPGs, and that the crew was justified in firing.

Stan Marsh? Is that you?

[loomer]

Earlier on people were claiming that the Heli was called in because gunshots were reported in the area. Where was this stated?

Can I get a quote?

06:50:00 1/8 CAV moves in to assist 2/6 after a report of Small Arms Fire (SAF) in the area. They fail to positively identify (PID) the attacker.

That's 28 minutes or so before the video.

Edit: I'm watching the full thing now, with the footage that's 'not relevant' to the specific incident, and you can see a clear difference between a PID'd AK and the tripods.

[Elfdart]

Still not an atrocity, Corporal K. Dumbass keeps tossing the word "atrocity" around like a CNN talking head that things every car crash is a "tragedy". Fucked up that it happened, but still not an atrocity.

Is atrocity some kind of concise and specific definition of something exact, or is it just a fancy word for "pretty darn horrible"? Because, if you ask me, some people coming in to help some wounded guy ending up getting themselves shot and killed along with little kids, is pretty darn horrible.

Reckless and indiscriminate use of force that kills and wounds civilians and other non-combatants is also a war crime, just as reckless and indiscriminate force is a crime in any other setting.

The hallmark of an indiscriminate attack is that "injury to the civilians is merely a matter of 'no concern to the attacker.'"[353] As Dinstein notes, from the standpoint of international humanitarian law, "there is no genuine difference between a premeditated attack against civilians (or civilian objects) and a reckless disregard of the principle of distinction: they are equally forbidden."[354] The launching of indiscriminate attacks knowingly is a war crime under international law.[355]

Firing on the people who tried to aid the wounded certainly counts. The cover-up that took place afterward does as well. For example, if a policeman mistakes a candy bar with a silver wrapper for a gun and kills a kid (something that has happened) it could be written off as just a mistake. If the policeman and his superiors lie, file false reports, plant a throw-down on the body, etc then clearly it was no "mistake".

[Gil Hamilton]

Should they be looking for things other than people with guns? In the middle of Baghdad?

The false IDing was probably the least damning thing out of all the things that happened in that video, because that's a mistake that isn't difficult to make.

Baghdad is a full grown city. People congregate for other reasons than to be insurgents. Further, do you know what happens in most countries when you get out any sort of professional looking camera? You attract a crowd because people want to know what's up and get in your picture. Photography magazines talk all the time about how much less camera shy people are in eastern countries.

Just your standard RPG. When the guy peeks around the corner and he goes THERES AN RPG in the video, it looks like the front of the RPG minus the warhead. I'm sure the proportions are wrong (because it wasn't an RPG), but the people in the chopper already think they're armed with guns, and then saw what kind of looks like an RPG, so it fits the schema they've got for the insurgents. They certainly didn't have the benefit of freeze frame analysis that we do.

Bullshit. Have you ever seen a professional shoulder mount?

This is one:
http://www.digitalcamcordernews.com/pos ... -s270u.jpg

How the hell do the two of those even look remotely similar? The shoulder mount is a bulky box, not a long narrow tube. Besides, even in the video you could make out the guy had a handheld and a camera bag.

People keep saying "Cameras look like RPGs!" but I've yet to see the RPG that remotely resembles a profession camcorder.

Did you not see where it genuinely looked like they had rifles of some description? It was in incorrect assumption, yes, but not a wholly unreasonable one. It did look like they were armed. They weren't starting with the assumption from zero, they only made that assumption after people started reporting that they had "AK's".

Even in that video, I could make out the guys damn camera bag. Maybe it's because I can recognize camera equipment really well, but I expect professional soldiers to be able to recognize weapons well in the same way. You'll notice that watching the video the number of people they reported with "weapons" and the number of people who were carrying anything was not equal. The gunners inflated the numbers.

I know the gunners are responsible here

The point of contention isn't that they fucked up big time and shouldn't have, it's that the early stages of what went wrong was at least understandable. Not necessarily justifiable, you understand, but that it's not difficult to see what went wrong and why.

Well, it is, when even I can make out what the guys are holding. Those gunners went out looking for guys with weapons and picked any crowd they could remotely justify. Listen to them talk, they were begging to open fire. What sane person begs to kill people? Perhaps because they weren't "people" but, what's the new favorite term for all people on the other side? "Hajis"? I suppose it's only wrong to have a laugh about injured children that they shot up if they are people right?

I'm not fence sitting, I'm explaining. Understandable and Justifiable don't mean the same thing.

The gunners are accountable, but I also kind of feel sorry for them at the same time, because it wasn't really intentional malice on their part. Not only will they (if they haven't already) get burned for this, they also have to live with this terrible thing they did, all because they were too eager on the trigger finger and didn't think things through enough.

No you aren't, the fact that you are arguing proves you think it's justifiable, because you are sitting here trying to justify their actions! Why else would you make such an effort and even post a picture of something that looks absolutely nothing like a video camera (then claim the two could be easily mistaken) if you weren't trying to justify them? If an action is understandable and reasonable in course, then it's justified, yet you pretend like the two are different! That's fence sitting.

Besides, of course there was malice! Did you listen to the audio on that thing? They were laughing about hurting children at the end of it. They were probably back at base right after having a laugh about the Hajis they shot up.

[Simon_Jester]

Shep is referring to the 1977 Amendment Protocols I and II, Simon. The US indeed has never assented to those, and Protocol I and II cover almost entirely protection of civilians, so it's quite probable those amendments to the fourth convention include those provisions, though I'd have to look it up. US policy is to only support Geneva conventions which have the general aim of protecting our soldiers, as the chance of an enemy ever inflicting hurt on the American homeland is quite unlikely.

I know perfectly well that Shep is talking about the '77 amendments. The point is that I'm not. And I don't think Cycloneman is either.

...Perhaps I am confused. But Cycloneman originally cited the 1949 Convention (which the US is a signatory to, as Shep well knows). And the passages he cites (see his post near the top of page 4) talking about the obligation to protect civilians (Articles 4, 27, and 32) do not invoke the 1977 amendments. They are lifted directly from the original text of the 1949 Convention.

So unless I am making a really serious mistake despite my own best efforts, Shep is simply flat wrong about these requirements being part of a treaty we didn't sign.

I wonder if any of you douchebags are recognizing your own confirmation bias in this very thread. There's something really ironic about that considering the context.

Some of you are insisting that the behavior of the helicopter crew was criminal, intentional, and that they should have known better, but you're not providing any reasonable explanations to support the position.

Others are arguing that the cameras clearly looked like rifles or RPGs, and that the crew was justified in firing.

Hmm. I'm weird. I admit that the helicopter crew could simply have been confused, and that they are most likely not guilty of a deliberate My Lai-style massacre of civilians. But I DO think the helicopter crew should have known better, and that their decision to fire on the van was really shaky, even accepting every bad assumption they'd already made as fact.

I think that insofar as the helicopter crew is clear of blame, that blame should be dropped on their superiors who set the rules of engagement... and their political superiors who put us there in the first place.

[adam_grif]

Baghdad is a full grown city. People congregate for other reasons than to be insurgents. Further, do you know what happens in most countries when you get out any sort of professional looking camera? You attract a crowd because people want to know what's up and get in your picture. Photography magazines talk all the time about how much less camera shy people are in eastern countries.

As discussed above, it seems that the hellis were actively looking for insurgents, which were why they were called in to this area specifically.

Bullshit. Have you ever seen a professional shoulder mount?

No, but I have seen this:



Screencap, from as high a resolution as you can get on youtube. Compare it to pictures of the RPG above, it looks a bit too thick to be an RPG, but this isn't something you'd notice in the 2 seconds the gunner got to look at the thing. I have no idea if that's a camera or whatever, but it does, as I said, look like an RPG minus the warhead. Even without that though, they'd already been given permission to engage prior to this on the grounds that the rest of them had "Ak47's".

Besides, even in the video you could make out the guy had a handheld and a camera bag.

I've watched it three times, I never noticed that. I'm not saying it isn't there of course, but it may not be immediately obvious to somebody who isn't familiar with those things and looking for it.

You'll notice that watching the video the number of people they reported with "weapons" and the number of people who were carrying anything was not equal. The gunners inflated the numbers.

Yes he did. There were about 3 people who looked like they were holding guns, then the 1 guy who kind of sort of looked like he had the RPG around the corner. I'm guessing he just assumed the rest were armed too. Something he shouldn't have done, but I doubt they would have denied his request to engage even if he hadn't spotted weapons on the others.

Listen to them talk, they were begging to open fire. What sane person begs to kill people? Perhaps because they weren't "people" but, what's the new favorite term for all people on the other side? "Hajis"? I suppose it's only wrong to have a laugh about injured children that they shot up if they are people right?

Eh, the dude clearly had it in his head that they were bad guys. This wasn't a justified opinion, but as far as he's concerned they deserve what they're about to get. The guy may not have been a "sane person", as you say, but it doesn't really seem that farfetched a thing to do. The army statement from the New York times article before claims that the US combatants who called in the heli had been taking AK and RPG fire (which also might have been a contributing factor to the "they have AKs and OH LOOK AN RPG!), so if he thought they had already shot at his comrades and countrymen, his eagerness to open up on them is plausible. I'm not sure if this is a regular thing for gunners to be acting like of course, since I'm not one. But I'm sure the army attracts it's fair share of people who are just there because they want to kill people...

No you aren't, the fact that you are arguing proves you think it's justifiable, because you are sitting here trying to justify their actions!

Ballocks. I've outright stated I don't think it's justified, and that they ought to be held accountable.

Besides, of course there was malice! Did you listen to the audio on that thing? They were laughing about hurting children at the end of it. They were probably back at base right after having a laugh about the Hajis they shot up.

Or they were justifying it to themselves so they didn't feel horrible about it later? Bringing children to a firefight isn't unprecedented, I've heard of instances where they've actually brought women and children to fights deliberately to get shot up by the opposing military as a propaganda thing.

They may well have been racist pricks of course, but I'm not going to assume that they are when alternate explanations exist.

[Julhelm]

I saw the video on tv today and it does clearly look as if they're walking around with rifles. If they hadn't said beforehand they were civilians and journalists I'd have totally tagged them as insurgents.

[Stofsk]

I wonder if any of you douchebags are recognizing your own confirmation bias in this very thread. There's something really ironic about that considering the context.

Some of you are insisting that the behavior of the helicopter crew was criminal, intentional, and that they should have known better, but you're not providing any reasonable explanations to support the position.

Others are arguing that the cameras clearly looked like rifles or RPGs, and that the crew was justified in firing.

The real irony is that people are throwing around legal terms without really understanding them. Of course what the pilot and gunner did was intentional - people are mistaking intention in the legal sense with motivation. As far as my experience with legal definitions go, the two terms are completely different (intention is 'what and how' while motive is 'why). Unless things are totally different in America's legal system. (and I gather that UCMJ would probably have different standards than civilian criminal law)

[Vympel]

There's no way I'd tag a bunch of guys casually milling around an open street as "insurgents". I find that ridiculous in the extreme. That they're supposed to have been close to friendlies makes that even more ridiculous.

Its quite clear from the video that the Apache pilots are a pair of fucking sociopaths, too.

[open_sketchbook]

Gunners in every gun cam video I've ever seen sound like that. Surprise surprise, people trained to kill enemies who probably have no means of retaliation from a distance while looking through black and white cameras treat the taking of human life lightly!

[Elfdart]

There's no way I'd tag a bunch of guys casually milling around an open street as "insurgents". I find that ridiculous in the extreme. That they're supposed to have been close to friendlies makes that even more ridiculous.

Its quite clear from the video that the Apache pilots are a pair of fucking sociopaths, too.

Even untrained yo-yos know better than to stroll around in the middle of the street when there's gunfire in the vicinity. There's only one sort of person who acts that way: Someone who has every reason to believe he or she won't be attacked (journalists and relief workers).

[Alyrium Denryle]

Gunners in every gun cam video I've ever seen sound like that. Surprise surprise, people trained to kill enemies who probably have no means of retaliation from a distance while looking through black and white cameras treat the taking of human life lightly!

Which is all the more reason to give them very very very stringent rules of engagement during the occupation of a city full of civilians, journalists, and relief workers.