Wikileaks about to drop "the bombshell"

[Aaron]

I should be the one to apologize. As Tith said, I mistakenly thought you were just knee-jerkingly defending the military, but I see now what I assumed was incorrect.

No problem man, shit happens.

[Simon_Jester]

Do guerilla fighters habitually stroll about in open squares whilst there are enemy helicopters overhead?

Ok so the guys had a few items that with enough confirmation bias you could see as weapons but were they were just milling about in the open without the slightest concern about being seen from the air. Do guerillas who've just been involved in attacking occupying forces act like that?

No, they do not. On the other hand, I'd think it would be really dangerous to fall into a pattern of thinking "No, that cannot be the enemy, because the enemy would never be that stupid!" At that point you're vulnerable to the kind of tactics that belong in bad movies.

Perhaps you should use your fucking brain and start comparing peoples past post on the matter, your fucked in the head if you think I condone this kind of shit. One should not have to loudly proclaim their stance at every goddamn opportunity to satisfy some tool on the net.

The problem is that "I don't condone but I tolerate" is a very common response to genuine atrocities among the nations committing the atrocities, and one that makes it impossible to respond intelligently to the fact that atrocities are going on (if and when they are going on). If things like this are tolerated as part of the price of doing business, they tend to get swept aside when politicians evaluate just how much the business is really costing, because no one wants to dwell on them.

Which leads to murderous idiocy like invading Iraq to free the Iraqis, while ignoring all the cases in which we're going to (inevitably?) shoot innocent Iraqis ourselves in the process of liberating them from the other Iraqis who are shooting at both us and them.

Of course they should be brought up on charges, they violated at least two articles. The thing is that most of us actually know nothing will happen to them, at most they'll be grounded for a while and maybe get a reprimand. The US military has a long track of ignoring this shit and not acting on it.

Which is a big part of the point. As long as there's no systematic policy of either punishing soldiers who do this or (failing that) not routinely putting soldiers in positions where they will end up doing this, this will keep happening. And it will keep fatally screwing over the objectives of every contested occupation we ever launch. I think we're more or less in agreement on that. But that goal is not served when people try to whitewash the picture by saying "Well, this wasn't really an atrocity, and I don't condone it BUT..."

So you're saying you have no goddamned idea which articles may have been violated and are admitting you've been talking out of your ass with that claim then?

Umm... I think he's calling you an idiot because you would appear to have missed Cycloneman's post near the top of Page 4, where Cycloneman details (what he thinks are) the specific Geneva violations involved here.

[Cycloneman]

It was a "screw-up" or "mistake" or "tragedy" or at best a "fuckup". Everybody agrees that it's bullshit when an official calls something "unfortunate" and that they aren't really condemning it at all. Over a page ago I said I'd drop the "atrocity" thing if your side would just state what they believe the punishments over this should be, but no one did.

So yes, we're a little concerned about your opinions on the matter.

I'm still concerned with your claim that the Geneva Convention was violated here. I asked you to provide the specific article/s violated and you still haven't. You keep repeating the claim, but you still have yet to show which, if any, article/s of the Geneva Convention have been violated. So DR5, stop playing fucking word games and provide the information requested already, you worthless pile of festering shit.

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.

[Mr. Coffee]

So you're saying you have no goddamned idea which articles may have been violated and are admitting you've been talking out of your ass with that claim then?

You're an idiot.

So then you're openly refusing a DR5 request because your petulant, easily butthurt moron? Ok...

[Mr. Coffee]

Killing civilians in an area you occupy is a violation of Articles 27 and 32 of Convention IV. Try reading the thread next time.

Ok, then prove that the pilots knew for a fact that those were unarmed civilians and decided to gun them down anyway.

[Aaron]

OK, from the 1949 Convention:

Chapter VI. Medical Transports

Art. 35. Transports of wounded and sick or of medical equipment shall be respected and protected in the same way as mobile medical units.

Should such transports or vehicles fall into the hands of the adverse Party, they shall be subject to the laws of war, on condition that the Party to the conflict who captures them shall in all cases ensure the care of the wounded and sick they contain.

The civilian personnel and all means of transport obtained by requisition shall be subject to the general rules of international law.

Art. 36. Medical aircraft, that is to say, aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick and for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected by the belligerents, while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the belligerents concerned.

They shall bear, clearly marked, the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 38, together with their national colours on their lower, upper and lateral surfaces. They shall be provided with any other markings or means of identification that may be agreed upon between the belligerents upon the outbreak or during the course of hostilities.

Unless agreed otherwise, flights over enemy or enemy-occupied territory are prohibited.

Medical aircraft shall obey every summons to land. In the event of a landing thus imposed, the aircraft with its occupants may continue its flight after examination, if any.

In the event of an involuntary landing in enemy or enemy-occupied territory, the wounded and sick, as well as the crew of the aircraft shall be prisoners of war. The medical personnel shall be treated according to Article 24 and the Articles following.

Art. 37. Subject to the provisions of the second paragraph, medical aircraft of Parties to the conflict may fly over the territory of neutral Powers, land on it in case of necessity, or use it as a port of call. They shall give the neutral Powers previous notice of their passage over the said territory and obey all summons to alight, on land or water. They will be immune from attack only when flying on routes, at heights and at times specifically agreed upon between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral Power concerned.

The neutral Powers may, however, place conditions or restrictions on the passage or landing of medical aircraft on their territory. Such possible conditions or restrictions shall be applied equally to all Parties to the conflict.

Unless agreed otherwise between the neutral Power and the Parties to the conflict, the wounded and sick who are disembarked, with the consent of the local authorities, on neutral territory by medical aircraft, shall be detained by the neutral Power, where so required by international law, in such a manner that they cannot again take part in operations of war. The cost of their accommodation and internment shall be borne by the Power on which they depend.

So theres lots of stuff in there about proper markings and extending the same protection to civvie medical transports as you do to military. Unfortunately the vehicle was unmarked, and I find the language in the GC to be hard to decipher.

Chapter II. Wounded and Sick

Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.

Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex. The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care.

Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Art. 14. Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the wounded and sick of a belligerent who fall into enemy hands shall be prisoners of war, and the provisions of international law concerning prisoners of war shall apply to them.

Art. 15. At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.

Whenever circumstances permit, an armistice or a suspension of fire shall be arranged, or local arrangements made, to permit the removal, exchange and transport of the wounded left on the battlefield.

Likewise, local arrangements may be concluded between Parties to the conflict for the removal or exchange of wounded and sick from a besieged or encircled area, and for the passage of medical and religious personnel and equipment on their way to that area.

Art. 16. Parties to the conflict shall record as soon as possible, in respect of each wounded, sick or dead person of the adverse Party falling into their hands, any particulars which may assist in his identification.
These records should if possible include:
(a) designation of the Power on which he depends;
(b) army, regimental, personal or serial number;
(c) surname;
(d) first name or names;
(e) date of birth;
(f) any other particulars shown on his identity card or disc;
(g) date and place of capture or death;
(h) particulars concerning wounds or illness, or cause of death.

As soon as possible the above mentioned information shall be forwarded to the Information Bureau described in Article 122 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, which shall transmit this information to the Power on which these persons depend through the intermediary of the Protecting Power and of the Central Prisoners of War Agency.

Parties to the conflict shall prepare and forward to each other through the same bureau, certificates of death or duly authenticated lists of the dead. They shall likewise collect and forward through the same bureau one half of a double identity disc, last wills or other documents of importance to the next of kin, money and in general all articles of an intrinsic or sentimental value, which are found on the dead. These articles, together with unidentified articles, shall be sent in sealed packets, accompanied by statements giving all particulars necessary for the identification of the deceased owners, as well as by a complete list of the contents of the parcel.

Art. 17. Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body.

Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead.

They shall further ensure that the dead are honourably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found. For this purpose, they shall organize at the commencement of hostilities an Official Graves Registration Service, to allow subsequent exhumations and to ensure the identification of bodies, whatever the site of the graves, and the possible transportation to the home country. These provisions shall likewise apply to the ashes, which shall be kept by the Graves Registration Service until proper disposal thereof in accordance with the wishes of the home country.

As soon as circumstances permit, and at latest at the end of hostilities, these Services shall exchange, through the Information Bureau mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 16, lists showing the exact location and markings of the graves, together with particulars of the dead interred therein.

Art. 18. The military authorities may appeal to the charity of the inhabitants voluntarily to collect and care for, under their direction, the wounded and sick, granting persons who have responded to this appeal the necessary protection and facilities. Should the adverse Party take or retake control of the area, he shall likewise grant these persons the same protection and the same facilities.

The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence.

No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.

The provisions of the present Article do not relieve the occupying Power of its obligation to give both physical and moral care to the wounded and sick.

Lots in there about protecting the wounded and sick. The point at which a person ceases to be a combatant and counts as wounded for the purposes of this has always been a grey area when I asked. I'm given to understand that once you capture someone it counts and if the guy is obviously not a threat, which is a judgement call.

[Dominus Atheos]

So you're saying you have no goddamned idea which articles may have been violated and are admitting you've been talking out of your ass with that claim then?

You're an idiot.

So then you're openly refusing a DR5 request because your petulant, easily butthurt moron? Ok...

Holy fuck, you're such a retard.

[Mr. Coffee]

Holy fuck, you're such a retard.

Hey, shit for brains, I asked you. Not fuckign Cyclone, you. You made the fucking claim, then you hide like a bitch and didn't answer. Someone else had to do it for you. You're so busy playing superindignant that instead of back your fucking claims when asked you just carried the fuck on. So do the universe a favor, purchase a shotgun, and eat the barrel.

[Dominus Atheos]

*snip*

Thanks, but I already posted the relevant portion last page. That's why the only way I was responding to his DR5 demand was to roll my eyes and call him an idiot. If he doesn't read the thread it his own fault, and we're not obligated to read it for him.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Oh settle the fuck down, Coffee. You invoked DR5 long after Cyclone posted. Stop making a federal case out of it - if your genuine interest is in having a challenge for information met, then should it matter who meets it?

[Mr. Coffee]

*snip*

Thanks, but I already posted the relevant portion last page. That's why the only way I was responding to his DR5 demand was to roll my eyes and call him an idiot. If he doesn't read the thread it his own fault, and we're not obligated to read it for him.

So nevermind that Corporal K just showed "hey it's a giant fucking grey area", or that you're both basically saying "thye did it on purpose, despite no evidence to support that", and nevermind that you got asked this a couple of pages back and instead chose to ignore it, probably hoping someone else would dig your dishonest ass out.

Yeah, you're a fucking chuicklehead. Go post us a big wall of text, or better yet, die in a fire.

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh settle the fuck down, Coffee. You invoked DR5 long after Cyclone posted. Stop making a federal case out of it - if your genuine interest is in having a challenge for information met, then should it matter who meets it?

Nevermind that I asked dipshit this back on the first page...

[TithonusSyndrome]

Oh settle the fuck down, Coffee. You invoked DR5 long after Cyclone posted. Stop making a federal case out of it - if your genuine interest is in having a challenge for information met, then should it matter who meets it?

Nevermind that I asked dipshit this back on the first page...

Yeah, and then someone else came along and answered it. They even quoted your post and everything, did you not browse through the following posts for names? DR5 isn't what was called for if you had some kind of issue with the sources provided.

[Cycloneman]

Killing civilians in an area you occupy is a violation of Articles 27 and 32 of Convention IV. Try reading the thread next time.

Ok, then prove that the pilots knew for a fact that those were unarmed civilians and decided to gun them down anyway.

How about instead you suck my big black dick?

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Oh look, how interesting, the definition of persons covered in Convention IV does not once in any way, shape, or form point out that the people getting shot have to have been properly identified and tagged as civilians or some shit.

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh settle the fuck down, Coffee. You invoked DR5 long after Cyclone posted. Stop making a federal case out of it - if your genuine interest is in having a challenge for information met, then should it matter who meets it?

Nevermind that I asked dipshit this back on the first page...

Yeah, and then someone else came along and answered it. They even quoted your post and everything, did you not browse through the following posts for names? DR5 isn't what was called for if you had some kind of issue with the sources provided.

No, I take issue with dipshit basically hiding until someone else answers for him. I'm also waiting for him to prove that the pilots knew everyone was unarmed and then decided to shot anyway. Basically I'm asking Dominus to stop playing indignant internet asshole and fucking explain his wild ass claims.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Holy fuck, you're such a retard.

And you're a fucking troll with an axe to grind. You did it with Coyote, you did it with Kendall, you're doing it with Coffee, and I'm damn sure you're going to do it with me. Shut the fuck up, you idiotic reactionary twat. This entire thread you've been going around flinging accusations and trying to impugn the characters of people who are trying to tell you the reality of the situation. There's nothing in the Geneva Convention to charge them with and the reality of the situation is that this is a seriously regrettable tragedy for which more caution needs to be taken to limit or cease any similair incidents in the future and the pilots need to be punished for going all hooah, but the reporters took the risk to go into a warzone with equipment slung under their arms in unmarked vehicles and chose not to embed with or inform the conventional forces in the area that they would be operating around.

[Aaron]

See we're in an area where the GC doesn't cover a whole lot, technically who the US is fighting in Iraq should be classed as criminals and handed over to the locals for prosecution as they don't meet most of the criteria for being classed as combatants.

Unfortunately it's even less clear about what the hell to do with them before they commit a crime. Honestly, I'd rather see the ROE because I suspect it has more relevance. I know that Canada's is very broad in Afghanistan but it comes with the caveat of "if you make the wrong judgment call, it's jail time."

[Mr. Coffee]

How about instead you suck my big black dick?

So instead of proving your claim that the pilots murdered a bunch of people for, what, kicks/sick jollies/notwanting to RTB with ammo aboard, you instead stat posting daydreams about what your life might be like if those penis pills you got from the internet actually work. Yup, like I thought, you're a fucking retard.

Oh look, how interesting, the definition of persons covered in Convention IV does not once in any way, shape, or form point out that the people getting shot have to have been properly identified and tagged as civilians or some shit.

So you're saying the pilots just decided to mute they mics, planned out to say that there were weapons visible, unmuted there mics and shot up a bunch of people for what? I mean, you keep crying murder, atrocity, and all kinds of shit, but you can't even provide something as simple as a motive for why the pilots would do it. Thank fuck you're not a lawyer...

[Cycloneman]

Oh look, how interesting, the definition of persons covered in Convention IV does not once in any way, shape, or form point out that the people getting shot have to have been properly identified and tagged as civilians or some shit.

So you're saying the pilots just decided to mute they mics, planned out to say that there were weapons visible, unmuted there mics and shot up a bunch of people for what? I mean, you keep crying murder, atrocity, and all kinds of shit, but you can't even provide something as simple as a motive for why the pilots would do it. Thank fuck you're not a lawyer...

I don't need to hand out a fucking motive, there's a video recording of him doing it. The man who was killed, the father of two, was a civilian. He was killed by a US soldier. That is a crime under Convention IV. It is really that simple.

Please, feel free to frame-by-frame the guy emerging from the van and then take a picture showing anything on his person that looks like a weapon of any kind.

[Big Phil]

Oh look, how interesting, the definition of persons covered in Convention IV does not once in any way, shape, or form point out that the people getting shot have to have been properly identified and tagged as civilians or some shit.

So you're saying the pilots just decided to mute they mics, planned out to say that there were weapons visible, unmuted there mics and shot up a bunch of people for what? I mean, you keep crying murder, atrocity, and all kinds of shit, but you can't even provide something as simple as a motive for why the pilots would do it. Thank fuck you're not a lawyer...

I don't need to hand out a fucking motive, there's a video recording of him doing it. The man who was killed, the father of two, was a civilian. He was killed by a US soldier. That is a crime under Convention IV. It is really that simple.

Please, feel free to frame-by-frame the guy emerging from the van and then take a picture showing anything on his person that looks like a weapon of any kind.

Hey twister... did you even watch the video? The gunner and pilot identified the guys in the video as carrying weapons. Now unless you're trying to argue that they were lying and knew that these guys were unarmed civilians carrying cameras, enough whining about the Geneva Convention.



You know, this entire thread lots its purpose several hours back. It's got everything you'd expect from SDNet: Domino whining about the military, other people claiming war crimes and atrocities, Shep coming as if senor Postmaster General has any idea what it's like to be in the military, a couple of soldiers offering their perspective and being screeched at, and five pages of pointless "discussion." Christ, the only worthwhile discussion topic (should the soldiers be prosecuted and for what?) got lost in the first screeching of ATROCITY!

[Mr. Coffee]

I don't need to hand out a fucking motive, there's a video recording of him doing it. The man who was killed, the father of two, was a civilian. He was killed by a US soldier. That is a crime under Convention IV. It is really that simple.

So then you're saying that they just decided to say there were weapons there kicks. They just made the whole thing up, and bits of the Geneva convention that even professional soldier on this board can't make heads or tails of were intentionally violated.

Please, feel free to frame-by-frame the guy emerging from the van and then take a picture showing anything on his person that looks like a weapon of any kind.

I don't fucking have to. I'm not the one making the claims that they committed premeditated murder and intentionally committed warcrimes, you are. So prove it, motherfucker.

Better yet, why don't you just go back to lurking. It's what you're good at.

[Dominus Atheos]

Holy fuck, you're such a retard.

And you're a fucking troll with an axe to grind. You did it with Coyote, you did it with Kendall, you're doing it with Coffee, and I'm damn sure you're going to do it with me. Shut the fuck up, you idiotic reactionary twat. This entire thread you've been going around flinging accusations and trying to impugn the characters of people who are trying to tell you the reality of the situation. There's nothing in the Geneva Convention to charge them with and the reality of the situation is that this is a seriously regrettable tragedy for which more caution needs to be taken to limit or cease any similair incidents in the future and the pilots need to be punished for going all hooah, but the reporters took the risk to go into a warzone with equipment slung under their arms in unmarked vehicles and chose not to embed with or inform the conventional forces in the area that they would be operating around.

What the fuck are you on about? I honestly have no idea. I'm "impugning the characters of people"? That's called flaming, you retarded little shitstain who probably last had sex with his dog.

[Aaron]

Look, let me try and be a little clearer.

This is a judgment call, depending on the contents of the US ROE, they may well have been able to fire on people they consider to be a "threat." We have a similar clause in Afghanistan that allows you to take action if you feel threatened. The video is poor quality, so I can see how they might have mistaken the stuff for weapons.

They may well be covered legally under their ROE, however killing a civvie is pretty much a warcrime unless it happens "by accident" IE: your not deliberately targeting them and they happen to be in the area when you drop a bomb.

Whether or not they can be charged is pretty much down to the JAG and the UCMJ.

I'm not sensing any malice here, not that they intended to go fuck over some folks for fun. I would charge them though, make an example and ram home the fact that if you fuck up, people die.

[Mr. Coffee]

What the fuck are you on about? I honestly have no idea. I'm "impugning the characters of people"? That's called flaming, you retarded little shitstain who probably last had sex with his dog.

Wait, you mean back on the first page where you basically accused anyone who didn't immediately jump on the "Them pilot's is MURDERERS" bandwagon of yours of supporting "atrocities"? But hey, what's another claim of yours that you get called on and you try to pass it off as if you never said it or refuse to acknowledge people calling you out on it...

[Ritterin Sophia]

What the fuck are you on about? I honestly have no idea. I'm "impugning the characters of people"? That's called flaming, you retarded little shitstain who probably last had sex with his dog.

Trying to accuse people of condoning 'atrocities' when they point out that it does not fit the definition of one as it was not done intentionally and maliciously is not flaming, you dishonest pool of cock snot.