War crimes in Iraq?

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-26 06:42pm

Tonight I saw a repot on TV; its content is summed up quite nicely here:

German broadcaster NDR will air a TV documentary this Thursday that investigates two video clips of US military action in Iraq that have been widely circulated on the web.

Both clips show US soldiers shooting apparently unarmed and injured Iraqis. According to military and legal experts interviewed by the Panorama programme, they show US troops breaking international law by shooting unarmed people.

As reported by this site on 14 January, a video of footage from a US Apache helicopter had been widely circulated on the web following its broadcast on ABC News. Aerial footage shows Iraqis apparently abandoning something - which soldiers assumed to be a weapon - and running for cover.

Soldiers receive instructions to 'shoot it' and kill all three men, including one wounded person already lying on the ground.

A second incident was recorded in April 2003 by a CNN crew and broadcast in October that year. Soldiers are seen shooting unarmed and seriously injured Iraqis during a search of an industrial area. Immediately after the shooting, one soldier describes the situation as 'awesome' and says he 'wants to do it all over again'.

During the Panorama documentary, US Viet Nam veteran General Robert G Gard, describes both events as 'inexcusable murders'. Professor Stefan Oeter, an expert in international law, confirms that the shooting of a wounded person is a war crime.

The page also contains links to the videos of the events in question. I can think of nothing that could have taken place before these two videos that would justify these actions. If these soldiers are going to be charged for what they did remains to be seen.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-26 06:55pm

I've seen both. The guy in the second one should definitely be court-martialed, but I don't see anything wrong with the first one.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-02-26 08:06pm

There's another one I saw in today's times newspaper.

Rape complaints against US soldiers worst in over a decade. Complaints being filed by both US and allied service women and by Iraqi non-com females.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-26 08:59pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:There's another one I saw in today's times newspaper.

Rape complaints against US soldiers worst in over a decade. Complaints being filed by both US and allied service women and by Iraqi non-com females.

In over a decade? Seems logical since that would be the last time a force of comparabul size was deployed to a combat zone. Same place in fact.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-26 09:18pm

Joe wrote:I've seen both. The guy in the second one should definitely be court-martialed, but I don't see anything wrong with the first one.

The first one would be the Apache.
"Roger. He's wounded"
"Hit him."
You don't see anything wrong with that?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-26 09:21pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:
Joe wrote:I've seen both. The guy in the second one should definitely be court-martialed, but I don't see anything wrong with the first one.
The first one would be the Apache.
"Roger. He's wounded"
"Hit him."
You don't see anything wrong with that?

It was probably the most merciful course of action, given his injuries.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-26 09:25pm

I don't know where you live, but the US army does employ medical personnel.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-02-26 09:28pm

The first one would be the Apache.
"Roger. He's wounded"
"Hit him."
You don't see anything wrong with that?

So if he had shot and killed him with those first few shots but after seeing him wounded its no longer ok to kill him?

Most people would say yes but in this case the fellow in question on that video anyway(I happen to have it saved on the old external) the person in question was lacking a arm, some torso and what looks like both legs and is not moving period when the pilot opens up on him

So is it ok to shoot him when you know he's going to die anyway?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-02-26 09:31pm

I don't know where you live, but the US army does employ medical personnel.

Typicaly they don't ride along on Apache's and from a battle point of view Apache's are rarley in the rear shooting up cilivians(Hopefuly) and more towards the front(Or past it) blowing shit up which concidently is far from Medical attention unless you want to reserve parts of the Medical Airlift helio's for enemey combatants

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-26 09:38pm

The video is from Dec. 1, the war was already over, there was no front.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-02-26 09:52pm

The video is from Dec. 1, the war was already over, there was no front.

I was un-aware of the date of the video however in fairness one must point out that though the war was "over" we were still taking casulities and still are

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-02-26 10:07pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:
Joe wrote:I've seen both. The guy in the second one should definitely be court-martialed, but I don't see anything wrong with the first one.
The first one would be the Apache.
"Roger. He's wounded"
"Hit him."
You don't see anything wrong with that?

If you shoot at someone with the intent to kill and only wound them, you take better aim and shoot again.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-26 10:19pm

I guess now I know why the US hasn't signed the ICC treaty.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-26 11:04pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:I guess now I know why the US hasn't signed the ICC treaty.

Of course, to deny parasites like the Belgian cunt with his entirely fictional "energy weapons" charge an avenue to do us harm. The costs simply outweigh the benefits.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-26 11:55pm

I have a question, are you or are you not in the military?

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-27 03:21am

It is disturbing. And also rape allegations? It is the odd things about militaries. They seem to bring the worst out of people. If all this is true, there are no excuses. Cruelty and criminalty are wrong, and wering a uniform and serving your country doesn't mitigate that. For all the talk of the discipline of the armed forces, we too often see it fail. It might not be the majority, but it is too many. Far too many.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-27 03:31am

Oh, another thing.

It reminds me of the story I had heard on one of the news networks. It seems these 2 brothers were returning home in the family truck with products for the family business. It was in the triangle, I believe and approaching curfew. They got to the forst perimeter and Iraqi forces waved them through and told them to hurry home, as the curfew was just starting. They rushed on, and then were met by US forces.

It's unclear what happen after that. The US says it took them into custody and were going to question them, but the office they were to use was closed so they left them on a bridge near there truck and went of their way.

One brother says they took them taunted them, and took them to the bridge. They pushed them in despite one brother pleadig about not being able to swim.

What is certain is that one brother is dead, drowned, his body found days later. The other made it to shore. Also their truck was destroyed, like a tank went over it.

The US claims to have no idea what happen, and is resistant to admit anything. The family is ticked.

I would be a doubter of the story, to give benefit of the doubt. But the US military concedes so much of the story (meeting the men, taking them, and them not being a threat or problem), though it was like pulling teeth to get any info. And then they shrug off with little interest the rest, and worse parts.

With other stories it is an uncomfortable pattern. As an American I find it near impossible to view my military as bad. Having bad apples (especiallyy looking at the nasty things happening in places like Okinawa), sure. But all these things are hard to accept. And to question and seek answers is only met with questions of patriotism. It's sad.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-02-27 03:32am

The first one is just war *shrug*.

The second one needs investigation and IIRC was under investigation. I havn't heard of anything else on it though.

But on the kid who wanted to do it again, cut him some slack on that. Its called an adrenilyn high. He just went through a fire fight and is pumped up and will say stupid shit. I'll bet you a cookie his pissed himself or tossed his cookies an hour or so later when it dawned on him he was in a fire fight and the andrenilyn high wore off.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-02-27 04:00am

GySgt. Hartman wrote:I guess now I know why the US hasn't signed the ICC treaty.

This wouldn't go to the ICC even if the US had signed.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-27 05:24am

How could someone survive getting hit by a 30mm shell? And, if they did, is there really any chance they would be in such a condition that anything short of mercy killing could be effected upon them?

I'm witholding comment on the second incident for now; but the third one is probably a rumour, and one I'm actually aware of from early on--it was originally posted on a pro-U.S. Iraqi blogger's website, and received quite a lot of attention. Because of his stance, a fair number of people saw that it was thoroughly investigated and analyzed, and nothing came of it.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-27 07:08am

CJvR wrote:
GySgt. Hartman wrote:I guess now I know why the US hasn't signed the ICC treaty.
This wouldn't go to the ICC even if the US had signed.

Yeah, probably not. Just forget I ever said that, it's got nothing to do with this thread.

Ordering a soldier to shoot an unarmed wounded person is a war crime, though.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-27 10:23am

And as for the Apache video, 'Unarmed' hardly qualifies. It look as if they were unloading RPGs from that truck, which is probably why the gunner went ahead and fired on them.

And will you please answer my question, Hartman? I'm just curious.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-27 10:35am

Nathan F wrote:And will you please answer my question, Hartman? I'm just curious.

The question I have is that what does it matter if he is or isn't?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-02-27 03:12pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Nathan F wrote:And will you please answer my question, Hartman? I'm just curious.
The question I have is that what does it matter if he is or isn't?

I'm just curious. Doesn't really matter...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-27 04:46pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:How could someone survive getting hit by a 30mm shell? And, if they did, is there really any chance they would be in such a condition that anything short of mercy killing could be effected upon them?

At the range those shells where exploding from him, even one should have been fatal.