US troops open fire on villagers as fighter jet crashes: report

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

March 23, 2011 - 7:43AM

US troops opened fire on villagers in an operation to rescue two jet fighter crew after their plane crashed in eastern Libya, according to a British report.

Channel 4 News is reporting at least six villagers were injured when US Marines came in with "all guns blazing" to extract the pilots.

London's Telegraph website is also reporting six "were believed to have been shot by a US helicopter during his rescue".
....

Reporter Lindsey Hilsum, at the crash, said the US helicopter came in and opened fire on Monday night, local time, as villagers were handing over one of the downed pilots to local rebel forces.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-troops-open-fire-on-villagers-as-fighter-jet-crashes-report-20110323-1c5fz.html

"US troops opened fire on villagers in an operation to rescue two jet fighter crew after their plane crashed in eastern Libya, according to a British report."

so did that happen? Did this happen? Did both things happen? Early reports can be wrong.

:shrug:

These guys are on the ground for as long as it takes to get the aircrew back to the helicopter and get them out.

hugging the pilot and telling him, "We're your friends"?

do we know?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

really digging it though. Never seen anything like it. Germany wants nothing to do with it. France doesn't want to lead. Britain is having second thought if the US is not going to pay for most of it. What in the hell is going on?

Two US airmen have been rescued after ejecting from their F-15E Eagle warplane just before it crashed during allied operations in eastern Libya. The plane appeared to suffer mechanical failure near the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the US military said. There are reports six villagers were shot and hurt in the US rescue effort.

One Libyan who came across the crashed jet told Britain's Daily Telegraph that one pilot held his hands in the air and said "OK, OK", but was quickly thanked by locals for his participation in the air strikes. Younis Amruni told the Telegraph: "I hugged him and said 'don't be scared, we are your friends'."

A reporter for Britain's Channel 4 said six villagers were shot and injured as a US helicopter attempted to rescue the crew. She said one man expected his young son to lose a leg due to a bullet wound but that the locals did not appear resentful over the shootings. A spokeswoman for US Africa Command said it was "trying to ascertain the facts"


More at link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12816226

Six people were shot AND there were friendly people that greeted one pilot.

:(

The way the story read, they were all friendly, but when the
helicopter arrived apparently it looked like the pilot(s) were
being 'captured'. Remember Somalia....(Blackhawk down)

of engagement, I imagine.

That bespeaks a certain lack of trust in the allies.

The NATO mission in Libya is to protect civilians from government aggression. We're not taking sides. The rebels are certainly benefiting from our intervention, but we're not their allies.

does this part qualify as sarcasm from the Brit reporter, or is it just SOP for the world police: "A reporter for Britain's Channel 4 .... said one man expected his young son to lose a leg due to a bullet wound but that the locals did not appear resentful over the shootings."?

well, at least we don't see the usual 'Death to America' chorus line. thankful for small mercies ....

US spokesperson denying they shot at villagers, who reportedly were helping to rescue the pilot and the other passenger.

From the article linked in the OP, seems to contradict the U.S. spokesperson:



War, Libyans will find out that foreign troops shoot first and might not even ask questions later. No matter how they claim to be there to help.

They can ask the Iraqis and the Afghans.

Hopefully the U.S. means it that there will be no troops on the ground, however the language in the UN resolution doesn't exclude 'peace-keeping forces'. I wish it had.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Facts are facts.

(or lives) thanks to "Obama's war"?

...

"...one pilot held his hands in the air and said "OK, OK", but was quickly thanked by locals for his participation in the air strikes. Younis Amruni told the Telegraph: "I hugged him and said 'don't be scared, we are your friends'.""

Or didn't you read that part?

I would like to know their level of gratitude for that.

in Libya then Qaddafi has.

Do you have any support for it whatsoever?

when a quaint document called the Constitution of the United States required the consent of Congress before the President could wage agressive war, legs notwithstanding. Look it up.

We're required to honor the UN Charter. It's the "law of the land".

I've been down this road a hundred times, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Nothing in the UN Charter gives a United States President or any other leader the authority to ignore his nation's laws or obliges any member state to go to war. Nor do the war making powers of the Security Council superseded the sovereignty of the US Constitution. What is truly ironic about you comment is the fact that the US is also a signatory of the Geneva Conventions which are also the "law of the land" and which specifically prohibit waging aggressive war, looting, torture, murdering civilians and similar crimes. As I said before, "look it up."

Since you're asking for it, I'll give it to you.

UN Charter, Article 42:

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

UN Charter, Chapter VII:

"A Security Council Resolution is considered to be 'a Chapter VII resolution' if it makes an explicit determination that the situation under consideration constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and/or explicitly or implicitly states that the Council is acting under Chapter VII in the adoption of some or all operative paragraphs."

US Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

"This Constitution...and all treaties made." Do you understand what that means? It means that treaties made by the US are on equal footing with the U.S. Constitution.

We aren't obligated to get involved? Our obligations under UN Charter, Article 1 & 2 (and Article VI, U.S. Constitution):

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

And Article 2:

"All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter."

Reply with references, or don't bother.

The UN was established and mandated to ensure peace between nations. It was never intended to be involved in disputes that occur within sovereign nations.

Not only does the UN have a long history of humanitarian missions, they think the UN has right under Chapter VII. Done deal.

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

“1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

“2. Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;

“3. Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance;

“Protection of civilians

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

“5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;

“No-fly zone

“6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;

“7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorization conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;

“8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

“9. Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;

“10. Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;

“11. Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations;

“12. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above."

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution

No matter what the UN or any member nation says, a U.S. President is not free to violate the Constitution.

EA: "The U.S. agrees."

:crazy: Whatever.

Yes, the US agrees. The Supreme Court, final word on what the Const. means, has deided several ases on the issue of Const.v. treaty. None of them support your position.

Thanks. nt

Ech. I'm done. Waste of time. :hi:

that is the problem.

As Reply 104 also suggested, you could prove your interpretation is the correct by providing a SCOTUS case that supports your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.

under the authority of the Constitution apply by definition to foreign affairs. The US is bound by them as a member of the international community. However, their provisions do not apply to the laws of the United States within its own territory unless complimented by domestic law. On our own soil, the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution clearly confers American war making powers to Congress and not to any foreign entity or international body. Had Obama sought and received congressional consent and then gone to the UN there would be no legal problem and we not be having this disagreement, but he did not.

Constitution. Neither are, obviously, state constitutions or state laws.

And I don't know what you think quoting the UN Charter proves. Besides, nothing you quoted says a nation is free to disregard its own laws when taking an action authorized in the U.N. Charter.

"Reply with references, or don't bother." LOL. Who made you boss of the board? And which Supreme Court case or legal scholar did YOU cite to support YOUR interpretation of the Supremacy Clause?

This is America. We do what we want and the Hell with everybody else. We ONLY meet the UN requirements that we wish to meet..

but we're not. That's irrelevant.

The point is that the UN Charter, which is "law of the land" in the U.S., gives us justification under international and U.S. law to enforce the provisions of UNSCR 1973.

could not have asked Congress BEFORE "honoring the UN Charter?"

constitutional, he isn't. He is if it's unonstitutional. (No, the UN has nothing to do with it.)

:rofl:

because some poster named wtmusic says so.

Prove me wrong. Should be easy, what with all your 100'a of times going around on the subject.

I am sure the loyalists might disagree with you a bit..

That's a bizarre way to look at it.

Do you think the West's bombing is not taking limbs and lives? It would not surprise me one bit if I were to learn more lives have been lost since the West started bombing then before we got involved.. This is not about saving lives no matter what those in Washington might say.. You don't "save" lives by launching Tomahawk Missiles at a group of people. You take lives and do much "collateral damage" which means women and children..

you need to speak to someone from Kosovo.

It was bad, but would have been a lot worse.

:shrug: Destroy the village to save it..

it's easier to cope with this news when you're glad it happened.

Always a tradeoff, and in this case, doing nothing was the worst choice of all.

Seems the locals are glad we're there. I'm glad it's ok with them, whatever you think.

:eyes:

That's what proportion is. It's difficult, but give it some thought. :eyes:

which boys will still have both legs thanks to this crash?

You would have us not get involved in WWII, because it might involve a boy losing his leg to save 6 million Jews.

What is it with you and boys' legs?

:hi:

How many lives are a boy's leg worth to you? These things matter.

:crickets: :hi:

but you've already got it on the clearance rack. :eyes:

But take your time. :eyes:

However, if you think Roosevelt would have pulled the plug on D-Day because a kid might lose a limb, you're out of your mind.

ETA: Meaning not a word about whether or not a war should or should not be fought over limbs.

The UNSC disagrees with you there too.

You have a lot of differences with them, but of course you're far more qualified in international affairs.

US forces sent into Libya to rescue two downed American airmen botched the mission by shooting and wounding friendly villagers who had come to help, witnesses have said.

Libyans who went to investigate the US warplane's crash site said that a US helicopter had come in with guns firing, creating panic and wounding onlookers, some of whom had to be taken to hospital; one 20-year-old man is expected to have his leg amputated. The villagers said they had been searching for the plane's missing airmen to welcome them and help them.

Channel Four's Lindsey Hilsum spoke to the villagers, and visited Jala hospital in Benghazi where some of the injured were treated. Among them was Hamad Abdul Ati, 43, who had bullet and shrapnel wounds. He said he was puzzled rather than angry, and did not understand why the Americans had been so aggressive in their rescue mission.
...

Admiral Samuel Locklear, the US commander co-ordinating coalition operations from aboard USS Mount Whitney in the Mediterranean, declined to deny that the marines had opened fire. He merely said that the rescue had been executed as he would have expected, "given the circumstances"; an investigation was under way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/libya-downed-airmen-rescue

Detailed article at link.

Fighter jets flying in the no fly zone and American soldiers on the ground in Libya...

screwed. Fire enough missiles, civilians will die, we're screwed.

Best to pull away before we rack up the catastrophes.

you completely missed out on music of the 1980s.

I'm in Canada at the moment, but the only reports I'm seeing so far are from foreign press.

Whomever was in charge of the rescue mission screwed up or just didn't care if any non-U.S. people were killed/shot.

Your job is to recover the pilot. Period. This is why this mission is a time bomb waiting to blow up in the President's face.

The whole thing is a trap, and we should not be there. What happened today is only the beginning of needless injuries and deaths.

But we need to limit the mission to enforcing a "no fly zone" and let the rebels do what they have been doing. No mission creep, please.

This isn't a fucking video game or movie.

Wars are messy.

Lesson #1 in any Air War


Don't go running up to downed planes with AK-47's in your hands.

With helicopter gunships pointing their sights at you.

You are just ants on the ground.

Without any indication of aggression.

too bad the kid who lost his leg forgot his position in the world order: he's just an ant on the ground.

guess they've learnt their lesson now & the next time a pilot is downed around their village: just leave him to stew in whatever shit he lands in - earth, air, fire, or water - don't bother to see if he's okay, or try to rescue him, 'cos your sons will pay with their lives or their limbs.

quote from the linked article in the OP: "Channel 4 News said a pilot and a weapons officer were on the jet. Both ejected safely, but suffered minor injuries .... The pilot was rescued by the US helicopter soon after crash landing and opposition rebels recovered the weapons officer, taking "took good care of him" before coalition forces picked him up some time later"

Rules of war. They were trying to help, that's the mentality there.

Because they might just consider you to be ants, and squash you down when you try to help them.

don't they realize we're liberating them? :eyes: :sarcasm:

Exceptionalism on display, such as the kind you offer up, makes me sick. :puke:

Shit happens. Deal with it.

Winning hearts and minds, just like Cheney did in Iraq

Suddenly expanding operations FAR beyond the original rules of engagement in order to accommodate some war-hawk's wishes.

I am sure the hawks and profiteers have grand plans for Libya, of course, but even if the altruists and humanitarians set the original agenda, war is by its nature going to turn into a clusterfuck very soon. And, here we are.

"You want to see how things get quickly out of control in country? When the generals show up, they need all sorts of "comforts", then the creep happens"

"no boots on the ground" to "some boots on the ground" to "boots on the ground" to "what were were talking about? There have always been boots on the ground".

Now they run crying when a bit of reality invades their tiny worlds and people get shot on the ground.

Like I said from the start - it's going to be a bloodbath. We have no business being there.

Antiseptic wars, oh, "police actions" are for the completely naive.

The Libyan villagers know accidents happen. It's a shame more people aren't as understanding. I'd be surprised if the injured villagers were not treated by US medics.



I'm sure the villagers understand what's at stake much more than we do here. They know what will happen to them if pro-Gaddafi forces ever find them, too.

Put yourself in their situation. Are you telling me that you'd be okay with a bunch of Libyan Nationals shooting up YOUR neighborhood and killing some neighbors? You'd REALLY be okay with that?

I do, however, believe the Libyan villagers who went out of their way to speak to British reporters that were on the scene.

We're talking about US soldiers that killed villagers. I'm skeptical that they were a-okay with the US military rolling in and shooting up the neighborhood, and one story from the BBC does not satisfy that skepticism.

If you're so skeptical of eyewitness news reports that only your preconceived opinion will do, I suggest you contact the BBC and accuse their reporters of lying. I'm not interested in indulging your baseless speculation.

And, yes, I do not believe everything I read. I think that's a good thing.

I thought the outrage was over a guy losing his leg, not people being killed? :shrug:

How would the BBC reporters really know how they felt?

:shrug:

And that's not always the case, in wartime.

BBC has an entire Arabic-language program, I'm pretty sure they can find some impartial Arabic speakers.

But whatever makes your point...

Translators cost money. Most reporters don't have a lot of money, especially to take translators with them. Even the BBC.

And they don't have people available, say, who built http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic">this website to translate for them?

Not just the BBC... http://www.france24.com/ar">France24, http://arabic.cnn.com">CNN, http://arabic.rt.com">RT...not to mention independent translators that get paid a lot to be neutral.

Or hey, maybe some Libyan rebels actually speak English. It's a fairly well-understood language throughout the Arab world. But frankly, it seems like you're grasping at straws...

The BBC is always strapped for money. Reporters don't travel with a personal translators, especially those who work for public broadcasters. They have to rely on others for translators, and they know they don't always get the straight goods.

double plus good! extra choco-rations for you!

It's just a scratch.

U.S. sends planes in to help civilians. Plane goes down. Pilot is being helped by grateful civilians. U.S. SHOOTS those civilians.

:wtf:

PB

It's on special - no re-funds

Saw it, too. Loved it!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Somehow this short war will go from weeks to months, and then months to years - same as Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's time we stopped terrorizing civilians in other countries and bring all of our troops home.

Read all about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=636383&mesg_id=636415

When a flyer goes down, we send in small extraction teams supported by aircraft, because the best hope of getting a downed flyer back is by getting that person out as soon as possible.

Since friendly and foe on the ground are difficult to distinguish at the best of times, and both are armed, it would be easy to make a mistake, possibly made easier by the timing of the arrival of U.S. forces just when the downed pilot was being handed over to local rebel forces.

I'm not trying to defend the action, I'm just trying to offer my best guess as to how it happened.

Whatever the case, it's a tragic reminder that a stand-off approach is still stepping in.

Remember the joke they told in World War I: When the Germans shoot, the French duck. When the French shoot, the Germans duck. When the Americans shoot, everybody ducks.

The whole world knows how clumsy and casual the US military is with its firepower.

by people that don't even bother to wear uniforms to identify themselves as enemy combatants? I'll bet you would survive a few minutes thinking like you do.

are exactly the same?

Looks like it's not just the morons with the guns that
believe in shooting first and asking questions later.

Specifically:
> Have you ever run through the streets of a foreign city blah blah blah ...

The facts of the matter were (and remain) that American armed forces are
renowned for shooting first and asking questions later.

That comes from their allies as well as their "enemies".

You were "off topic" by your pretence that invading a foreign country
somehow gives you the "right" to kill the poor unfortunate bastards
who happen to live there ...

Your attitude in .97 and .136 is to minimise the existence of any
people other than your sainted slaughtering warriors. That is why
you are out of order on your .136 (and subsequent justifications).

But once you have sent them into harm's way, you pretty much need to drop the subject as you have no moral ground to stand on at that point. You're just insulting the soldiers that you have sent to war.

"The facts of the matter were (and remain) that American armed forces are
renowned for shooting first and asking questions later.'
like I say, you're just insulting the soldiers that you have sent to war. I helped develop the Battlefield Combat Identification System incidentally which greatly minimizes the incidence of fratricide.

:puke:

...and that the people were hit by shrapnel from a fire on two armored vehicles approaching the scene.

Guess those two armored vehicles were there to bring roses to the rebels who'd rescued the pilot.

Here is all I could find from the BBC:

The US chief of staff for the mission in Libya has insisted there have been no reports of civilian casualties caused by allied action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12843741

But clearly there have been reports, though he may claim that they are in error. So the statement doesn't make a lot of sense.

I just wish they weren't in the position to be needing rescuing.

That's unacceptable.

You should have learned by now that the rich guys never feel any pain ... that's the
stuff left for the plebs ...

and this was a crash due to technical problems meaning it would likely have happened whether we went to war or not.

has rained down more cruise missiles than all previous Nobel Prize winners combined, Arafat included.

Posting is easy. Life and death decisions IRL are much more difficult.

When will it end? This is unacceptable.

After a stalemate is achieved....we draw a line in the sand... and set-up a DMZ like in Korea.

Only East/West Libya instead.

Build a big wall, some minefields, lots and lots and lots of concertina wire (U.S. Steel, of course).

Then we'll build some "UN" bases around it, keep a few planes, some radars, a Starbucks or two.

No matter what new warlord takes over, Ta-da! Peace for the next 50 years.



For a quicker end, of course, we'd need Moe's head on a stick.