Video of Journalists’ Death Answers Some Questions, but Raises Others

Reactions to the video range <2> widely: Some believe it betrays a possible war crime; others find it completely justifiable. Interestingly enough, many commentators fail to mention that, in recent weeks, the military itself has made some serious admissions about shooting civilians.

During a videoconference to answer soldiers’ questions in March, military officials said that U.S and allied forces had killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others during shooting incidents at Afghan checkpoints and during convoy runs, the New York Times reported in a little noticed story <3>. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said that military inquiries into the incidents revealed that none of civilians had turned out to be threats.

“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” McChrystal said during the videoconference, the Times reported.

Earlier this week the U.S. military did an about-face and admitted that American forces killed three Afghan women <4> during a nighttime raid in February. The military had previously denied involvement in their deaths...

From a New York Times piece <11> about a military shooting incident involving civilians:

A preliminary military investigation found that the Marines killed at least 10 civilians and wounded dozens along a stretch of road .... and no evidence that they were being fired upon.

The killings illustrate the difficulty American forces have encountered in fighting an enemy who often wears no uniform, uses civilians for cover and understands the limits of the American military’s strict rules of engagement.

But they also show how hard it can be for officers to control the actions of heavily armed troops in the heat of battle.

If you’re thinking that excerpt is referring to the WikiLeaks incident, you’d be wrong, though it easily could be. It’s actually from a piece describing a military shooting incident <12> in Afghanistan in March 2007. And in 2005, in what was deemed “potentially the gravest violation <13> of the law of war by U.S. forces” in Iraq to that point, Marines went from house to house shooting civilians in Haditha, Iraq <14>, killing 24 civilians, many of them women and children. Even following the Haditha incident, charges were dropped for all but one <15> of the Marines involved. It’s also worth noting that Marines responsible for the Haditha shootings argued at the time that the rules of engagement were followed <14>, which has also been the military’s position on the Baghdad incident.

more
http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/wikileaks-reuters-baghdad-shooting#comments

That said exposing a war crime I need a tad more information to actually go there... having done this for real from a legal perspective.

And that is to the video itself, though the second part of the engagement is more damning than the first.

And yes laws of land warfare are strange

What it does betray is the problems (that emerge in every war and make it less than clean and tidy) of command and control, as well as the recent (in modern times) problem of fighting enemies who don't wear uniforms and will go in-between civilians. I know some will say, you are blaming the victims, nope, pointing a fact of life. When you train to fight an army that wears a uniform and there are set front lines, your chances of an oops involving civilians is less than a war when the enemy wears no uniforms, has not signed the Conventions or abides by them, and will "go in between civilians."

This is truly a problem of a conflict between the Western way of War and a very different beast. By the way, we've seen these conflicts before... see US war of independence...

That also saw the same problem, but it was the brits having that problem... after all some of our "troops" were not quite abiding by the laws of land warfare or using accepted procedure. See these guys...

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1489

And these guys

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/303048/american_revolution_francis_marion.html

Ain't history fun? We're on the receiving end.

And for the record, it is easy to scream in any given incident that this is a war crime. Unfortunately most things people believe are war crimes don't meet the legal definition. Now those Special Forces Command troops in Afghanistan have all the elements for that, ranging from the initial contact all the way to the cover-up.

The wiki leaks tape, as bad as it looks, I need a lot more background to make a definite judgment, and somehow I doubt the US Military would furnish that material.

I keep asking, why don't you pack your gear and go home? You, as a nation, Democrats, Republicans, and whatever exists in your politics, have a general tendency to support violent acts by the US government. You get all patriotic, sing songs, and so on and so forth. And yet you never win a war, nothing you do ever helps your country, and you do kill a lot of innocents. So why don't you learn to say no to war? You are the ones who start them, so you should have the ability to stop it.

most folks at DU were not singing patriotic songs

never wins wars.

Starting with the War of Independence... oh wait, the US is independent and no longer part of the British Empire.... and the British Empire is like gone and shit.... did I miss a memo or two?

All nations go to war, and get behind their leaders, in case you wonder. It is a nature of the beast.

Also the US has had a peace movement going back to at least WW I (which I should remind you, the Western powers won against The Autro Hungarian and German Axis)... but the members of that peace movement faced prison and worst.

Now to the last two generations, yes the US lost Nam... and your point? So did the French.

And if the US should face defeat in Afghanistan (which actually has a little more of a legal basis than the farce in Iraq) so have every empire in history...

So why don't pick up a history book or two and chiefly, don't burn it, READ it.

There are days...

I also noticed you did not deal with ONE point made. And with that attitude round these parts, we might even call you a troll.

:kick:

:kick: