Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks has really misled the public

seminal.firedoglake.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 167 posts

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#31

Post by cellis »

dailo10 wrote: post #25
lionhearted wrote: post #6

After I saw the first video, I did some googling around and reading about the rules of engagement during an insurgency. Under the Geneva Convention, clearly identified medical personnel treating combatants removed from combat are protected. However, if an armed combatant is attempting to help another combatant get to cover, they're both fair game. There's a grey area when it's not clear if a person helping a combatan…

The reality is that there were kids in the van and they were trying to help a wounded journalist.

The reality be damned. Hindsight is 20/20.

Imagine you're there, in the arena, adrenaline practically oozing out of your pores. You're 500 feet above the one of the most dangerous cities in the world [1], a warzone that's claimed the lives of thousands of young men, just like you, and you've just taken out the armed enemy. That was the enemy. And that guy laying there still is the enemy. And so is anyone helping him. And now a van has pulled up, unidentified. You don't know who or what is in that van and whether it is armed or not. You know the reality,the statistics, and they're not in your favor. So you do as anyone in that situation would do, with limited information and a hell of a lot of empirical data. You neutralize the threat. You destroy them and live to see another day.

[1] 2007 was the bloodiest year to date in Iraq - http://icasualties.org/

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#32

Post by [deleted] »

dailo10 wrote: post #25
lionhearted wrote: post #6

After I saw the first video, I did some googling around and reading about the rules of engagement during an insurgency. Under the Geneva Convention, clearly identified medical personnel treating combatants removed from combat are protected. However, if an armed combatant is attempting to help another combatant get to cover, they're both fair game. There's a grey area when it's not clear if a person helping a combatan…

The reality is that there were kids in the van and they were trying to help a wounded journalist.

[deleted]

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#33

Post by vaksel »

people are focusing on the wrong area of this story...yes killing that first group of people was a dick move, but it might get justified by ROE....killing the people in the van who tried to help was also a dick move...but it can still be justified by calling it a gray area.

The actual story here is that the army decided to cover up this whole issue in the first place(i.e. them saying they had no idea how the kids got wounded)

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#35

Post by metamemetics »

otto wrote: post #28
metamemetics wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone picking up the bodies and from the van was clearly UNARMED. Unarmed non-combatants were picking up the body of an unarmed non-combatant who never held a weapon.

But, the vehicle was already transporting suspects. That's like using a medical vehicle to transport combatants and then come back and pick up the wounded from the same vehicle.

The vehicle was not transporting suspects! According to the Huffington Post it was a good semeritan taking his children to tutoring classes.

There is no indication it was the same black vehicle at the start of the video. No one on the ground or air claimed it was. Furthermore, even if it was, no one claimed the black vehicle at the start was a target or contained suspects! The air merely stated it passed under their targetting crosshair.

The suspect as reported by the ground was ONE MAN, who had appeared in front of their Bradley.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#36

Post by yummyfajitas »

lionhearted wrote: post #13
hga wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't a person helping a combatant get to cover be by definition a combatant (although perhaps just for the duration of the action)? Also, if we're talking about the Conventions, were these illegal combatants? (I haven't watched the video.)

> Wouldn't a person helping a combatant get to cover be by definition a combatant (although perhaps just for the duration of the action)? I think the key part is armed combatants in combat - you can't just open fire on any civilians who are helping an unarmed combatant after he's removed from combat. I'm not an expert though - I spent a bit of time reading on Geneva about a year ago, and just refreshed my memory toda…

Neither the US nor Iraq have ratified Protocol II.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#37

Post by metamemetics »

byrneseyeview wrote: post #30
metamemetics wrote: post #24

After viewing the video, it clearly is an unprovoked massacre. LINK: This is clear considering they approached the hot zone at the beginning of the video with intel, either from ground troops, or from the another Apache, that there were armed combatants in the area. The video indicates there was ONE combatant, and that the group of people was NOT him. @2:49: air: “we had a guy shooting, now he’s behind the building”…

if you examine the frame between 2:40 and 2:41 I don't think people do that in combat. If you're ever in combat, or in a situation with armed people who think you may want to kill them, I highly recommend that you make it very obvious you're not armed. If they look at the footage of how you died and say "Oh! If we examine the frame , it looks like he wasn't going to kill us, after all!" I guess you'll be vindicated.

The response was directed to the blogger and his writing, who was not the same person as apache pilot to my knowledge, and therefore had the luxury of examining the video.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#38

Post by indrax »

Qz wrote: post #7
lionhearted wrote: post #6

After I saw the first video, I did some googling around and reading about the rules of engagement during an insurgency. Under the Geneva Convention, clearly identified medical personnel treating combatants removed from combat are protected. However, if an armed combatant is attempting to help another combatant get to cover, they're both fair game. There's a grey area when it's not clear if a person helping a combatan…

Yeah, it's pretty clear to me that they didn't just decide to shoot people without cause.

Hmm, can you tell me where in the video that it's pretty clear anyone from the van was picking up weapons?

I can understand some fog-of-war "I thought the camera was a gun." excuses, but just because they say on the radio that they were "possibly" picking up weapon doesn't mean that they actually saw them do any such thing.

I've watched it twice and it looks to me exactly like they shot up a van that was trying to help a wounded man.

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#39

Post by Alex3917 »

cellis wrote: post #31
dailo10 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that there were kids in the van and they were trying to help a wounded journalist.

The reality be damned. Hindsight is 20/20. Imagine you're there, in the arena, adrenaline practically oozing out of your pores. You're 500 feet above the one of the most dangerous cities in the world [1], a warzone that's claimed the lives of thousands of young men, just like you, and you've just taken out the armed enemy. That was the enemy. And that guy laying there still is the enemy. And so is anyone helping him.…

They weren't there though. According to the analysis on other sites, the helicopter was about a mile away. (Based on the time between when the rounds were fired and when they hit.)

Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public

#40

Post by Maktab »

aresant wrote: post #9

Hammers home the point that the integrity of any journalism is contingent on editing, and context. Yet still I’m glad for the leak - for the first time in months I heard more discussion and awareness that a war we’re bankrolling is still raging instead of celebrity infididelity.

Though just to clarify something, this footage was taken in 2007 at the height of the Iraq War. It's not recent and the war is not still raging, at least not at anything close to the 2007 level.

But I agree with your main point. Context is everything, Wikileaks could have handled this better.

Post reply on HN