Blame the victim. They shouldn't have been in Iraq. They shouldn't have been near someone bad. They should have marked the van.
You shouldn't have murdered them. Killing should be the last resort, even in the heat of battle.
Wikileaks has really misled the public
11–20 of 167 posts
Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public
#12I am usually the last to complain about "the state of hacker news" and such, but the fact that this article has managed to amass such a large number of points so quickly does indicate that there is a need for moderation.
this has nothing to do with hacker news, it is replying to conjecture with conjecture, even though the wikileaks story had a very relevant back story (power of the internet, freedom of press, etc) this ignores it all and just gives someones opinion on their interpretation of a highly controversial video.
Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public
#13After 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…
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 today.
> Also, if we're talking about the Conventions, were these illegal combatants? (I haven't watched the video.)
There's still some limited protections granted to people fighting in "non-international conflicts" under Protocol II, a 1977 Amendment to the Geneva Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_II
They do have much less protections than soldiers fighting between two sovereign nations.
Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public
#14"Regardless, no one is allowed to be armed except for Iraqi police and Coalition forces. There is no such thing as an armed Iraqi escort for journalists"
Err.. no. Under Iraqi law, everyone was allowed to keep one gun at home. These guns were mostly AK-47s (because that was what was issued to the army). See http://johnrlott.tripod.com/armediraqis.html for example discussion of this.
I believe there was an attempt to change this law during 2007, but confiscation was not widely enforced and the law has since been changed back.
Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public
#15Blame the victim. They shouldn't have been in Iraq. They shouldn't have been near someone bad. They should have marked the van. You shouldn't have murdered them. Killing should be the last resort, even in the heat of battle.
ummmm no. The whole point of the heat of battle is death. What you mean I think is that getting into the heat of battle should be the last resort.
Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public
#16I watched this video from end to end. It is entirely possible that this was a team setting up an ambush and filming it.
The fact that a Reuters photojourno was involved only fortifies the plausibility of this theory, since wire photojournos are well-known for "embedding" with insurgents.
I'm not saying one way or the other (unlike many others). I'm proposing an alternative theory that I believe is just as likely as the "collateral murder" storyline.
Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public
#17Hammers 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.
[deleted]
Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public
#18I am usually the last to complain about "the state of hacker news" and such, but the fact that this article has managed to amass such a large number of points so quickly does indicate that there is a need for moderation. this has nothing to do with hacker news, it is replying to conjecture with conjecture, even though the wikileaks story had a very relevant back story (power of the internet, freedom of press, etc) th…
Agreed.
There was just a front page story about the video with over 2 or 3 hundred votes. Everyone can't have their say in that story, so that we can move on?
Everyone who wants to have a say, can have a say there. Let's not fill the stream with all wikileaks. It reminds me of the ipad mania.
Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public
#19The author like many other posters is making the mistake of thinking that some of us put fault on the individual soldiers. In their own shoes I would've done the same thing, with the things hanging on the shoulders I couldn't tell if it was an AK-47 or a camera so I would've opened fire.
What most people is complaining about is the military secrecy and handling of this business, not the "mass murder of civilians" (like some of WL editors try to make it look) but the lack of reaction and respect by the army. If they had released the same video explaining the circumstances instead of hiding the details the situation would be different now.
Short: The blame's on the high command, not on the individual soldiers.
Re: Wikileaks has really misled the public
#20Hammers 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.
Re: your second point, here's a good example of what you mean:
http://i.imgur.com/NVih0.jpg
(via @chrisloos)