Wikileaks video

[mellestad]

So, I imagine some of you have seen the wiki-video, hopefully the full video rather than the 17 min edit.  Since lots of military folks hang out here, I figured I could get a non-hyperbolic answer to my questions.

Ok, so the first part seems justified and follows what I imagine the ROE would be for that situation.  Guys on the ground were under fire, the gunships saw people milling about in the direction of the fire, some armed, a man leans out around the corner with what looks like a weapon (a camera, but hindsight is 20/20, there is no way the gunner would have known there were journalists) and they had permission to fire.  Fine.  My questions:

1. The van.  None of them were armed or posing a plausible threat when picking up the wounded.  Would that break the rules of engagement to engage, or is just being near the wounded enough to grant the use of hostile force?

2. The missles fired at the building.  There were random (seemingly) passersby walking in front of the building on the first strike, and people from the street had run into the building after the first strike, likely to help (that is an assumption, but they didn't do anything suspicious.  Same question as 1, is that OK via stanard ROE?

And I'm not looking to hear criticism or defense of the pilot and/or gunner, I'm asking specifically about rules of engagement.  If no-one here knows, could they point me towards a resource that might have more information?

[roo_ster]

Saw the 40 min vid. 

Don't have much time, but ROE is time/space dependent and is not constant.  For instance, ROE in A-stan is very strict.  In Iraq at that time, not so much.

[mellestad]

Saw the 40 min vid.  

Don't have much time, but ROE is time/space dependent and is not constant.  For instance, ROE in A-stan is very strict.  In Iraq at that time, not so much.

So are you saying that ROE, at the time, in Iraq, were followed in both instances, or are you saying it is hard to be sure because it was complex and fluid?

[dogmush]

So are you saying that ROE, at the time, in Iraq, were followed in both instances, or are you saying it is hard to be sure because it was complex and fluid?

Both.

The ROE can be very fluid, and It's hard to know exactly what they were when.

But:

In Iraq at that time was one of the more oermissive times, and the .mil lawyers said they didn't violate ROE.  In my experiance if you violate ROE on film, they'll hang you (ssen it firsthand) so if .mil said it was OK then, it almost certainally was.

[bedlamite]

deleted

[RaspberrySurprise]

1. The van.  None of them were armed or posing a plausible threat when picking up the wounded.  Would that break the rules of engagement to engage, or is just being near the wounded enough to grant the use of hostile force?

Injured enemies can be patched up to fight again another day, not so much for dead ones. Another reason for hosing the van was to prevent them from picking up the scattered weapons and using them again later.

[Perd Hapley]

Yet another reason for hosing the van was the fact that anybody helping the enemy is presumed to be enemy and therefore deaded as quickly as possible.  They may have had RPGs, too. 

Just a guess. 

I haven't fought in the sandbox, but I was taught that the enemy needed killing, unless you were pretty certain they were NOT a threat.  It ain't like law enforcement. 

[Jamisjockey]

First, all the objects being carried looked like weapons to me.  FLIR isn't perfect.  Imagine being in a moving helo looking at moving bodies through a little screen.  They appear to have weapons and appear to be moving in on US troops in the area.
The van rolls up at a high rate of speed and starts grabbing bodies and objects.

I'd have shot the hell out of everything, too.



Oh, and if this thread gets out of hand I won't just close it, I will be handing out bans, too.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf

it wasn't loading for me just now but it cuts to the chase  give it a try  good closeups and testimony

[Jocassee]

I heard part of the audio on NPR. Helo personnel indicated once that they van people were picking up bodies AND weapons, which would be a criterion for engagement. Later in the segment the same guy indicated they were picking up bodies, but didn't mention weapons. Not sure if the video bears that out.

[mellestad]

First, all the objects being carried looked like weapons to me.  FLIR isn't perfect.  Imagine being in a moving helo looking at moving bodies through a little screen.  They appear to have weapons and appear to be moving in on US troops in the area.
The van rolls up at a high rate of speed and starts grabbing bodies and objects.

I'd have shot the hell out of everything, too.



Oh, and if this thread gets out of hand I won't just close it, I will be handing out bans, too.

Well, I tried to ask a specific question so that there would not be as much room for banning.

Did you watch the video?  I didn't see where they made any motions to pick up anything but bodies, but I could be wrong.  I did hear them say they were picking up weapons, but you have a pretty good view of what they where doing in the FLIR.

If they were picking up guns, I agree that would be a valid reason to shoot.  Can you point to a timestamp on the full video that shows that?

[Perd Hapley]

Nezer mind.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

The van was seen to be terrorist medevac, more or less. The wounded guy they're picking up may be a bigwig in the terror circuit. In order to stop him from getting away, they blow up him and his van.
The US forces were moving in to provide flex cuffs/medical aid as needed.
An unmarked van roaring up to the scene of a shooting in the US would also be viewed with great suspicion.

P.S. since the DC sniper incident, Americans view white vans with great suspicion.

[Jamisjockey]

Well, I tried to ask a specific question so that there would not be as much room for banning.

Did you watch the video?  I didn't see where they made any motions to pick up anything but bodies, but I could be wrong.  I did hear them say they were picking up weapons, but you have a pretty good view of what they where doing in the FLIR.

If they were picking up guns, I agree that would be a valid reason to shoot.  Can you point to a timestamp on the full video that shows that?

I've seen the video.

Trying to remove the bodies of a bunch of people that  just tore up with the 30mm off an Apache is a really, really dumb move.  Combatants carry weapons, ammunition, and intelligence.  Bodies of leaders can be identified.  Trying to remove them from the field of battle makes one appear to be involved.

The whole supposition of the presentation of the film at that site is that the pilots intentionally killed non-combatants.  However, IMHO, the video clearly shows that they appeared to be combantants.  At worst, it was iffy target selection. 

[Leatherneck]

Don't ignore that this was a combat environment, not law enforcement or self-defense scenario. In combat, the mission os to neutralize or destroy the enemy. You have to interpret the ROE in that context.

TC

[lupinus]

I watched a good bit of the full video. IMO, the pilots were 100% justified in their actions.

They had what very much looked to be weapons. Another forum members made mention (source unknown, or if it's from what they saw on the video) of some confirmed weapons found at scene, so basically reporters riding along with the terrorists.

[mellestad]

I watched a good bit of the full video. IMO, the pilots were 100% justified in their actions.

They had what very much looked to be weapons. Another forum members made mention (source unknown, or if it's from what they saw on the video) of some confirmed weapons found at scene, so basically reporters riding along with the terrorists.

Yea, I know, the question wasn't about that it was about the unmarked van and the civilians in front of the building hit by missile fire.

So far I seen that the people in the van might have been picking up weapons.  If that can be confirmed, that answers my first question.  I have not had any comments on the second question yet.

This is all in response to a thread I'm involved with on another board, but there aren't any recently active military people participating so I thought someone here might have some hard data, specific military ROE citations, etc.  Most of what I read online is just conjecture and appeals to emotion on both sides.  Not many on the general Internet (including msm news sources) are quoting regulations, laws, conventions, or even giving knowledgeable testimony linked to screen caps and video time stamps.

And the military has flat out said they think it will blow over so they aren't going to worry about public perception, so that isn't a big help to the few who are trying to analyze the video in some kind of objective way.

Like I said before, if no-one knows for sure but has any sources or websites that might have a genuine informed opinion, that would be great too.

So far APS has come through with a hypothesis about the van, and that is something I can work with!

[mellestad]

Hmm.  I think I've got what I need though.  You guys are saying the roe at the time were fluid and lax, and that seems to match most of what I'm reading about the general situation at the time.  Lots of stuff like this has the same overall message, from soldiers in county at the time http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378

So thanks for your responses.  I'm not interested in getting into wether they were right or wrong, or broke international conventions, since I doubt the thread would survive that.  I was just interested in whether or not it would have been a legal action at the time and I imagine it was based on the info you've helped me gather.  Thanks again!

[Jamisjockey]

Lax isn't the right term to decide ROE, but fluid is a good term.  The ROE can even change from town to town or battle to battle. 

[dogmush]

  You guys are saying the roe at the time were fluid and lax, and that seems to match most of what I'm reading about the general situation at the time. 

Like Jamis said.  Not lax at all, but very fluid.

[mellestad]

Like Jamis said.  Not lax at all, but very fluid.

Fair enough.

Permissive then, to borrow your word.

[Brad Johnson]

Like Jamis said.  Not lax at all, but very fluid.

Funny thing about combat, that.  People outside the combat zone expect the enemy to play nice and make things easy.

Brad

[mellestad]

Funny thing about combat, that.  People outside the combat zone expect the enemy to play nice and make things easy.

Brad

I don't think anyone here said or implied such a belief.  If that wasn't directed at me, nevermind :)

[Brad Johnson]

General comment on people's ignorance of what combat is really like.

Brad

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

truth out ? the winter soldier media event?
http://keohane.blogspot.com/2008/01/ivaw-goes-ooops-on-winter-soldier.html

funny how they used the same name as the circus kerry played with. i guess they figure most folks forgot how that was exposed