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?