A new documentary about Wikileaks

It's in Catalan, but there are some... interesting bitsof dialogue from the US soldiers... first time I saw the full version of "Collateral Murder". Yeah, they didn't have to know there were journalists mong those guys, but did they have to do what for all intents and purposes is to Shoot The Medic?

After seeing this piece of work I am persuaded that Wikileaks is in fact doing a swell job. Especially the bite about the Icleandic banks.

Virtue abhors secret.

Generally agreed, though I hesitate from making absolute statements /verbose.

^^ If you're referring to the helicopter incident, yes. As was demonstrated in the other thread that Wikileaks conveniently forgot or edited out, the helicopter was called in for air support because literally a block away from the Reuters idiot US troops were under attack. The armed insurgents around him were legitimate targets and the Reuters guy made no effort to make it look like he was a member of the press.

While him getting killed is a terrible accident, it does not justify Wikileaks' malicious editing of the video to make the US Army look like a bunch of psychopathic babykillers.

edited 1st Jan '11 7:34:17 AM by MajorTom

No.... demonstration was just you saying it, which is what the Pentagon said, and the whole point of showing that video was to counter what the pentagon said. They edited nothing, they just showed only the part where the helicopter was shooting people. If they showed the whole video it'd be an hour of a helicopter flying around doing nothing and then a minute of shooting.

It was hard for the helicopter pilot to see but what he thought was an RPG was actually a video camera, a mistake that has been repeated many times by the US military. This is hardly the first time US soldiers mistakenly killed a reporter, they've shot dozens dead.

I don't what you're demanding that journalist to have done to "make an effort to show" he was a journalist. Everyone saw the video, full version and the small version shown by wikileaks. He was just standing there, as were a bunch of other people. They weren't doing anything. The helicopter gunner made a mistake, thought he was an insurgent, opened fire and then when a family car pulled up with a family, he fired on them too and injured children.

It's very simple, the gunner made a mistake in identification and killed the wrong people. It happens and he should be reprimanded. I don't see what is so complicated. If an engineer built a bridge incorrectly and it collapsed and people died, he is punished. There's no excuses.

^ That "bunch of other people" were armed insurgents. Immediately after the strike US troops went exactly to where the chopper fired on and recovered NO LESS than 6 AK-47/AKM style weapons. Were they all random civilians at most you would have had 1 maybe 2 firearms, not greater than a half dozen assault rifles.

Remember the Pentagon did a thorough investigation and found the chopper crew in full compliance with the rules of engagement, disproving the notion that the chopper crew willingly (or if ordered) fired on random civilians as was presented in the 17 minute video on Wikileaks.

In war full context is everything. So the 38 minute video would have been boring for half of it, it would tell the whole story however. The 17 minute video didn't even tell half the story.

Seriously, if Wikileaks was of the same vein as the Pentagon Papers they'd edit nothing ever. But they don't do that.

I don't know what news agency you were listening to that reported they found AK-47s but BBC and CBC said they found nothing.

EDIT: So i went searching for this and I found that it was just the pentagon saying it.

edited 1st Jan '11 8:29:19 AM by breadloaf

This opinion piece reports on the fact that weapons were found in the area.

And weapons were clearly seen and recovered as shown here.

This right here is what I mean by the Pentagon saying they followed the ROE. They received a call for fire from troops under attack, they conducted a sweep and sighted multiple armed personnel and fired upon them.

How is this so hard for people like you to understand?

There were at least two different videos of two different incidents-at least if we're talking about the ones Wikileaks got from Manning. Make sure you don't confuse one scenario with the other.

I think we're talking about the same video.

When you aren't American and after the Jessica Lynch fabrication or the Hadithia killing cover up (and evidence fabrication), it's rather difficult to swallow anything coming out of the Pentagon.

It's hardly an unreasonable demand that an independent investigator look into the situation but for a place like Iraq it is basically impossible. We know civilians were killed, we know reporters were killed and we're told that the others were insurgents but only by the Pentagon. However, it is certain that he made a mistake and civilians died. Rather than trying to fix the situation or attempt to do something to prevent from happening, the only course of action taken by the US military is to put up excuses and get angry at people who "don't understand".

I'm not so worried about them killing insurgents, even though they weren't actually fighting at the time, and accidentally shooting a journalist. I'm miffed about them shooting a wounded unarmed guy that was crawling on the floor and then got rescued by random person, who from the copter dudes' perspective may or may not have been an insurgent, and pulled into a van, which may or may not have been full of other insurgents (not that there was any sign of there being any), but which made no particularly hostile movements and was "retreating" and seriously that's just creepy. It's the Shoot The Medic impression it left me.

Do people in armed forces make a habit of shooting wounded weaponless enemies and whoever tries to bring them help and comfort?

My understanding is that that's the kind of war we're in. If that annoys you and makes you want to bomb the US then you're probably not alone ;x

That's why some people think that our efforts overseas are only serving to further the problem.

Do people in armed forces make a habit of shooting wounded weaponless ENEMIES and whoever tries to bring them help and comfort?

You just answered your own question.

Well that's part of a greater political issue. I don't think it is is worth it from any perspective, Iraqi or American, to be in Iraq and the video of Wikileaks, with the chopper gunner video cam, is an example of the type of shit that is bound to happen. War is going to involve a certain level of collateral damage no matter what. Certainly, I am not the one who is going to be in the line of fire if I say we should be in a war, so there better be a damn good reason to send someone else over there to get killed. It's already quite an unfair situation.

American efforts in Iraq yielded nothing on the original goals, such as WM Ds, because they didn't exist (just like the UN weapons inspectors said) or were already dismantled from previous efforts. Destabilising the entire region is going to cause headaches for the west for decades to come.

As far as Afghanistan goes, we really should not have tried state building. Our efforts are limited by what we can do and the personnel we can deploy. Add to that fact that the people there just don't share our views on democracy, religion or social norms. Then on top of that, the government we put in place is mostly warlords, drug lords and other sorts of horrible criminals.

rawpower: Do you always make such broad judgmental and ignorant statements about something you know nothing about?

While him getting killed is a terrible accident, it does not justify Wikileaks' malicious editing of the video to make the US Army look like a bunch of psychopathic babykillers.

While that isn't what they did at all, and I have proven that to your face in another thread, I'll avoid dwelling on that.

Instead I want to point out that even you cannot seem to defend their shooting a wounded man who did not seem to be armed and who they had previously thought could not be fired on under the ROE, along with the people in the van trying to move him away. That clearly wasn't an accident; that was morally equivalent to shooting a medic.

No it is not morally questionable. Rendering aid to an enemy including picking up weapons from a scene of engagement makes you a valid military target. War sucks but hey we wrote down those laws quite a while ago. The mission is to kill the enemy not wound the enemy. If they can move they can fight and short of them being rendered incapable of movement or openly surrendering it has long since been acceptable to shoot them until they stop moving.

If the man intended to be a medic he should worn markings on his person and vehicle like is stated in the laws of war. You know the recognized symbols of medical personnel which marks them non-valid military targets.

Spare me the moral bullshit, medics can and do get shot (or shot at) all the time in war. Many times because the medic in question felt he was in danger and fired thus ceding his protections under Geneva. The rest of the time you have groups like the Taliban or the NVA who give fuck all towards the Geneva Conventions. (Which frankly, is the entire world outside a select few countries)

The full investigation found they were operating in full compliance with the ROE. The chopper crew could not have proven the reporter was a non-combatant in the state he presented himself as. He made no effort to distinguish himself visually from the insurgents.

Spare me the moral bullshit, medics can and do get shot (or shot at) all the time in war. Many times because the medic in question felt he was in danger and fired thus ceding his protections under Geneva. The rest of the time you have groups like the Taliban or the NVA who give fuck all towards the Geneva Conventions. (Which frankly, is the entire world outside a select few countries)

I would argue that the second reason doesn't make it any more moral for the US to do it, but your suggestion of the first reason shows clearly, I think, you don't really get what's wrong with shooting a medic.

Arguing about morals when we don't share a pretty key premise can't result in anything but a total mess.

EDIT: I refer you to the excerpt from the fourth Geneva Convention at the top of Would Not Shoot a Civilian.

I would say it's clear that neither the black van nor the wounded guy from the video were armed or in any way hostile to US troops. That would, then, make them noncombatants, and so if they were the US clearly violated the GC in shooting them.

edited 1st Jan '11 6:24:17 PM by BlackHumor

Cuz, you know, in war, you're supposed to be polite.

Raw Power, out of curiosity, how much combat experience do you have?

I think, you don't really get what's wrong with shooting a medic.

I know everything surrounding military medics short of quoting US Army regulations on the matter. They are trained soldiers, not Red Cross volunteers. They often carry their own weapons. The bright red markers they carry denoting them in professional militaries are not discriminated against either by errant bullets or blatant violations of the GC. (The Taliban alone have a laundry list the size of Texas in violations of the GC.) The second you shoulder and/or fire your weapon as a medic, your GC protections are gone.

There's no moral reasons about any of it. They're soldiers just like any other, only they are conditional in whether you can engage them or not.

I sort of agree with Tom here; the way the war is being fought, you're trying to take out the insurgents. Letting someone getting away kind of defeats that purpose.

But I disagree with fighting a war that is fought in that manner. But that's only my impression of things-I suspect those with real experience in the field understand more what the real goal is, and how it's being accomplished.

Let's take this into a real world example.

Say I go to Korea while I'm in the Army and war breaks out again on the peninsula. After a battle involving NK and allied troops I come across a DRPK medic tending to one or more DPRK soldiers wounded in the fighting. They are all visibly armed but in no condition to fight. In the ROE I am permitted to take the medic and his patients into custody as POWs but I cannot harm them. Now say one of the wounded soldiers tries to pull his weapon on me. Under the ROE and Geneva I can hose his ass down with bullets for doing that despite him being incapacitated. If the medic then goes and pulls a Makarov pistol on me I can hose him down too under the same ROE and under Geneva.

Is it really that hard for you to understand how military ROE works?

Right, but I think what we're saying is that, in terms of real ethics (and you can dismiss that, but dismissing it is what we're arguing against), once he pulls the gun, you can hose him down-but once he has dropped said gun and is no longer a threat, you no longer need to continue hosing him down.

Obviously, this requires that he not be able to simply pick up the gun again: it requires that the target truly be neutralized.

edited 1st Jan '11 6:43:13 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

You continue to shoot until he is dead at that point. He has forfieted the protected status of "wounded and no longer fighting" and returned to his previous status of "enemy combatant trying to kill you."

War is not a genteel game of "no, no, you shoot first". It's a brutal case of "using force to make people who are using force back at you stop." And it includes killing people who are in a position to kill you, but doing it to them first so they don't get to do it to you at all.

The military guys in this thread know that. The people who are not and never have been military don't seem to get that.

Well, I think the bottom line is that, I'm with Tom: War isn't really "ethical" in the traditional sense, and it is a little naive trying to force traditional ethics into that kind of a scenario.