News CENTCOM investigation: Killed Reuters cameramen were in company of armed ins s

Click For Summary
The US CENTCOM investigation into the deaths of two Reuters journalists in Iraq revealed they were in the company of armed insurgents at the time of their deaths, contradicting earlier claims of indiscriminate killing. The investigation noted that the journalists were armed with RPGs and AK-47s and were only 100 meters from US troops who were under fire. The Apache helicopter's engagement was deemed justified as it followed the rules of engagement, given the perceived threat from the insurgents. The discussion highlighted the complexities of combat situations, including the pressures faced by soldiers and the potential for civilian casualties. The incident raises significant ethical questions about the actions of both journalists and military personnel in conflict zones.
  • #31


Evo said:
It's bizarre imagining war being put under a microscope, but that's what this is. Unfortunately you only see selected bits. It's a war. These men are in fear of their lives. Do you think the Iraqi's acted better?

Is anyone uploading Iraqi videos for equal scrutiny? NO?

They do, but I wouldn't reccomend watching them unless you've already witness horrific violence. It's not a pleasant thing to see a man have his has SAWED with knife, from his body. To hear him scream and beg for mercy while people chant praises to god.

It's also hard to watch how Iraqi soldiers and police treat their OWN people. Your point is well taken, and well made, and the one I've been trying to make (apparently through verbosity! lol).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


MotoH said:
Frame dragger: He has been there twice, and turned 40 last week.

Amazing. I can't say I'd do that, but I admire the conviction even in the face of horror and regret. Obviously he believes that this is necessary now, regardless of, "initial conditions" so to speak.

I wish him well, and I'm sorry I can't honestly pray for him, I'm not religious, but I do hope he's safe, for his sake, your's, and his family's.
 
  • #33


Re: Iraqi and muslim violence:

I don't pay them with my taxes and they don't claim to do their violence in my name or to "defend my freedom."

Of course I disapprove if their actions, but it is completely irrelevant to this thread. "Other people do worse things" is no excuse for bad behavior.
 
  • #34


Borek said:
You don't win a war by cuddling your enemies. You shot to kill or you are being shot to kill.

That's why war should be avoided, but once it started, there is no choice, you are either effective at killing, or dead.

I agree that is why using the army as social workers around the global makes no sense. In war you kill and destroy until the other side surrenders or is all dead.
 
  • #35


cronxeh said:
What rules of engagement allow to fire upon a van that is attempting to remove the wounded? There were no weapons displayed, pointed it, or shot at during the extraction of the wounded from the supposed battlefield.
I would think that would be pretty standard, as an unnmarked van entering and disturbing an active battle scene is taking part in the battle, whether they are shooting or not.

In addition to helping wounded insurgent comrades, insurgents are known to sanitize battle scenes to cover up their activities. This is something our troops seek to stop. Also, as others have mentioned, there is no way to know what is in the van from the helicopter and given that there are US infantry a short distance away, the air support must assume a worst-case scenario: that it contains a dozen heavily armed insurgents entering the battle. The helicopter is there to support US ground troops.
cronxeh said:
russ_watters said:
signerror, I appreciate your efforts in presenting the issue in a rational an unbiased way. Yes, your post meets/exceeds our quality guidelines.

I think there is a real scandal here, in the fact that Reuters employees, supposedly journalists, were together with insurgents attacking American troops.

Your bias estimator is malfunctional, russ
Considering that your main issue with the post was on a secondary point, only tangentially related to the main issue, that's a pretty solid indicator that it was a quality post. However, I'll respond to that point:

I don't know that I would consider it a "scandal", but it is definitely indicative of a problem. A reporter's duty to get a story and their drive to further their careers conflicts with their self-preservation/personal safety. We can't really know why these reporters chose to mingle with insurgents on that day, but we can only hope that in the future, reporters are trained to make better choices.
 
  • #36


How is it different when a reporter is with American troops while they kill Iraqis? Are those reporters making bad choices?

Or is it only a bad choice when reporters are with the people defending their country, and a good choice when they're with the invading troops?
 
  • #37


Jack21222 said:
1) People who attack military targets are not "terrorists."
True, but while we're at it, the typical word used, "insurgents", is insufficient as it doesn't convey the fact that these are unlawful combatants as they are violating geneva conventions for the protection of civilians in a combat zone. Without even considering what was going on with the van, we can see in the video the following violations:
1. Mingling of troops with civilians in a battle.
2. Non-uniformed combatants.

Both of these are in many cases calculated to use the civilians as human shields as the (obvious from the reaction to this incident) propaganda value of a dead civilian is huge.
2) That doesn't excuse the bloodlust in hoping the wounded man reaches for a gun so you get to kill him. That is despicable behavior.
This is a more difficult issue. Soldiers in a combat zone are under extreme emotional duress for months at a time and the things the soldier in the video said are relatively tame and reasonably professional. Much more important than the expletives and "bloodlust" is the fact that he asked for orders and didn't act until he received them. That's about as much as you can ask from a soldier in that situation. I heard much worse from my navy comrades in conversations while on counter-drug ops, when there was very little danger to us. Pick up a book about WWII some time and read the stories of how soldiers act in battle and you'll see that this comes nowhere close to the common level of brutality in war. There are a few certified crazies, but I'd wager that most soldiers have done things in battle they aren't proud of later. That's part of the reason most don't talk much about it later.

That said, the fact that we are able to listen to and scrutinize the words of an individual soldier in the middle of a battle should be breathtaking. It shows just how far we've come with our expectations of and scrutiny of our soldiers.

But just because we can watch it on tv, doesn't mean we should forget the truism: War is hell. We can do our best sanitize it, but we will never be able to turn it into a boxing match. (heck, while we're at it, I've heard worse from boxers in pre-fight interviews!)

A bit was made of the probability that the APC drove over one of the bodies (presumed, but not proven dead). In war, that's par for the course. It was also SOP to leave men-overboard behind in a lot of cases, as the risk of stopping to rescue them was too great. Hundreds, if not thousands of sailors lost their lives that way in WWII.
3) The US spent a lot of energy trying to prevent the release of this video. What were they trying to hide?
1. Did they? Could you cite evidence of that?
2. I don't know: you tell me what you think they were trying to hide.
 
Last edited:
  • #38


They denied a FOIA request from Reuters, for one. They're calling Wikileaks a national security threat, too. I'm still posting from a cell phone, you can google it if you'd like.

I think they were trying to hide the callous disregard for human life that our soldiers have. Military members are deified in this country; this could tarnish their image in the eyes of many.
 
  • #39


TheStatutoryApe said:
I will call out the government for waging a war that I do not believe should be fought. I will not call out troops for accidents of war as if they were war crimes.
Agreed: I see much of the backlash on this issue is people taking out on the troops, their frustrations with the government. It is misplaced.
 
  • #40


zomgwtf said:
So after you kill them your going to laugh about it and talk about lookin at their dead bodies as if it's something to be proud of?

You have a very odd conception of war my friend. I don't think that you've ever been in the army have you?
Have you? Yes, performance of your duties as is expected/required of you is something to be proud of.
 
  • #41


waht said:
Anybody thought about all those Iraqi suicide bombers that waltz into public places and blow themselves up killing 40 of their own civilians on average?
For some strange reason, it doesn't generate anywhere near the emotional backlash that this video does. I have trouble finding an explanation for that.
 
  • #42


Jack21222 said:
And don't give me that "they have to participate" stuff, either. They don't have to participate in the Iraq war any more than the Nazi soldiers "had to participate" in the holocaust.

"I'm just following orders" isn't a defense. Everybody fighting in Iraq is there because they choose to be. First, they had the option to not join the military. Then, they had the option to face dishonorable discharge and/or jail time rather than go.
The difference here, of course, is that these soldiers committed no crimes they need to defend themselves against.
The soldiers in this video were clearly enjoying their job. It was a lot like the scene from Full Metal Jacket where the helicopter pilot responded to "How can you shoot women and children?" with "Easy, just don't lead them as much."

The person begging for the wounded man to reach for a gun do he can shoot him is a bloodthirsty monster.
You are free to believe that because people such as this "bloodthirsty monster" are willing to and have laid down their lives to give you that freedom.
 
  • #43


That bloodthirsty monster has not ever in his life risked his life for my freedom. The Iraqis never threatened my freedom, ergo he is not defending them.

As I have stated previously, the fact they even try to make that claim is the reason I care more about this video than about random suicide bombers.
 
  • #44


russ_watters said:
Agreed: I see much of the backlash on this issue is people taking out on the troops, their frustrations with the government. It is misplaced.

...And as comedian Lewis Black pointed out, WE are the government. Ok, presumably we're not a bunch of people who elected W., but he was (sort of) elected. Pretty much the only blameless individuals are the soldiers, who are fashioned into tools to serve our needs. As I implied with Jack, our lives are built on massive death and destruction, even if we're not looking at it through an Apache's FLIR.

"For some strange reason, it doesn't generate anywhere near the emotional backlash that this video does. I have trouble finding an explanation for that."

They're not us. Again, we can't pretend we're more than human. As you said, soldiers are doing a job, and if they live in constant shame and misery, they probably won't stay soldiers! Pride in a job completed is not unnatural, it's expected. It's ugly in this case, but that's life.

I suppose Jack has the answer, "It's not [his] taxes" or government. I think that is a very convenient line to draw, and one that shows the liits of his empathy. TB, Maleria, Dengue, DYSENTERY, starvation, bad water, etc... etc.. kills more people in a DAY than will die in Iraq as a result of Apache fire for the duration of this conflict.

I find it interesting that we DID seem to care about Bosnia... oh wait... they were white, and some were Chrisitan... I keep forgetting. :rolleyes: Maybe it's just that we don't care what others do to each other, even if rape is a way of life in the DRC, or what's STILL unfolding in Darfur, etc... etc...

Such limited outrage and compassion is pathetic and pitiable even if it can be explained by prejudice and evolutionary biology, and of course geopolitics...


@Jack: How many FOIA requests are NOT denied? That... and look at the backlash! I'm not sure if releasing this was a good idea or not... I think mostly it's just a tidbit of outrage for those who live in a fantasy of peace, that has never existed.
 
  • #45


The helicopter pilots said they perceived a threat from below. They called in saying there are '5-6 people with AK47s' Let's examine this fear. In the video, at 3:20 the heading is 274 deg, at 4:35 its 94 degrees. Thats a 180 degree sweep in 75 seconds. At average speed of 3 km/minute that places the chopper at 1.19 km. If they were at cruise speed of 265km/hr that places them at 1.75km. If they were at maximum speed of 293 km/hr that places them at 1.94 km away. So that's a distance from the insurgents to the chopper of 1.19-1.94 km away. Effective range of AK47 is 0.4 km.

Now looking at the pictures posted on the CENTCOM's website, there is no picture of an RPG, just a caption of 'RPG-7' over a pool of blood. I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I am not going to claim there were no RPGs in the crowd.

What I am upset about is that van being fired upon. The pilot/gunner said that "there were individuals picking up bodies and weapons". Clearly they were not picking up weapons, as that would make them enemy combatants. They were assisting the wounded, which makes it a war crime to shoot at them under any convention on the books.
 
  • #46


Jack21222 said:
That bloodthirsty monster has not ever in his life risked his life for my freedom. The Iraqis never threatened my freedom, ergo he is not defending them.

As I have stated previously, the fact they even try to make that claim is the reason I care more about this video than about random suicide bombers.
Incredible statement. These soldiers have never been in danger. No one has tried to kill them. That's what you think? They are sent to war and have no say.

Also, the audio was transcribed from an ecrypted version. Possibly not the real soldiers at all.
 
  • #47


TheStatutoryApe said:
When you are in a war/battle zone innocent casualties ("collateral damage") will occur. The only absolute way to avoid this is to not go to war. I will call out the government for waging a war that I do not believe should be fought. I will not call out troops for accidents of war as if they were war crimes.

Yes, that's true. And that's why we have to be *so* careful before we go to war.

As for the reporters, I could care less that they were embedded with Iraqi insurgents. They have the right and freedom to do so. There is nothing suspicious there. They should also have the sense to realize that being in a hot zone with armed troops, regardless of affiliation, is hazardous. They deserve no special sympathy (or lack of sympathy) beyond that they were killed while doing dangerous work.

I agree with this too. What if reporters crept in behind German lines on D-day, to get a nice juicy story, and were killed? I think most people would think, "Oh that's too bad, but they knew what they were getting into, though."

It occurred to me, watching the video: there's a reason you don't see *anyone* else on the streets - it was an active war zone!
 
  • #48


Evo:

Those soldiers are risking their lives FOR A PAYCHECK. Not for my freedom.

I never claimed they weren't risking their lives, I said they weren't doing it to protect my freedom.
 
  • #49


I suggest you stop before your hole gets to China.
 
  • #50


Jack21222 said:
Evo:

Those soldiers are risking their lives FOR A PAYCHECK. Not for my freedom.

I never claimed they weren't risking their lives, I said they weren't doing it to protect my freedom.
Then you are very, very wrong. You don't know anyone in the military, do you?
 
  • #51


Please outline for me how the actions of our military today protect my freedom. I have never seen the connection made. It sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

My cousin just got out of the army. He did it for the paycheck and the free tuition.
 
  • #52


kyleb said:
Wikileaks use those terms specificly in regard to the killing "of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers", seen starting after 8 minutes into the full video. That said, having watched the full video, I don't see anything which could rightly consitutue provication for the first round of attacks either.
Rightly, based on what criteria? And is even "provacation" necessary? IMO, openly displaying weapons near American troops shows a danger to those troops exists. That seems to be fitting with the rules of engagement.

How would you suggest the ROE treat the situation? What should be required, in your opinion, before the American troops can engage. Remember, this is a war and the general purpose of the military in the field of battle is to seek out and destroy the enemey. Even if he's on the crapper and his gun is leaning against the wall outside.
Can you present anything resembling proof of what you are claiming as fact here, or are you simply referencing the investigation you quoted, from the same organisation which has been refusing the FOIA request to release this tape for years?
That investigation is all we have of any substance to go on. Referencing that is certainly superior to making it up as you go along, which is what you are doing.
I'm at a loss as to how one could reasonably reconcile the tape with what you quoted from the investigation, as the closest thing to "attacking" I've noticed from the guys on the ground is...
This group was making their way to the scene of an earlier battle, which implies a desire to participate in said battle. Perhaps "attack" is too strong a word, but they certainly pose a credible thread. And that's without even considering what I said above: combatants in a war are fair game, whether they have their weapons up to fire, slung over their shoulder, or sitting on the ground near them.
Or it could have simply been a man driving his kids to school when he happened upon the scene and was compelled to stop by the sight of other human beings in dire need of medical attention. After all, it is a rather large urban area which is under US occupation, it's not like people can just go into hibernation until whenever that might be over.
That is certainly possible. Does it change the responsibility of the helicpoter crew to protect the nearby infantry? No. Why? The helicopter crew had no way of knowing if it was kids on their way to school or a bomb or a group of a dozen more insurgents and as a result had to make the safest (for them) assumption. That's how war works: be careful or be dead.
That claim doesn't jive with my understanding of the RoE, but since WikiLeaks where I found them has somehow been deemed a "conspiracy site", I'll have to settle for this MSNBC interview with a LTC quoting and elaborating on them, starting about 4:40 here:

Could you comment on how you think this doesn't fit with the ROE? The commentator (a former soldier) says that the choice of to shoot or not is a judgement call. While he says he thinks the ROE was not followed properly, he offers up pretty thin reasoning for it.
First, for the initial situation, he says the ROE says soldiers "may" choose to apply "minimal force necessary" to attempt to capture these combatants and as a former intelligence officer, he would want to do that. However, he doesn't offer up a suggestion for how a helicopter can capture infantry.

For the second, he talks about the wounded as being out of combat (unless they pick up a weapon again), but doesn't really address the possible threat of the van.
Sure, we aren't fighting a war here though, but rather attempting to stabilize Iraq though an occupation, and I'm at a loss as to how what is shown in that video could rationally be considered productive to that goal. Put simply, I don't see how such actions as demonstrated in the video, or excusing it, is doing either Iraqis or us Americans anything but harm.
Productive to the goal? The act shown in the video killed some of our enemies. Obviously, that's productive to the goal. Let me be clear here: The fact that there were civilians intermixed and that some of what they were carrying was mistaken for weapons, combined with the PR fallout makes this action a mistake by the military. But that is only in hindsight. In the heat of the battle, these soldiers acted properly and clearly in a way designed to be productive to the war effort. And that is the lens by which their actions must be judged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53


cronxeh said:
MotoH I am confused. Did you graduate high school yet? You seem to talk about the military as if you've been serving for years. You are not. You may in all likelyhood not even pass the psychological test, as you clearly seem to have sociopathic traits. Your statements and hence your views are what is wrong with the soldiers today. You don't seem to see the problem with what has transpired in this video.

I would say more, but I think it is against the PF guidelines.

You have no clue what you're talking about. What sociopathic traits have you identified in him? For the record, pretend I know a LOT about psychology, and neurobiology. Prentend that I know all of the diagnostic criteria. Pretend, because I do.

You're making a partial diagnoses of "sociopathic TRAITS" ONLINE. You've never studied psychology in a rigorous forum, or you wouldn't be that dim. The guy hasn't sworn or railed at Jack... so he has impulse control, and he realized that saying what he WANTED to, would get him banned. Right there, Anti-Social Personality Disorder (Pscyhopathy/Sociopathy) is ruled out. Neither of us know ANYTHING about his life, except that he has a 40 year old friend who has had 2 tours in Iraq, and is going for a third. This implies an emotional connection to the issue, in addition to the NK thread.

That rules out even sociopathic traits such as the ones you describe. Like it or not kid, it's just human. If you want to meet a real sociopath, I'd be happy to introduce you to some, and you can learn the difference between beliefs, attitude, emotion... and someone who UTTERLY lacks empathy, impulse control, planning, etc. I'd watch, I'd hate to get blood on my shoes. :smile:

Willfull ignorance on the scale being shown by some in this thread should be a shooting offense. And yes, conxeh, I am being dramatic, not murderous.

@Jack: There are better, safer, and MUCH easier paychecks. You're full of ****, and it's starting to get all over the thread. MotoH might be a good man with religious convictions... I'm much more of a relativist and conditional moralist. Make of that what you will, and the fact that I never surf without a proxy and a BNC.
 
  • #54


All right, this is getting too emotional, let's all take a step backwards and chill out for awhile.
 
  • #55


Jack21222 said:
How is it different when a reporter is with American troops while they kill Iraqis? Are those reporters making bad choices?
Do you mean when a reporter is with American troops when Iraqis kill them? Yes, it is their choice to put themselves in harm's way. A reporter must gage the risk and the reward before making that choice. Obviously, though the situations are logically identical, statistically it is a lot safer to imbed yourself with American troops than with insurgents.
Or is it only a bad choice when reporters are with the people defending their country, and a good choice when they're with the invading troops?
You're making baseless assumptions about who those insurgents were and what their motivation was. They may be Iraqis, Iranians, Saudi/Afghan Al Qaeda, etc.

But to answer the question: the "good" choice in the context of the issue of this thread is the one that doesn't get the reporter killed. It is safer to be traveling with the side that is winning and taking less casualties: the Americans.
 
  • #56


Evo said:
All right, this is getting too emotional, let's all take a step backwards and chill out for awhile.

*deep breath*

You're right I'm fairly pissed off, and this isn't usually an emotional issue for me. I'm going to call it a night, and clear my head.

Thanks for good and timely advice Evo.
 
  • #57


cronxeh said:
The helicopter pilots said they perceived a threat from below. They called in saying there are '5-6 people with AK47s' Let's examine this fear...
Ok...what is your point?
Now looking at the pictures posted on the CENTCOM's website, there is no picture of an RPG, just a caption of 'RPG-7' over a pool of blood. I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I am not going to claim there were no RPGs in the crowd.
Ok...so what is your point?
What I am upset about is that van being fired upon. The pilot/gunner said that "there were individuals picking up bodies and weapons". Clearly they were not picking up weapons, as that would make them enemy combatants. [emphasis added]
Clearly? It is tough to tell exactly what they are doing (if anything) besides picking up the wounded. And that's the entire point: since the helicopter crew's responsibility is to protect the the nearby soldiers, they aren't entitled to make generous assumptions about the actions/motives of people in a war zone. Doing so gets Americans killed.
They were assisting the wounded, which makes it a war crime to shoot at them under any convention on the books.
The reason that medics and ambulances are required by the Geneva conventions to be clearly marked is so that soldiers know they are noncombatants and only there to protect the wounded. As the van was unmarked and the people were not uniformed, assuming they were only there to help the wounded is not prudent.
 
  • #58


Jack21222 said:
Please outline for me how the actions of our military today protect my freedom. I have never seen the connection made. It sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

My cousin just got out of the army. He did it for the paycheck and the free tuition.
If that's the only reason, then he's lucky he flew under the radar and didn't get in trouble for violating his oath, which contains this phrase: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

While you may not agree with any specific action of the military, that's your luxury, sitting at home on your comfy couch. That you can't see the obvious need for the military to exist speaks volumes about your mindset here.

No, we don't live in a world as dangerous as in 1939 or even 1962, but in part because of the military, we also don't live in a world as dangerous as in 2001. The war on terror has been a huge undertaking, but it is at least partly responsible for the failure of Al Qaeda to have much of an impact since 2001. And that's only part of what the military does. Recently, besides keeping Al Qaeda at bay, they've airlifted supplies to Hati and Indonesia, protected South Korea and Japan from North Korea, mingled with foreign forces for foreign relations and mutual defense, etc.
 
  • #59


russ_watters said:
Ok...what is your point? Ok...so what is your point? Clearly? It is tough to tell exactly what they are doing (if anything) besides picking up the wounded. And that's the entire point: since the helicopter crew's responsibility is to protect the the nearby soldiers, they aren't entitled to make generous assumptions about the actions/motives of people in a war zone. Doing so gets Americans killed. The reason that medics and ambulances are required by the Geneva conventions to be clearly marked is so that soldiers know they are noncombatants and only there to protect the wounded. As the van was unmarked and the people were not uniformed, assuming they were only there to help the wounded is not prudent.

Instantly breaking my pledge, I would add the old axiom: "Assumptions make for dead soldiers"

Corollary: "Those who hesitate, meditate, in the horizontal position forever."


----

@cronxeh: They followed protocol, and considering that an Apache gunship could have leveled that building with some rocket fire, using it's 30mm WAS restrained. Not firing through the building was restraind. Not shooting first and asking for permission later is what makes it LEGAL.

@EVO: Apparantly I have the willpower of a toadstool. :-p
 
  • #60


russ_watters said:
Ok...what is your point? .

The point is, the choppers were in no danger from either AK47's or RPG-7's.

Not to mention that RPG-7 is an anti-tank weapon. The effective distance was under 1 km and probability of the RPG hitting the chopper over 1 km away is almost zero.

There were no ground forces around that area, they were not being engaged by this group of people, so what rules of engagement govern the use of deadly force in this instance? If you don't want to be technical about this issue, then just admit it - its not about rules and regulations but about 'us vs them'.