Act now: Letter to newspaper editors
2010-07-16
30 commenti
|
|
Ci spiace, ma questo articolo è disponibile soltanto in English.
Exposing war crimes is not a crime!
|
|
Ci spiace, ma questo articolo è disponibile soltanto in English.
Your Introduction piece above is somewhat sensationalistic and contains untruths as follows: -
“a blatant war crime in which US soldiers chortle with glee as they gun down unarmed civilians, including children”
Whilst it is true that the journalists were unarmed there were armed personnel with them… the presence of a guy with a Camera does not in itself mean that they were jornalists, after all there have been a fair few videos shown around the world of attacks on Western Forces… what are these filmed on?… not all are filmed on mobile phones!
And whilst it is true that some elements of the US forces are gung-ho to put it mildly. This is not a ‘Blatant’ war crime. A very serious misjudgement and a high degree of callousness by the Aircraft crewmen yes!
And at what time did you, and hence the aircrew, see children in the video? and dont go bleating on about the fact that you can see a small arm in the vehicle… did you see it when the vehicle was first picked up by the camera or were you, as undoubtedly the crew were doing watching the guys trying to rescue the seriously wounded journalist….well we now know him to be a journalist but did the aircrew?…No I bet you didnt know there were children in the vehicle till it was pointed out to you in fact did you know there were joiurnalists in this video without being told up-front? Bet you didnt!
Bradley manning has a lot of courage for doing what he did. But a lot of naiivety if he expected to get away with it! He did break service regulations and he is being prosecuted for that. I mean what on earth did he expect after embarressing the US Military (his employers) and the US Government?
As for Draconian laws… most Military laws are ‘Draconian’… how many Civilians can expect to be puncihed for not polishing their boots? Military laws have to be strict to maintain discipline, no discipline means you have a poor Army indeed! In fact I am wondering Mr James Cerveny..have you ever served in the Forces to say these Laws are Draconian or not.
The video does not compromise Military security as pointed out it is three years old, but it WAS classified and it IS an embarressment to the US.. so right or wrong it was suppressed for General viewing by the Public and no the Public Does NOT have a right to see classified information until it becomes declassified….like it or not thats the rules!
This is what I posted on Forbes just moments ago and also on the WikiLeaks, savebradley, and Save Tom Drake Facebook pages:
We’ve seen in recent years (mostly with the help of whistle-blowers) what the US Government and its Military Complex are capable of in the name of “Homeland Security.” As I write this today, most of the sacred human rights declared in the US Constitution have been abolished with the stroke of a despotic presidential pen. Without the consent of the people, they have declared war, conducted human torture, silenced free-speech and free-press, invaded property and privacy without warrant, suspended habeas corpus, and declared a right of assasination. We can only imagine what else they may be doing. American citizens (and others) have become no more than their property. We are now slaves.
In the tyrannical America of today, the threat to the lives of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange is as real as indefinite detention in Guantanamo is to a “suspected terrorist.”
I believe the attempted censorship and spin of events concerning these men, Manning and Assange, will have the Streisand Effect. That is to say, the more they attempt to silence it, the more it will become viral. As for myself, I can no longer remain silent and sleep at night, not when I know what Bradley Manning is most likely enduring right now. Not when I know Julian Assange is living his life a few steps ahead of true mortal danger. I’m certain I am not the only person who is feeling this way today.
Thank you, Forbes, for the continued exposure of these historical men and events.
To George: You said: “The video does not compromise Military security as pointed out it is three years old, but it WAS classified and it IS an embarressment to the US.. so right or wrong it was suppressed for General viewing by the Public and no the Public Does NOT have a right to see classified information until it becomes declassified….like it or not thats the rules!”
Right, just like it was the rules to kill Jews in the camps. Like it or not, the guards who went to trial were hung for following the rules.
If you are not able to listen to your conscience and speak out when attrocities are being commited, you are most certainly an accomplice to crime and history will hold you accountable.
CertainQuirk how way off the mark can you possibly get? The Military, which you obviously knnow the square root of ‘sod all’ about has security Classification for various reasons. None of them intrinsically sinister (except in the minds of people like you) all of them to protect the Military. What the Nazi’s did in WW2 cannot be compared to it.
“If you are not able to listen to your conscience and speak out when attrocities are being commited, you are most certainly an accomplice to crime and history will hold you accountable”
What the Aircrew did was rash and undisciplined, it was not a planned ‘atrocity’ as far as they were concerned these guys were armed (some at least) and in that particular ugly conflict situation in Iraq ‘fair targets’.. they should have shown more restraint, and they should have waited to see if these people were actually up to no good… they didnt and thier gung-ho attitude does not leave a glowing feeling about the Military. They should have been courts martialled and removed from Military service
But lets talk a little bit more about atrocities and conscience. You are undoubtedly quick to react when The coalition troops screw up…how many times have to put ‘pen to paper’ so to speak, when suicide bombers target innocent civilians? When The Insurgents kill unarmed people?
How many times have to protested about how the Shi’ites have been slaughtering the Suunis and how the Sunni’s have been slaughtering the shi’ites? I would wager that you havent…… its all good and well belating about ‘atrocities’ but is it all good and well when your protests are entirely one sided and purely to serve your own righteousness and self esteem?
To George: My statement above was quite simple. I’m not going to argue semantics about murder today and murder in the 1940′s, OK?
Neither am I obliged to discuss my conscience with you about suicide bombers, innocents, etc. You’ve made determinations about me already which are quite wrong. We can leave it at that.
To paraphrase, you said the military makes laws to protect itself…! The fox is making the rules for the henhouse guard and you’re perfectly fine with that? And I’M a mindless tin-foil? OK.
Thank you certain quirk to show the difference between your opinon and Georges opinon. I stand with you with your opinon, and hope the blindfolded will take off their blind folds and see this as you have written here.
There is to many Americans that find comfort in only what they are told to believe and fear thinking out side the story that they have been spoon fed as truth.
You made good analogy, and listening to Georges comments reminds me of a twist on the story the Emperor has no clothes. George and any one with similar opinons, I can only hope you think about what you read here for clearer vision against tyranny.
George,
I agree with you that it is not apparent from the video whether a war crime occurred here. After reading the account of Ethan McCord, a soldier in one of the ground units during the attack who in fact rescued the children from the van, I deeply regret that I referred to the soldiers in the helicopter as “moral cretins.” Reading the account of someone who was there has changed my thinking in significant ways since I wrote the letter. I agree with you that the attack was overzealous, but I should not have been so quick to judge the actions of those subject to the kinds of severe psychological stresses and unimaginable fear on a daily basis that must have caused those young men to become so callous and trigger-happy.
That does not change the fact that this video, along with other information that is routinely suppressed solely because it embarrasses our government, should be available to the American people. Free access to information such as this is axiomatic to the functioning of a free republic. If government is allowed to sanitize war at its whim, we are not living in a free republic, we are living in a propaganda state that has more in common with the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany than it does with traditional ideals of what America should be.
No, I never have served in the armed forces, but I know when laws are draconian and unjust (if not unconstitutional). Just as I didn’t have to be incarcerated in Auschwitz to know how wrong that was.
James
I dont know the full account of what operations were being undertaken on that day in that part of Baghdad. I dont know if the Apache’s were on top cover for a specific operation or just on a routine Combat Air patrol in the area. I guessed there was ‘something going on’ nearby in the way the group of men in the video including the journalists were behaving at the corner of the street…i.e. they were peering around the corner.
I havent heard of Ethan McCord until your post above so I googled his name and read his account… the following, in his words, is exactly the way I felt when I saw the video for the first time.
“However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary”
This is why, although the attack on the van was in my opinion an ‘overkill’ the episode cannot be deemed as murder! I also didnt know that Civilians are not supposed to come to the aid of the wounded (rightly or wrongly!) McCords words again.
“Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning shots in the direction…. Instead, the Apaches decided to completely obliterate everybody in the van. That’s the hard part to swallow”
It must go against the grain for any decent person to ignore injured and wounded people, to not treat aid or succor them. But I guess this video shows why. The forces out there do not know who is who when it comes to insurgents fighting them, the injured journalist could have been an insurgent, the van could have contained other insurgents coming to his aid. As an Ex soldier myself, my immediate view is why let a terrorist/insurgent/freedom fighter call them what you will survive to attack you another day? Harsh maybe but thats reality!
As for Military rules being draconian and unjust. Of course they have to be Draconian thats how you maintain discipline which is vital for cohesion within the unit. Thats how you get young guys to go out and face things that civilains at home cannot face.
Unjust rules? unjust for whom? those that break them perhaps?
I am not American and can only speak for the way British soldiers feel. When a certain regiment started a tour of operations in Iraq back in 2004 I think it was (may be wrong on that dateline though), they were shocked at the ferocity of the attacks that occured against them daily. The Insurgent attacks had only just started after the period of calm that followed the Coalition invasion. yet they showed remarkable restraint in the face of such attacks.
One concern they had was a legal issue over engaging ‘dickers’ (spotters for the enemy) When they were being mortared the sniper section would occasionally spot someone maybe as far as a kilometer away over the river adjacent to their camp, with binoculars and a cellphone, clearly spotting for the mortar team, these ‘dickers’ were not themselves armed! .They were frightened of shooting unarmed men because of a fear of punishment and/or imprisonment. This fear is because the media is so very very quick to label them as murderers… exactly what happened with the ‘collateral murder’ video dont you think? The soldiers in Al Amarrah were told, if you see a guy with binoculars and a cellphone at the time you are being mortared shoot him, he is clearly part of the team trying to kill you!
How far do you go to save your life or the lives of your fellow soldiers?… I know what I would do!
The US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are labelled as gung-ho bloodthirsty murderers because a few acts occur which are either outright atrocities (such as the rape of a 14 year old and the murder of her and her entire family commited by a small group of soldiers), blue on blue incidents (countless numbers of attacks on Coalition troops by US air units), or distastefull to civilians (such as the incident we are talking about,’Bradley manning collateral murder’ video.
Why should these military videos be made instantly available to the US public? in the name of Democracy? so that you can spike your troops in the back yet again with outcries of Imbecile, baby killer or just plain old Murderer? remember there have been hundreds of thousands of troops who have rotated through Iraq and Afghanistan. The numbers of so called atrocities is very very few indeed! yet you lable the hundreds of thousands for the acts of the few!
The reason we release these videos is to avoid all the anecdotal lines you and James just related above, those and secondhand sources.
If there is a question of murder… let me repeat, if there is a question of murder, then we need to know. We have every human right to know.
You may use “war” as justification all manner of deeds, but I don’t and I am not alone. I am one of many who insist that we WILL get to the bottom of all this and justice will be served. Otherwise, the irony of this “war” defeats itself.
Do you not understand that?
I need to be more succinct about my first line above: “The reason we release these videos is to avoid all the anecdotal lines you and James just related above, those and secondhand sources.”
The need for these video leaks (as the military is not forthcoming) is to know if there are questionable actions being taken in the name of these “wars.”
The step further that I left out is this: The video itself is not proof, however after it has called an episode into question, we can then submit it to a court of law with FACTS.
If we do this each and every time with each and every question we can reduce the number of these issues knowing that the military is better policing itself because it knows it is being watched.
If these were “wars” that I was not coerced into paying for, we could let a free-market world decide their fate. My guess is, the “wars” are unjust to begin with and there wouldn’t be an ounce of support for them.
However, as long as I am coerced to pay for all this killing in the name of something other than my own ideals, I will continually question and expect answers to the extent my “liberties” will permit.
Mr Quirk ‘If there is a question of murder’ These men were apparently engaged WITHIN the rules of engagement. it now apperas that however harsh it was the ‘rescue van’ was probably engaged WITHIN the rules of engagement. so what more do you need to know?
The shooting of the guys on the street corner was fair and withi8n reason in my view, the shooting of the rescue van wasnt!
So why do you have a right to know Mr Quirk? so that maybe you can protest and feel all righteous? The question of whether the War out there was right or wrong is besides the point unless you are going to start rambling on about ‘well if the War is wrong then every act within the War is wrong’ as that is just semantics.
As for the ‘anecdotal lines’ these are paraphrasing guys who were their…. whom are you paraphrasing? Were you there? You see a video its claimed that this and that happened and because it stirs your obvious anti-government sentiment you jump on it like a starving dog and claim it for your cause.
Why dont you take a worthwile cause to fight? I am sure there are many wrongly convicted prisoners in the US whom could use your fervour? many homeless people whom could use your fervour… but guess it aint righteous enough if it isnt against the heart of government eh?
And Furthermore re your “The video itself is not proof, however after it has called an episode into question, we can then submit it to a court of law with FACTS.”
In this particular case, whom are you going to take to court? and where are you going to get the FACTS from?
This site, I beleive is about Bradley Manning, he broke Military Regulations and the Military hierachy are a vengeful lot, he WILL be punished for it. The only thing to see is how severe that punishment will be!
Whether or not the military laws are draconian, harsh or unfair is beside the point. He signed on the dotted line when he joined and furthermore as a defence intelligence analyst he probably signed a few more forms which your ordinary soldier doesn’t have to sign.
I can’t speak for US Troops but in the British Army we had to sign the Official Secrets Act, whether you were a storeman or the General Officer Commanding of a Divison. You signed up front on joining the military and you have every opportunity NOT to sign ansd then hence NOT join!
Bradley Manning signed the US version of the Official Secrets Act. He knew full well what he was doing, had he not liked the military Rules and Regs he should have left.
Its rather sad actually because your ‘fighting’ for his cause will not help him in any way, it’ll just annoy the Military even more and probably lead to an even harsher sentence than he would otherwise have got or deserved.
In my view a Courts Martial and dismissal from service is all that should happen to him… bet he gets more than that though!
OK George, you’ve made your points and I’ve stated mine. We don’t agree. Since we don’t, I will stay here and continue to support Bradley Manning, and I will continue to question all the pertinent issues that are in question.
You, on the other hand, do not belong here because you do not support Bradley. (You may not have noticed, but the name of the page is “Help Bradley Manning” and not “SHOULD WE? Help Bradley Manning.” You’re entitled to your perspective, of course. Perhaps you should start your own site to NOT support him? Or better yet, since you are not in the US, maybe you should mind your British business instead? In the meantime, I have nothing more to say to you.
Shawn Fair
Fleming, Colorado, USA
Fair enough, I actually initially found a link to this site on facebook. It was linked a couple of times by Briotish friends of mine who support Bradley. Guess they should mind their own British business too should they, I am sure Bradley would appreciate you for helping him with his cause like that!I know why not set up a vetting system on who has the right to support him or not, Judged by YOUR criteria obviously!
And for your info I really do hope Bradley gets the minimum of punishment, its not like he actually hurt anyone now is it. But unfortunately for him you cant pick or choose which Military Regs you will abide by if you are in the Military!
Good luck with the ‘Murder’ prosecution I really look forward to seeing that one in court!
For the record: Bradley Manning is imprisoned NOW, and it has nothing to do with my criteria.
It does, however, have quite a bit to do with an arbitrary and covert military system, and statist detractors.
For the record: I openly accept all *SUPPORT* from any country, culture, or race of human beings.
I suspect that incidents such as shown in the video are a lot more common than just a few isolated incidents. The killing of innocents, whether justified by the rules of engagement or not, is the inevitable result of the prolonged occupation of countries which are undertaken for no good reason. It is only natural as well as predictable that the occupied peoples will fight back in whatever way they can to drive out the occupiers. Rules of engagement or not, the US is the aggressor here and bears the moral burden for the killing of innocent people.
In Vietnam, the military had not yet begun the practice of restricting reporters’ access to the battlefield or “embedding” troops (a euphemism for censoring what reporters are allowed to report). We also had a media back then that was not so sycophantic in obeying the military’s “requests” to stay out of certain areas, as they began to do in the first Gulf War. Consequently, the American people had full access to the horrors of that war and the revulsion most of us felt played a major part in ending the war.
Now, because of much greater military censorship and its acceptance by our lapdog media, no one has to see the consequences of the actions of our government which we all support with our tax dollars. To me, this is obscene. If Manning’s actions can break this cycle, as well as mobilize sentiment that will ultimately end this unjust occupation, this is in my mind one of the worthiest causes one can support.
And for the record, I don’t call anyone “babykiller” except for the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Wolfowitzes, the Perles, the Rumsfelds, the Rices, the Obamas, the Clintons, and the 98% of the Senators and Congressmen who are responsible for starting and continuing this rotten war.
Ah James now we get to the heart of the matter! Its not about Bradley or about whom got killed three years ago they are just convenient tools for your cause! its about your disagreeing with the War in Iraq. Its about your not liking what that total muppet Bush did to drag the globe into his so called ‘war on terror’
Well speaking from a (Ex)British Military perspective we dont like it either! At first there were a few whom believed in the hype about Weapons of mass destruction (not me!)… I dont know anybody who believes that now. we KNOW it was about regime change, any regime as long as it wasnt Saddam and as long as they liked the USA.
Well do you really think that the outing of this video is going to change all that? do you think you can gather enough support for the US Military high command to get all fluffy and supportive and let Bradley off scott free? unfortunately it doesnt work that way.
And lets face it just as there are people whom abhor this war there are still enough red-necks in your country (and mine) who think its a just cause and have a “hey lets kill as many ragheads as possible!” attitude..of course these arent the ones who actually have to go out there and do it!
I honestly dont know how soon this war is going to end and I dont think it will be because of US revulsion over dead Iraqis or media lies, US revulsion over the number of coffins coming back home maybe, but it took what? 58,000 or so young US lives extinguished in Vietnam before that ended!
And finally about the ‘killing of innocents’ the more I think about it thes two reporters should have known better. To go walking around with armed men near a firefight between Insurgents and US forces without anything to identify that they are indeed journalists..I didnt see no blue helmets or blue fragmentation vests there did you?…that was bordering on the reckless as far as protecting themselves goes! And being reckless out there in such a volatile place is not exactly a good idea now is it!
George,
You seem like a nice guy. And it seems like you and I are, for the most part, on the same page. Why, then, is my mention of the utter immorality of these wars an “aha” moment for you? I don’t get it. Of course the war is the point! I think it is clear from the chat logs that the immorality of the war was the point for Bradley too. What on earth makes you think I view him as no more than a “convenient tool” for my cause? Why are the goals of supporting Bradley Manning and opposing the war mutually exclusive in your mind? I am not a Leninist. I don’t believe in breaking eggs to make omelets, and I don’t believe that the end justifies the means. I believe that there are no ends, only means!
In other words, if you are implying that I would sacrifice Bradley for some notion of a “greater good” you are dead wrong, sir. Not to mention that I am sorely lacking in the kind of power to even make that decision.
I appreciate what you say about draconian rules being necessary for discipline in the military. But isn’t the greater question, what rules were followed by the highest levels of command, up to and including the commander in chief, in making the decision to invade Iraq in the first place? Was not every principle of domestic as well as international law broken in the taking of this decision, which you yourself seem to acknowledge? Does that not make the breaking of rules in the leaking of these files pale in comparison?
Maybe Bradley Manning didn’t even care what happened to him. Maybe he deliberately decided to sacrifice himself for his idea of the greater good. I don’t know. None of us are inside his head. But I do feel that I owe him a great debt, as a Christian and as an American citizen, and, futile as it may be, I will do everything I can to attempt to raise enough of a public outcry that the military authorities will feel compelled, if only to avoid more bad PR, to treat him with some measure of leniency.
Maybe it’s not so futile. It certainly worked with Daniel Ellsberg. They were ready to throw the book at him, they even tried to dig up dirt on him by breaking into his psychiatrist’s office – but it didn’t work. Let’s hope that the similar tactics of today’s authorities fail here.
It’s Certain Quirk, not Quick.
I am a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant; and I am a Christian who believes that stuff about “blessed are the peacemakers” and “love your enemies.”
I don’t know anything about Bradley Manning as a person aside from the most superifical accounts. But what he has done is a service, and a costly one. It is a service to the only cause consistently worth struggling for: peace. He has revealed the character of something evil that is perpetuated by its own secrecy.
May God bless him and keep him; and may we study every document that he sacrificed to put into our hands. Because the revelatory process is ongoing, and we are called to participate in it.
Thank you, Stan. I have read many of your articles on Counterpunch and other places, and I admire the work you are doing.
George, every single last thing you said is right on the money. Your argument is well thought out and intelligent, unlike the ridiculous accusations and arguments the others are making, I almost felt as if I watched the wrong “collateral Murder” video…that video is NOT proof of a war crime, the pilots obviously thought these were terrorists, that camera DOES look like a weapon. A tragic mistake. This war is a mess, and wrong, but the soldiers fighting it are not baby killers or monsters.
JK I think when ‘news’ like this occurs you have to be objective, when people here make hand on heart statements about the press being lapdogs to the government, that sentiment works both ways, wikileaks has put their own spin on this video, wikileaks has interpreted it how they wish you to see it (every news organisation or just about everybody that sticks a video on the net puts thier own spin on it!)
When you watch parts of the video where the guncamera flips bewteen views, the views where the helicopter is far away from the aiming point is because that IS how far the Helicopter was from the scene.
So the weapons operator only sees whats on a black and white TV screen infront of him, a small screen (smaller than the computer screen that you are reading this on)in a vibrating helicopter which is making manouvres all the time, he also undoubtedly has to aid the pilot in viewing whats outside the helicopter with regards to RPG attacks and where the other helicopter is in relationship to thier own position, The pilot has to fly the aircraft and also keep a view on whats going on outside.
So what you see on the video is what the Weapons operator saw, no more and no less. If you spotted the children in the van first time around before wikileaks pointed it out then you are a far far more observant person than I am. If you spotted that the dark stubby onject that the guy was pointing around the street corner was a camera (and lets face it wikileaks had already pointed that fact out on the video)pointing it up the road where a US forces unit were in a firefight, then you are a far far more observant person than I am.
Its easy to jump on something for your cause and be blinded to anything other than what you want to see, because it makes sense to you, because it fits in with your expectations..no! you have to be objective.
James, Yes the decision taken to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq was wrong, a decision taken by the former Commander in Chief, GW Bush and followed by Tony Blair and other heads of state….(I dont know nwhere Obama fits into this as you seem to blame him too!) but that does not make what Bradley has done, from a Military and Security point of view any more right.
The more I learn about Bradley the more any feelings of sympathy I had for him dissapear. He downloaded over a quarter of a million files. Do you think he read/viewed them all first? I doubt it. He has made public files which may endanger the lives of people. I am not talking about the military (who have a dangerous enough job anyway) but the local intelligence sources on the ground. Julian Assange and his team have had to ‘censor’ the documents to protect these people. What gave Manning the right to do this? outrage at his job?
One or two files or videos to show supposed wrongdoing I can understand but what he has done is far beyond this and I hope the Military throw the book at him to be honest. And if anyone on the gound in Afghanistan or Iraq dies as a result of these documents being published I hope he gets charged with aiding and abetting murder of course that would be hard to prove and the people on the ground would still be dead in any case!
You disagree with this war, I disagree with this war. I want the military brought back home right away because I dont think the livs of the Iraqis or the Afghanis are worth the loss of a single British serviceman or woman!(and of course the lives of the soldiers from many other countries) The people of Iraq and even more Afghanistan have lived under horrendous opressive regimes and did nothing about it, so why should we spill blood to help them, becuase whether you agree with the war’s or not intrinsically the personal freedoms of these people have been enhanced. Life is however inherently far more dangerous for them purely because of the murderous intent of their own fellow countrymen…why do you want the troops withdrawn James? Why do you want the troops withdrawn Shawn? So that the people will be free of US/Coalition opression… dont make me laugh!
I have read some of the files that have already been published on the Wikileaks website. Check out incident by severity! how many hundreds if not thousands of civilians have been killed by roadside bombs, by suicide bombers, by car bambs…? makes the ‘collateral murder’ video seem like a day at the kindergarten in comparison. None of these bombings involved US/Coalition forces yet I dont see one single cry of outrage or protest on any websites such as this one!… do you only care about the psople killed by the US Military?
Shawn you stated above “Neither am I obliged to discuss my conscience with you about suicide bombers, innocents, etc”… If you want people to see your point of view as viable I think you DO need to make your conscience clearly visible on this issue. Otherwise you are just another protestor against your government for all an any reason and your real values are pitifull!
I find it unbelievable that George defends the sociopathic cowards of the US Army 227th Aviation Regiment that carried out the cowardly massacre depicted on the video showing the gunning down of journalists and other non combatants. In defense of US troops, gunning down unarmed non combatants is certainly easier than going against armed resistance fighters.
One can only hope that the Iraqi people were avenged for this outrage by the Iraqi resistance. To they question of “why do they hate us?”, it’s because of people like George.
My thats a well balanced and reasonably thought out view you have Ken!
I take it you are a trained and experienced Psychiatrist/psychologist and have interviewed members of the 227th Av. Regt to come up with your assertion that the aircrew on that day are/were sociopathic and I take it that you have worn the uniform in the service of your country and know the ins and outs of combat tactics especially viz a viz military aviation tactics to assert that they are cowards?.. although I doubt that you have.
Of course when you first viewed the video you didnt know that there were journalists amongst the ‘unarmed non-combatants’ in that group but you spotted straight away that they were armed with little more than a Nikon and a tape recorder…. although I kind of doubt that too.
Of course the ‘unarmed non-combatants’ werent actually carrying an RPG anti armour missile and its warheads to actually, maybe, kind of use them… they were probably just for show to ‘big it up’ in front of the press eh Ken..does that sound like a reasonable explanation of carrying such weaponry?
Had you ever been in a situation where you have to watch every window for a possible sniper attack, where every loud noise makes your heart jump and your spittle turn to sandpaper. Where there is a possibilty of being blown to little bloody chunks at any and every street corner, or worse crippled, blinded, disabled for life where you need someone to wipe your backside for the rest of that life. Because I have Ken… and before you go bleating on about baby killing etc etc etc I served in Northern Ireland and Bosnia not Iraq.
Had you ever been in such a situation then perhaps you may understand why a helicopter gunship crew felt justified in opening fire on a bunch of armed men (not all armed admittedly) on the street corner a block or so away from where your comrades were being attacked….. but I kind of doubt that you have been in such a situation have you Ken otherwise that mind of yours may be a little less narrow than it appears to be.
For your information defending the crew in opening up on the armed men on the street corner! yes indeed and I would have done likewise without blinking. Defending the crew in attacking the van that came to the wounded journalists aid! when have I ever done that?… or are things so black and white in your head that seeing as I have defended them once ergo I must have defended them on every occasion. That was indeed a bit too much for me!
Your last statement is a real eye opener though Ken….
“One can only hope that the Iraqi people were avenged for this outrage by the Iraqi resistance”
….I take it that you mean that you hope that soemwhere in the USA/Europe the Military or Police will be knocking on some wive’s or mother’s door to inform them that their husband or son has been killed? I take it that you mean that you want US/Coalition troops to be killed to exact some sort of vengence?
You dont really sound like a very nice human being to me Ken, I am glad I dont know you because I wouldn’t waste my p**s on you if you were on fire!
The following is my take on the Wikileaks video and a comment on the state of affairs.
I think it is unfortunate if most people were to share the mindset that war or warring is a somehow a privilege of a nation or an organisation. And the video from Wikileaks showing an attack helicopter gunning down people should be an important opportunity in trying to come to terms in understanding and discussing the problems of warfare and its imherent ills for which warfare can be said to be a crime in itself.
One consequence of the disclosure of this particular video tape in question, and also the disclosure of what is known as “the war diaries”, has been an obvious attempts at solidifying, or arguing for, a moral imperative where national interests is to be the norm when it comes to “being moral”, leaving personal and commonsensical justifications defaulting to practically becoming a criminal offence and even worse, when going adversly against the interests of the state, which owns and fields military power. Being moral in making choices, ultimately becomes rather “being moral” on behalf of the discretion of whoever or whatever is carrying out foreign policy or pursuing special interests in that regard. I see a big and difficult problem when a goverment wants to advocate an ultimate moral hegemony, where personal acts of morality is deemed not only to be subordinate but becomes an offence and a crime, with treason in this, becoming but a failed scheme at containing discipline to pursue ill fated, speculative and reckless endeavurs of a government waging war.
I want to characterize what I read at the top reader comment as fallacious tripe not really dealing with a critique of this event, but rather seem to show an unapologetic attitude to the effect of promoting the soldiers privileged right of outright killing civilians and others. With the people on the ground not acting hostile, any caims of necessity thus falls short of a minimum of credibility for wanting to properly discharging live fire with the intent to kill. An important argument for what I believe is pro-war supporters seem to be the act of pre-emptive strikes, which in a nutshell so to speak, was the start of the ill fated invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands left dead and a country still in a sorry state, with Colin Powell having gone before the UN security council, doing his speculative warmongering with his conjectural argument of lets-bomb-Iraq just because the government of USA think its a good idea based on the manufactured and unfounded claims they provided. Pre-emptive strikes makes own losses predictably low, but it is partly based on the idea that gaining the initiative to fire first a good idea, with an assurance that hostile fire does not become an actuality, making what is known as “civilian deaths” a disturbing consequence as they in various ways become targets and victims.
The Wikileaks video show a set of rather peculiar circumstances in warfare, strictly speaking, showing the crew of an anti tank helicopter, rather casually, firing high caliber projectiles into a crowd of people with the first video sequence with timestamp ending at 06:49. The other video sequence starting with timestamp at 07:20 show continual attack by guided missile fire against a building, supposedly housing multiple riflemen. It is unclear to me if the omitted 31min of tape would be of interest somehow or if it maybe was removed for skipping towared the point showing what convenience the US military indulged in for securing an area, killing civilians in the process while it was presumably not really being necessary, spending two or perhaps three rounds of hellfire missiles from afar. I wonder what the gunner meant when he uttered “Uh shit, why I do I have AP flashing on there?”, does anyone know what it actually meant?
From watching the first sequence, it seem clear that the people and the minivan was gunned down while not presenting hostile fire or really being posing a threat as such. A pre-emptive strike was apparantly performed against a possible enemy, which just so happened to be civilians including two reporters and two children sitting in the minivan. An unknown man with a gun and another one with a suspicious object deemed to be a rocket propelled granade, were deemed to be insurgents and combatants while not showing to actually being it, causing surrounding people to all be deemed combatants and targets.
The man walking on the ground among others nearby seened to be carrying an automatic rifle, which to my knowledge might not be uncommon, and he was walking together with a man carrying what in my opinion might be a camera stand for all I know. It seem clear from the footage that noone can properly identify what the people on the ground were really carrying, despite the expense and effort put into the design and manufacturing of this attack helicopter, apparanly not having been designed or equipped to police an area or engaging specific human targets, with the power of discrimination that the US military or others might want us to believe or trust.
I tried finding some relevant facts about the targeting system used with the AH-64 helicopter but come up short in learning precisely how sharp the images are displayed for the pilot/gunner when zoomed in (probably having used older equipment than what is to be used today, equipment maybe dating to before 1990, which afaik would be called legacy TADS system, Target Acquisition Designation Sight).
A robber can be said to be better off gunning down all of his victims despite merely having the intent of wanting to rob people of their valuables, because he would in this way be sure to not faced with a threatening situation as he rob their now dead or dying bodies. A practical measure, a very speculative one, but not really a necessary measure. Undoubtedly, this problem of projecting control by acts of deadly pre-emptive force, scale with a limiting of the investment for resolving combat or security issues in urban areas. Theory and praxis is with this made one and the same. What they did is true, because they just did it, or, they wanted to achieve something and they achieved it because they could. Luck had nothing to do with it, skill had nothing to do with it, opportunity had nothing to do with it. Wanting to dictate reality and getting away with murder is what would be a way of understanding how there is this call for wanting to do everything in their power, for getting their way, all the way.
But enough about this initial remark to the first comment, what I would argue to be of particular interest, is the way warfare apparantly is conducted, adding to this, my contempt and unforgiving disgust of what seem to me to be an unquestionable privilege to conduct and wage warfare. I would like to think I have something important to say here, something should not be disregarded because it somehow go against a so called law of war, as was mentioned earlier.
“Conduct” and “wage” are two different words with two different meanings in this case, everyone ought to look up a dictionary with an accompanyng etymology and perchance educate yourselves. Some dabbling into philosophy (maybe avoiding Kant, avoiding useless indoctrination in having moral imperatives, when wanting to try relate to difficult problems in person) and language theory might be a good future investment so to speak, building on your experiences later on. It might take one ten years to get a clue, and then the rest of ones life trying to relate to what one learn along the way. It make alot of sense to me that people, but more importantly organisations, would want to keep things predictable, engaging primarily in wishful thinking more so than real cooperation and restraint, with people and organizations using their power to dictate and try shape the future of tomorrow.
I would like to quickly add that I worry my engagement in this attempt at a critique, of what I want to characterize as a political sport and a political game, using those associations as a stinging metaphor here with the latest Iraq and Aghan war in mind, that this will imprint the label of “anarchist” on me, which I would argue is undeserved. I am no pasifist, but I am no arnarchist either.
It seem fair that nobody get to really dictate reality, and each is necessarily left to his own to try making his/her own mind. What sort of goes out the window with an incessant defence of so called truth and facts being the core of the arguments in a discussion, is the proper concern for the real people sort of leaving them to suffer the consequences. My first order of critique would be to point out, what I have to believe, is the all-too-same praxis of conducting and waging war. The “law” of the military that George seem to point out, maybe could well be coined as tautological in nature, would be nothing but self a serving privilege of doing violence, mass murder, serial killings, assassinations, destruction, oppression, controlling, harrassment, threaths, torture, indifference, deceit, discrimination, robbery, manipulation, experimentation, and also making a gamble of everyones future.
On pondering the riddle of what came first, the chicken or the egg, it seem obvious that the process is what should be of interest, and not the apparant lure of stupefying futility of posing such a problem, nor the lure of necessesary stupidity in which one appreciate what can be said to be a dazzling problem such as the conundrum of the chicken and the egg. A dazzle, why else did people bother telling the riddle of the chicken and the egg, presumably being historically a mere fascinating conundrum.
I would say that the Wikileaks video offer certain evidence, truths and facts of how warfare is waged, it ought to be everyones concern how war is conducted should people succomb to apologetic attitudes about the irresponsible and patently un-sane crimes, gambles, mistakes and horrors of warfare.
Like with the problem of racism (as such) which I dabbled on some forum somewhere, for example words where like “white” and “black” used in casual meanings are sort of patently racist terms, but if noone really cared, in a sense racism would not be a controversy any more than using the terms “woman”or “man”. So warfare is not really a chicken or an egg in some futile puzzle of mankind as much as warfare are an ill of civilization and all that. Warfare not really being a necessary evil (because it all depends on the circumstances). What could patently seem necessary evil in our day and time being a cruel joke? Maybe the idea that religion of “gods” have their “god” given rights to rule mankind or their societies, a conundrum with people having little or no choice but to accept or ignore their community. This way being forced to be men of faith or to be ruled by it. Statehood probably can be said to be apart of a similar problem, forcing its subjects to put up with it or to try control them should they object to, or be viewed as a threat to its self interests. Securing a good or even prosperous life for “most people” sounds nice, but falls short of a minimum of dignity for minorities not quite fitting in all things concidered.
I hereby accuse people of stating “Human nature never change” of being liars and conmen. With the understanding that “human nature” change all the time. Me smothering another human being with a blunt object is not really human nature, as little as me drowning in water, or being able to walk on the moon in a spacesuit. Whatever context fitting the idea of a “human nature”, is surely a man made project actualized for whatever cause that is in any case a fact. A real mess.
Our reality and the actuality of it in our understanding, are not patently real, as if “reality” was given in advance with particular facts constituting our reality. I believe it was Wittgenstein that pointed out that one does not really think the same-same thoughts. One can say one does not stand outside a system objectively so to speak, but one is included into it.
And also, this piece of text is not me really voicing my opinions. If you hear anything with your ears, it is not me talking for sure. And anyone perchance thinking I maybe wrote this as a result of a stream of consciousness, they would give me too much credit. “The problem of representation” and problems with actuality ought to be a concern for everyone dabbling in what vaguely can be called philosophy, and perhaps more importantly for those discussing problems relating to politics or simply theirs or others lives.
And what is morality, if not about making a choice. Not really by doing a certain action, not really being valuable as an imperative by simply wanting to be moral, not wanting to be good, nor being apart of any boon you helped create. It’s a complicated world and others would probably want one to sort of stand in line, because that just so happens to be very effective by making use of perchance effortless cooperation. Maybe now, perchance a worrysome idea of a warring civilization or unbridled nationalism will hopefully spark a curiousity for dabbling into how things make sense to you and how you relate to it.
Society, as a general idea of how people live their lives, offer ways of dictating what is your reality every day whether anyone had that intention or not. Getting an impression of the weather outside sort of does this too, regardless of you agree to that idea being of any importance.
In my part of the world, the press and media is sometimes called the “fourth state power”, being a watcher of the three other state powers, but to me that idea also sounds like a way of abusing the goodwill given by readers, given to shitty online newspapers; with newspapers apparantly providing mainly entertainment, being coorporations and presumably being tools for politicians more than being a good source of news for a general populace.
Little of this is seen in the local or state papers in Michigan. Few control the media, and the is subject to advertisers, which are the corporations that spend on congress, which listens to the spendeers, thus we, the general public are not allowed the reality and the truth, which the government chooses to classify as secret matters of national security. As said and written by I.F. Stone, ALL GOVERNMENTS LIE! It is refreshing to see the truth break the barrier of censorship and come out into the public. This is not a crime but according to government, the military, the mainstream medai, truth is not allowed to seep into our conscience because that would help is think out the truth denied to us.