General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What is the reason the GLBT Community doesn't support Bradley Manning? [View all]AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)can see there no crime here. In fact there was almost too much restraint shown on the part of the Command group on the radio net. First weapons are spotted, if weapons were spotted in that part of Baghdad and a group of armed men was present, it was a free fire zone. This was due to the Sadr groups fighting battles across Baghdad that day with U.S. and Iraqi forces. The group was engaged ONLY after it was made clear that they were armed. At least three were armed, two with AK-47's and one with possibly an RPG, I couldn't quite make it out from the weapon profile. AFTER they are confirmed as being armed in a free fire zone, they are engaged. The one that is wounded and is not reaching for a weapon is not killed, he was definitely unarmed at that point. They actually talk about how they can target him if he grabs a weapon. Again not illegal. Next the van rolls up to an armed group that has just been engaged by the Apaches. AGAIN, the Apache pilot describes the situation and asks for permission to fire. The van is removing wounded insurgents from the battlefield, the van is not an ambulance, it is not displaying a Red Crescent symbol. It is a van with men in it removing insurgents and their weapons for treatment. This was a free fire zone, if you were engaged in combat or supporting combat operations against U.S. or Iraqi forces you were a legitimate legal target. There were unfortunately kids in the van, the men driving the van brought their kids into a free fire zone to evacuate wounded insurgents. However no one knew there were kids in the van until after the incident. Again not illegal to shoot the van because the kids could not be identified as being in the van prior to the van being engaged by the Apache. Anyway, again the Apache team asks for permission as the wounded formerly armed men are being placed inside for evac from the battlefield. Finally they receive permission and engage the van. The only thing that is close to a war crime is the soldier driving the Humvee that rolls over the dead body. Everything else is VERY legal and I have never understood the drama this video caused. Abu Ghraib was a war crime because it was obviously law breaking actions taking place. This video shows incredible restraint and following of the rules of engagement almost in excess. The commander was almost too cautious.... I don't understand how anyone can label this a war crime.