Skip to main content

View Diary: 36 Still Images (Wikileaks Iraq Video & Update from Wikileaks) (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So it's ok? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adrianrf, hulagirl

    Inevitable? This wasn't. This was optional.

    And it's still a war crime.

    "The human capacity for goodness makes democracy possible, but it's precisely the human capacity for evil that makes democracy utterly necessary." Gary Dorrien

    by ogre on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:46:11 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  NO-it is more of a war crime because it was (4+ / 0-)

      inevitable. The people who planned the illegal war against Iraq knew that atrocities would result from occupation. They didn't care. They banked on us not caring & they banked on future governments not holding them accountable.

      Meteor Blades seems to do an outstanding job of community moderation despite the abject failure to be perfect.

      by catilinus on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:50:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would you please point to the statute (0+ / 0-)

      in any of the Laws of War that criminalize making mistakes? You're not gonna find any. This was not a War Crime, this wasn't the deliberate killing of civilians.

      You need to watch the whole video. The gunner didn't just open up on the people on the ground. He spotted weapons amongst the civilians. He asked for confirmation he got it. He asked for permission to fire, he got it. He fired until all the targets were down. He ceased firing on Saeed Chmagh once he saw he was wounded and posed no threat. When the van arrives, he again asks for confirmation. He gets it, he asks for permission to fire, he gets it and he fires.

      A War Crime is more than just a shitty situation in which innocent people die. To pretend every situation in which innocent civilians die is just destroying the very concept of a War crime.

      •  I watched. (9+ / 0-)

        He asked for permission. Sure.

        The van? Not a weapon there.

        He "spotted" weapons?  No. He said he did.

        There weren't 5-6 AKs. There appeared to be one--which then magically became many.

        Firing on the guys who stopped the van, picked up a wounded guy and were leaving? That's a "mistake"? There wasn't any "picking up bodies," which was what was stated on the audio. They came to the aid of the one man moving; no weapons were visible.

        War crime.

        "The human capacity for goodness makes democracy possible, but it's precisely the human capacity for evil that makes democracy utterly necessary." Gary Dorrien

        by ogre on Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 11:08:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Shooting wounded combatants (8+ / 0-)

        Is a war crime. Once a foe has been wounded and is no longer attacking (in this case they weren't shooting at all) you can be subject to a war crime if you shoot them anyway.

        This is especially true in this case because there were no US ground troops engaging this group. It was an aerial assault with plenty of range and opportunity to assess the situation clearly.

        This is something particularly heinous by our military. In the second battle of Fallujah we intentionally bombed known clinics and a smaller hospital and shot up the main hospital. Buildings that were identified as "field" hospitals - one such setup was in a theater - were also subject to air strikes.

      •  I would agree with you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Robobagpiper

        up until they opened fire on the van, the men assisting a wounded man and the wounded man himself.

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 05:15:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site