UPDATE: DaNang65 has informed me that the call sign for an aircraft--in this case Crazyhorse 18--does not necessarily mean that the same crew was piloting this mission. It is entirely possible other airmen were involved here. However, this does not take away from the central point of my diary: that American forces killed two AIF that had attempted to surrender, and had enough trepidation about it to actually check with a lawyer first. It is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions (see my comment below) to mistreat enemy who have laid down their arms--let alone to kill them. Original diary follows:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The huge trove of nearly 400,000 documents just released by Wikileaks contains an astonishing array of data, but in reading the New York Times' initial summation, a familiar name leapt out at me from one of the specific documents that the newspaper provided on its website:
Crazyhorse 18.
Sound familiar? It should: Crazyhorse One-Eight was the U.S. Army Apache helicopter crew that shot down a group of mostly unarmed individuals, then shot up the driver of a van who came to assist the wounded, in the July 2007 incident depicted in the infamous "Collateral Murder" video released last April by Wikileaks.
The scenario described in the new document apparently occurred on February 22, 2007, nearly five months before the Baghdad attack that killed two Reuters reporters and about 10 other men, and wounded two children. This time, our familiar flyboys shoot up two Iraqi insurgents who make the mistake of trying to surrender. But don't worry--it seems they checked with an Army lawyer first, who told them it was okay.
The dry, jargon-filled text of the document describes an engagement of two mortar-wielding insurgents who attempt to surrender to the helicopter crew, only to be executed anyway by the Apache helicopter's 30mm cannons. According to the Times' summary:
In another case, in February 2007, an Apache helicopter shot and killed two Iraqi men believed to have been firing mortars, even though they made surrendering motions, because, according to a military lawyer cited in the report, "they cannot surrender to aircraft, and are still valid targets."
Here is the relevant passage from the document released by the Times:
22––––FEB07: CRAZYHORSE 18 REPORTS AIF [anti-Iraqi forces) GOT INTO A DUMPTRUCK HEADED NORTH, ENGAGED AND THEN THEY CAME OUT WANTING TO SURRENDER.
22––––FEB07: CRAZYHORSE 18 REPORTS THEY GOT BACK INTO TRUCK AND ARE HEADING NORTH.
22––––FEB07: CRAZYHORSE 18 CLEARED TO ENGAGE DUMPTRUCK. 1/227 LAWYER STATES THEY CAN NOT SURRENDER TO AIRCRAFT AND ARE STILL VALID TARGETS.
22––––FEB07: CRAZYHORSE 18 REPORTS THEY MISSED WITH HELLFIRE AND INDIVIDUALS HAVE RAN INTO ANOTHER SHACK.
22––––FEB07: IH6 APPROVES CRAZYHORSE 18 TO ENGAGE SHACK.
22––––FEB07: CRAZYHORSE 18 REPORTS ENGAGED AND DESTROYED SHACK WITH 2X AIF. BDA IS SHACK / DUMP TRUCK DESTROYED.
According to the Times article:
The shooting was unusual. In at least three other instances reported in the archive, Iraqis surrendered to helicopter crews without being shot. The Pentagon did not respond to questions from The Times about the rules of engagement for the helicopter strike.
Amazing. I can hardly wait for the Pentagon and its allied wingnut apologists to come out of the woodwork on this one. It had to be legal! A lawyer told them it was legal! We will then be told once again that this was all by the book, nothing new here, the Rules of Engagement were faithfully followed, etc.
Just another day of Making Iraq a Better Place for our helicopter heroes.