Bradley Manning: Collateral Murder

[Robrob]

Recent debate has revealed some incontrovertible facts in the July 12, 2007 accidental shooting of Iraqi "journalists."

From a decidedly anti-military webblog:

The 17-minute version opens with scenes over Baghdad as the camera seeks out a loose group of about fifteen men walking in a street. Annotations identify the Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, carrying cameras while a network voice announces, "That's a weapon."

Fact 1) Fifteen military aged Iraqi males in civilian clothing without uniform or insignia, only two of whom are identified as journalists.

The Army memo then proceeds to examine Apache gun camera stills. The first one shows the two Reuters employees carrying "Possible" cameras with telephoto lenses.

Fact 2) Only the two identified journalists have cameras.

The second image, taken a few seconds later, purports to show other Iraqis carrying weapons, specifically, an RPG, an AKM (a variant of the AK-47) and an RPG round. This image isn't too clear here, but is probably clearer in the original.

Fact 3) At least some of the remaining 13 military aged Iraqi males in civilian clothing without uniform or insignia are carrying offensive weapons (two RPGs) and additional rocket grenades.

The image below comes from about the same point in time on the Wikileaks version (2:09). The fat guy with the horizontally-striped shirt seems to be carrying an AK-47 and swinging it as he walks.

Fact 4) At least a few more of military aged Iraqi males in civilian clothing without uniform or insignia are carrying AKM (AK47) assault rifles. These could be considered offensive or defensive weapons.

Here, two seconds later on the Wikileaks video, the skinny guy next to the fat guy turns around, swinging what looks very much like an RPG.

Lots of offensive weapons. Very few actual "journalists."

One of the "journalists" reaches around a corner with his telephoto lens pointed at nearby US troops.

This is what he and his offensively armed companions can see:

Understandably the attack helicopter clears its intent with higher and deconflicts with the US troops in the HUMVEEs before it opens fire on the fifteen offensively armed military age male Iraqis wearing no uniforms or identifying insignia.

Insurgents are military age Iraqi males who wear no uniforms or insignia, carry offensive weapons and stealthily approach US troops. Unless you are psychic, there is no way to distinguish between offensively armed "journalists" acting in the exact same stealthy manner as insurgents - until they take a shot at you.

When the dust settles, bodies are scattered all around. It appears the entire group has been killed except for one man who is trying to crawl. After a few minutes a black van drives up, a man gets out and tries to put the injured guy inside. But the helicopter opens fire again, killing the rescuer and the earlier victim and disabling the vehicle. A few minutes later a US armored vehicle arrives on the scene and US soldiers swarm the area, looking over the dead bodies and the disabled van. They announce that there are two seriously wounded children in the front seat of the van and request medical assistance.

The Army report says this about the black van: As to the presence of the children in the black van, it is obvious from the radio transmissions on the gun-camera tapes that the Apache pilots thought the van was to be used as a means of escape for the wounded insurgents. The van arrives as if on cue, and is immediately joined by two military-aged males who appear from the nearby courtyard. The children are never seen while the driver slides open a door and then retakes his seat while the two other males attempt to load the first insurgent into the vehicle. It is unknown what, if any, connection the van had to the insurgent activity.

Fact 5) Immediately following the shooting, an unmarked van arrives and two more military age Iraqi males start to retrieve the downed offensively armed individuals. No one ever sees the two children in the van.

Why were two "journalists" in the company of thirteen offensively armed persons who exactly fit the description of an insurgent? Why do two "journalists" have thirteen heavily armed bodyguards with RPGs? Why do "journalists" not wear identifying insignia, especially when stealthily approaching US positions?

Based on the totality of the circumstances, I would not be surprised if the "journalists" were (in)voluntarily accompanying a group of insurgents to film their attack on a US position. It would not be the first time insurgents filmed an attack and it would not be the first time a journalist was willing to risk his life for a "scoop" - even one which would result in the deaths of US troops.

 

[Big Les]

A minor point, but there is no way in hell someone can identify the precise AK variant those guys are carrying. 'AKM' is an assumption based upon the broad generic type that is most common in the region. In fact I doubt you could even positively ID it as a Kalashnikov type rifle. Chances are that it is, but it could be a Vz58, for example.

 

[Virus]

More here.

 

[BenBurch]

A minor point, but there is no way in hell someone can identify the precise AK variant those guys are carrying. 'AKM' is an assumption based upon the broad generic type that is most common in the region. In fact I doubt you could even positively ID it as a Kalashnikov type rifle. Chances are that it is, but it could be a Vz58, for example.

You go with what you know. Absolutely a gun and from where you are, looks like it could be an AK. And most were. Type doesn't really matter. If they had been ancient Enfields, it would have been a threat.

 

[BStrong]

A minor point, but there is no way in hell someone can identify the precise AK variant those guys are carrying. 'AKM' is an assumption based upon the broad generic type that is most common in the region. In fact I doubt you could even positively ID it as a Kalashnikov type rifle. Chances are that it is, but it could be a Vz58, for example.

Ddepending on the resolution of the camera and the view of the receiver sides above the mag well, it's entirely possible to differentiate between an AK-47 (forged receiver) and an AKM (stamped receiver)

Not that it really matters to anyone other than an intel analyst

 

[000063]

I love how the cameras are shown, but the weapons are only purportedly or seemingly shown.

 

[Big Les]

Ddepending on the resolution of the camera and the view of the receiver sides above the mag well, it's entirely possible to differentiate between an AK-47 (forged receiver) and an AKM (stamped receiver)

Not that it really matters to anyone other than an intel analyst

In fairness to the crew, yes - I was thinking in terms of the video and stills we have available to us. I'm well aware of the AK/AKM distinction.

 

[Lowpro]

I'm confused. Why is Bradley Manning in the thread title? This video and the information in it has been known for a long time and doesn't concern Manning other than the fact he may have distributed it to Wikileaks. Was Manning part of the Apache team?

 

[Robrob]

I'm confused. Why is Bradley Manning in the thread title? This video and the information in it has been known for a long time and doesn't concern Manning other than the fact he may have distributed it to Wikileaks. Was Manning part of the Apache team?

Just to differentiate it from the other Manning topic on JREF. That topic concerning his espionage in general was derailed by debate on this specific video.

AFAIK, Manning leaked the video which is why I named him in the topic. Hopefully to keep the two separate threads, separate.

And yes, I suspect the truth of the matter is in line with this quote:

Reuters has a long history of its local stringers embedding themselves with terrorist forces. Perhaps they do this because they are sympathetic, perhaps they do this to get "the story", but it matters little to those engaging insurgents.

 

[mrgrouch]

what's the military age in iraq? and how were they able to accurately tell the age of every single one of the 15 individuals? furthermore how does being of military age but not wearing a uniform justify shooting?

 

[Robrob]

what's the military age in iraq? and how were they able to accurately tell the age of every single one of the 15 individuals? furthermore how does being of military age but not wearing a uniform justify shooting?

It doesn't.

"Military age male" is a generic description of anyone who is obviously not female, not too old to be an insurgent and not too young to be an insurgent. It's not a legal definition and by itself means nothing. Think of it as the beginning of your chain of thought in the decision tree of evaluating potential threats as they approach your position.

Male Y/N?

Old Y/N?

Young Y/N?

Wearing a uniform or identifiable insignia Y/N?

Weapon Y/N?

Is it pointing at me Y/N?

(If yes, shoot)

Offensive weapon Y/N?

(If yes, shoot)

Etc...

Wearing a uniform (of the Iraqi military) justifies their carry of offensive weapons. Wearing the insignia of a non-government agency (NGA) such as "Red Cross" or "Media" justifies their use of armed body guards and/or their proximity to US positions.

 

[marplots]

How do they differentiate between offensive and defensive weapons?

 

[erwinl]

How do they differentiate between offensive and defensive weapons?

Whether the weapons they carry can reach you or your buddys?
If the distance to the other party is 200 metres to you or fellow soldiers (who don't nessecerily have to be near you) and the other party is carrying only pistols, they are defensively armed. I.e. They can't harm anybody on your side.
If they are carying assault rifles or even machine guns, you could say they are offensively armed.

 

[BenBurch]

Whether the weapons they carry can reach you or your buddys?
If the distance to the other party is 200 metres to you or fellow soldiers (who don't nessecerily have to be near you) and the other party is carrying only pistols, they are defensively armed. I.e. They can't harm anybody on your side.
If they are carying assault rifles or even machine guns, you could say they are offensively armed.

Almost any weapon is either. The only really defensive weapons are antimissile systems, ECM, chaff, etc.

 

[marplots]

Whether the weapons they carry can reach you or your buddys?
If the distance to the other party is 200 metres to you or fellow soldiers (who don't nessecerily have to be near you) and the other party is carrying only pistols, they are defensively armed. I.e. They can't harm anybody on your side.
If they are carying assault rifles or even machine guns, you could say they are offensively armed.

Well, there's the reporters' mistake right there. If they were properly defensively armed, they could have defended themselves from being attacked by the US troops. I sure hope the US guys have enough sense to have both offensive and defensive weapons.

Why were there people living in that city anyhow? Didn't they know how dangerous it was?

 

[Noztradamus]

Almost any weapon is either. The only really defensive weapons are antimissile systems, ECM, chaff, etc.

The Somali pirates who got deaded when INS Tabar went Kashtan on them would agree to the first sentence.

 

[BStrong]

Well, there's the reporters' mistake right there. If they were properly defensively armed, they could have defended themselves from being attacked by the US troops. I sure hope the US guys have enough sense to have both offensive and defensive weapons.

Why were there people living in that city anyhow? Didn't they know how dangerous it was?

Funny you should ask - PDW's (Personal Defense Weapons) are a seperate classification from the standard infantry rifle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_defense_weapon

 

[Oliver]

Mhmm, let me sum the thread up:

1. a country invades a sovereign nation
2. the reasoning for doing so were lies about a threat that did not exist
3. a helicopter crew of the "invading liars" kills innocent people
4. among those being killed were harmless reporters

Ergo: It's the reporters fault, period ... Oh, and Bradley Manning's.

Awesome

 

[marplots]

Funny you should ask - PDW's (Personal Defense Weapons) are a seperate classification from the standard infantry rifle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_defense_weapon

Do they work against a helicopter gunship?
(I think they might, based on several movies I've seen.)

 

[000063]

Mhmm, let me sum the thread up:

1. a country invades a sovereign nation
2. the reasoning for doing so were lies about a threat that did not exist
3. a helicopter crew of the "invading liars" kills innocent people
4. among those being killed were harmless reporters

Ergo: It's the reporters fault, period ... Oh, and Bradley Manning's.

Awesome

No one is arguing your bottom line, and 3 is more accurately "innocent people who were mistaken for insurgents by entering the scene in an unmarked van to remove casualties" and 4 is "reporters with a group of people carrying RPGs and AK-47s while US ground forces were down the street".

What's being argued is that this was a tragic but reasonable mistake. Blame must also be laid at the feet of the insurgents who don't wear uniforms specifically to promote confusion between themselves and civilians. And the guy who thought it was a good idea to bring his kids into an area where people had been shot.