"Collateral Murder"

Collateral Murder ^ | HushTX

[HushTX]

A friend of mine recently posted this to his Facebook (I know, I'm drawing from the bastion of unreliable sources here), and I want very badly to respond, but what I want to say I can't back up with personal experience or knowledge of any reliable sort. That's why I'm asking about these things here.

Before reading my questions and answering them, please watch the video so you understand why I want to ask these questions.

Ok, now that you've watched it:

First, it seems to me that any war correspondent worth his salt would know the dangers of going into a military patrolled area. If you go where there's fighting, you might get hurt or killed. That seems like common sense. That leads me to think there might be some sort of communication between the news company and the military so that soldiers might be aware of the movements of the press. Something akin to telling the military that reporters might be moving around in a particular area. Does anyone know how this works, or if it even happens?

Second, I realize I am not trained, and assume someone who is trained would be better suited to identifying details through a visual system like the one shown in the video, but I was unable to tell that the items carried were cameras. I wouldn't say they looked like guns, but had I not been told "those are cameras" I would have had no idea. What are the chances that the gunner was making the best judgment call he could and didn't recognize the items as cameras? I'd appreciate input from someone who has first hand experience with such equipment.

Really, who gets a call that someone was shot at by a helo and decides it's a good idea to take kids with them to the site of the attack?

This is a very frustrating thing for me. I consider what happened to be a tragedy, but am having a very hard time laying blame solely on the soldiers. I believe strongly in the balance of choice and consequence, and if those reporters chose to go into a dangerous area without ANY sort of indication that they were reporters, that seems to be taking a huge risk. Even the van was unmarked.

Are there reasons why the van would have had no features to distinguish it as a Reuters vehicle? Or why the press would not have made it clear they would be there? I can understand that the correspondents would want candid material, and that alerting people to their presence could result in some kind of staged presentation to make one side or the other look good, but isn't that better than getting shot down because nobody knew they were there?

I have no military experience of my own, so really don't know how to respond to this, but I want to say SOMETHING to my friend in the defense of the soldiers. I just need a basis for my argument. I'm so sick of the military getting dumped on.

[fungoking]

You could go to their website and listen to the podcast, I would but I've already showered once today.

[stylin19a]

this is probably useless regarding your quest for facts in this particular case, but here goes, from 1987 PBS Ethics in Ametrica...

Mike Wallace proclaimed that if he were traveling with enemy soldiers he would not warn U.S. soldiers of an impending ambush. “Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?", moderator Charles Ogletree Jr. suggested.

Without hesitating, Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty...you're a reporter." When Brent Scrowcroft, the then-future National Security Adviser, argued that "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second," Wallace was mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by [the imaginary] North Kosanese on American soldiers?"

George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel, reacted with disdain: "I feel utter contempt. Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, they're two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. They're just journalists, they're not Americans." The discussion concluded as Connell fretted: "But I'll do it. And that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists."

[MrJoeJ]

Although in this case Wikileaks didn’t do a very good job with the reporting aspect, I still appreciate the job that they do. Don’t forget that they hosted the Climate Research emails.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Duh???

And how many other sites hosted the Climategate Emails?

[phrogphlyer]

I still appreciate the job that they do. Don’t forget that they hosted the Climate Research emails.

They are also hosting classified ROE from 2007, posted yesterday. I won't link to it, but consider that before you brag on them too much.

[PeaRidge]

“...but I want to say SOMETHING to my friend in the defense of the soldiers.”

You must begin, and feel confident as you do so, to point out that this film segment starts out attempting to create a bias.....i.e. the quote from Orwell. You would be well within the bounds of logic to tell your friend that the premise, as presented by the film supplier is so biased as to preclude any reasonable comment about it.

But in case you want to go further, you should point out the second attempt at creating a gigantic bias....pictures, descriptions, and attributions that may be unfounded, and despite what it would want you to believe, without complete information,cannot be separated from other explanations.

Then the film.....what does it actually show? It shows a group of men, some armed, killed by Apache fire.

No evidence of the intent or employment of any of the men can be gained from the experience of the aircraft personnel.

No evidence of children can be seen beforehand.

All pilots and gunners received permission and orders to fire.

All of those decisions were made based on visual evidence, which did not include anything that this film wants to attribute to the people on the ground as if there is some massive error to be blamed on these service people.

The assertions are useless without proof of either carelessness or malfeasance on the part of the combat troops.

As an earlier poster said, what this really looks like is a group that was preparing to attack US troops with RPG fire, rather than innocents looking to take pictures.

Anyone asserting blame based on this is offering up audacious opinion, not reasoned intelligence.

[ctdonath2]

That leads me to think there might be some sort of communication between the news company and the military so that soldiers might be aware of the movements of the press.

Yeah, the enemy will really like the friendly local embedded reporter chatting with their crew and filming their activities to, while he's at it, tell _their_ enemies where they are and what they're up to right now.

Something akin to telling the military that reporters might be moving around in a particular area.

If you're with the enemy, you'll get shot at. Go figure.

I was unable to tell that the items carried were cameras.

Some do. Some of the items visible were arms, identified by trained eyes. Just 'cuz you can't tell doesn't mean nobody can. Take a gander at this.

I consider what happened to be a tragedy, but am having a very hard time laying blame solely on the soldiers.

It's called war. If you hang around people who are trying to kill each other, you may be killed.

[libertarian27]

I watched the video earlier this morning and did some digging.
Here are some articles about the incident from 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L16174595.htm

[DCBryan1]

The Apache crews identified AK-47 rifles and RPG visually. Then requested permission to engage.

partially right. Remember, their feed goes back to the BDE or Corp S2 section, and a 35D/35E, and a lawyer with the ROE in his hands, along with an 0-6 or higher is the one that confirms what the crew is seeing and gives the authority to fire. There are ALOT of eyeballs on the camera feed back at the TOC...its not like a couple of cowboy pilots say "Yeee haw! I see some weapons, can we fire!" (or southpark analogy "They were coming right for us!") like the liberals would like you to believe.

Unfortunately, our LONG ROE and decision tree up to Corps level (or higher) sometimes leads to alot of lost opportunities to kill insurgents (and sympathizing Rooter "journalists".

[mikey_hates_everything]

Hey Reuters, when you do an investigation into our President’s past as thoroughly as you’ve done with this hit piece on our troops, perhaps I’ll pay attention. Otherwise, FU, Reuters.

[faucetman]

Hey honey, grab the kids & put them in the van. The Americans just killed a bunch of people in the square about 2 minutes ago, let’s drive over there with the kids and see if we can gather weapons. Why would this be dangerous?

[PapaBear3625]

There's also the issue of being able to tell the difference between a BetaCam and a missile launcher from far away.

[frithguild]

How would American soldiers distinguish between REAL journalists reporting were they are so they don’t get fired on and INSURGENTS or TERRORISTS saying they are journalists to get close to American soldiers to kill them.

This is exactly why combatants not in uniform are not accorded rights under the Geneva Conventions.

[Joe Brower]

This link may prove useful:

Iraq Video: Murder It Isn't....Foolhardy Reuter Reporters It Is.

Bottom line: These guys took a chance running around with enemy forces, and got hit. Oh well.

[Lancey Howard]

Heh, now there are TWO threads going on here about the same three-year-old video.
I am more curious about why this video is suddenly “news” to some people than I am about the funny video itself, which merely shows a few armed terrorists and their propagandists deservedly getting cut to pieces.

[nolongerademocrat]

I think it is very easy to sit back and analyze a situation when you can zoom in and use slow motion. It is completely different in a real life situation. The very fact that they had to zoom in to find their evidence tells me that our military couldn’t see what the armchair quarterbacks saw. Bottom line - war is horrible, bad things happen and people die. Our guys are doing the best they can in a bad situation and I don’t feel inclined to judge them.

[Lancey Howard]

Who was it, Reuters or Associated Press that sent 11 reporters to “fact check” Sarah Palin’s book? Meanwhile, STILL, nobody knows anything about Barry Soetero

[VeniVidiVici]

2007. Sadr City. Pretty stupid.

They were looking for a story on the wrong side of the line so they became the story.

Don’t go into a war zone with the expectation of not being shot at.

[Svartalfiar]

As others have posted you can see how low-quality some of the video feeds back to the commander with the authority to authorize the engagement..

I’m in an ROTC program and also have a job with A/V equipment, so I’ve seen up close and personal both the military side of weapons and some of the equipment these reporters use. Our personal cameras are pretty compact, 1080p stored on SD Cards so they aren’t that big, but reporters often have cameras that record on tapes, so they’re a bit bigger. Shotgun mics also tend to have large muffs on them to help filter out wind noise. add in a wireless mic receiver, and you’ve got a decent-sized piece of equipment, shoulder-mounted and pointing a lens at an Apache or other soldiers. A lens that reflects light exactly like a scope.

So, when you’re a hundred yards away (or even 50) all you see is someone holding up a black object to their shoulder, slight glint of light off the lens, and they point it at you. Given that other units in the area have been fired upon, you know its a hostile environment, of course you’re going to assume they’re about to try to kill you.

I don’t blame the soldiers at all. The reporter is the one responsible for staying out of a firezone, esp if he’s on the enemy’s side.

And no, having reporters wear some bright-orange hunting uniform isn’t gonna help. How long do you think it’ll take the insurgents to figure out they can wear them too?

[Future Snake Eater]

I was in Sadr City in 2007. Pretty hairy place, especially NE of RTE Virginia. Conventional forces almost never went beyond that road. Every time SF went in there (it was the slums part of Sadr City) they ended up getting into some knock-down, drag-out with Sadr’s “militia.”

Not a fun place to be.