The other crimes in the Manning case

[FA_Q2]

So, in a recent thread, TASB pointed out the very real lack of anything here speaking about what Manning actually released and why there are no people answering for the revelations that were gained from the released data. As we all now know (or I hope we do) Manning received a pretty hefty sentencing for his crimes. Note that is not the discussion for this thread though (that one is located here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/309036-bradley-manning-sentenced-to-35-years.html). The opint of this thread is to highlight that, AFAIK, no one has been taken to task for the events that have been revealed that look very much to me like war crimes. I will start off with the Collateral Murder as the first point of contention and my comment on the other thread:

In this very thread, it's been shown this not to be true. There are rules to war internationally that the US helped author, and we have been ignoring those rules with immunity. Covering up killing civilians, the video that was labeled "doctored", clearly show those soldiers shooting at people that came to the aid of the initial targets. That's a crime. And it doesn't end there. But it's not really relevant anymore. After that videos exposure, the military "investigated" the incident and found that no one was behaving "outside the rules of engagement". Even though they clearly fired upon unarmed aids to those wounded. Including children.

It takes a massive fuckin' display of willful ignorance in order to not deal that in violation of international law.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. We have our man, and that's all that counts.

Besides, any official who may have been exposed, can simply claim umbrella against the USoA, and not take any direct responsibility for their actions. Such as the Bush admin getting a pardon for their crimes under this same fashion via Obama.

SO, if we can admit that the government and military top officials have not only the ability, but the apparent right to be immune from the law, then at least we have that. We have honesty. Which might be the first step to any recovery.

That bolded part is still not sitting well with me. I know the Geneva conventions and LOAC and it is drilled into us extensively. I watched that entire video twice (I don’t really see the ‘doctoring’ by the way) and I don’t think anything they did up until that point would be a war crime but I am thoroughly confused as to how the firing on that vehicle was authorized when it was clearly getting the wounded individual. The individual was unarmed as the video continually pointed out (through the soldier’s comm).


The helicopter is not the guilty party here – they asked for permission and they received it. The scary part is that it was established that they were following the ROE. How that was allowed under the ROE is confusing me. It is not sitting well….

I do not like the fact that there is little discourse on this and that Manning is hanging without some more bodies next to him. They deserve it FAR more than he. What say you?

PS – further crimes and/or incidents that Manning released that you want to bring into the discussion would be MUCH appreciated. Thank you.


[MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

 

[freedombecki]

So, in a recent thread, TASB pointed out the very real lack of anything here speaking about what Manning actually released and why there are no people answering for the revelations that were gained from the released data. As we all now know (or I hope we do) Manning received a pretty hefty sentencing for his crimes. Note that is not the discussion for this thread though (that one is located here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/309036-bradley-manning-sentenced-to-35-years.html). The opint of this thread is to highlight that, AFAIK, no one has been taken to task for the events that have been revealed that look very much to me like war crimes. I will start off with the Collateral Murder as the first point of contention and my comment on the other thread:

In this very thread, it's been shown this not to be true. There are rules to war internationally that the US helped author, and we have been ignoring those rules with immunity. Covering up killing civilians, the video that was labeled "doctored", clearly show those soldiers shooting at people that came to the aid of the initial targets. That's a crime. And it doesn't end there. But it's not really relevant anymore. After that videos exposure, the military "investigated" the incident and found that no one was behaving "outside the rules of engagement". Even though they clearly fired upon unarmed aids to those wounded. Including children.

It takes a massive fuckin' display of willful ignorance in order to not deal that in violation of international law.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. We have our man, and that's all that counts.

Besides, any official who may have been exposed, can simply claim umbrella against the USoA, and not take any direct responsibility for their actions. Such as the Bush admin getting a pardon for their crimes under this same fashion via Obama.

SO, if we can admit that the government and military top officials have not only the ability, but the apparent right to be immune from the law, then at least we have that. We have honesty. Which might be the first step to any recovery.

That bolded part is still not sitting well with me. I know the Geneva conventions and LOAC and it is drilled into us extensively. I watched that entire video twice (I don’t really see the ‘doctoring’ by the way) and I don’t think anything they did up until that point would be a war crime but I am thoroughly confused as to how the firing on that vehicle was authorized when it was clearly getting the wounded individual. The individual was unarmed as the video continually pointed out (through the soldier’s comm).


The helicopter is not the guilty party here – they asked for permission and they received it. The scary part is that it was established that they were following the ROE. How that was allowed under the ROE is confusing me. It is not sitting well….

I do not like the fact that there is little discourse on this and that Manning is hanging without some more bodies next to him. They deserve it FAR more than he. What say you?

PS – further crimes and/or incidents that Manning released that you want to bring into the discussion would be MUCH appreciated. Thank you.

@TakeAStepBack

Those alleged "civilians" were delivered there by the same people who delivered the terrorists. That's what makes Manning's edited version so insidious. It cuts those parts out to maximize the alleged war "crime" that actually, never took place. The editing just made it seem so.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, in a recent thread, TASB pointed out the very real lack of anything here speaking about what Manning actually released and why there are no people answering for the revelations that were gained from the released data. As we all now know (or I hope we do) Manning received a pretty hefty sentencing for his crimes. Note that is not the discussion for this thread though (that one is located here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/309036-bradley-manning-sentenced-to-35-years.html). The opint of this thread is to highlight that, AFAIK, no one has been taken to task for the events that have been revealed that look very much to me like war crimes. I will start off with the Collateral Murder as the first point of contention and my comment on the other thread:

That bolded part is still not sitting well with me. I know the Geneva conventions and LOAC and it is drilled into us extensively. I watched that entire video twice (I don’t really see the ‘doctoring’ by the way) and I don’t think anything they did up until that point would be a war crime but I am thoroughly confused as to how the firing on that vehicle was authorized when it was clearly getting the wounded individual. The individual was unarmed as the video continually pointed out (through the soldier’s comm).


The helicopter is not the guilty party here – they asked for permission and they received it. The scary part is that it was established that they were following the ROE. How that was allowed under the ROE is confusing me. It is not sitting well….

I do not like the fact that there is little discourse on this and that Manning is hanging without some more bodies next to him. They deserve it FAR more than he. What say you?

PS – further crimes and/or incidents that Manning released that you want to bring into the discussion would be MUCH appreciated. Thank you.

@TakeAStepBack

Those alleged "civilians" were delivered there by the same people who delivered the terrorists. That's what makes Manning's edited version so insidious. It cuts those parts out to maximize the alleged war "crime" that actually, never took place. The editing just made it seem so.

Who delivered them is utterly meaningless. The gunning down of those civilians was NOT the crime. If you read what bothers me, it was the fact that they engaged the vehicle that came in for the one wounded person. That goes against everything that I know about proper ROE and I am military. This is not coming out of my ass.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Who delivered them is utterly meaningless. The gunning down of those civilians was NOT the crime. If you read what bothers me, it was the fact that they engaged the vehicle that came in for the one wounded person. That goes against everything that I know about proper ROE and I am military. This is not coming out of my ass."

I do not remember everything that I read, many months ago, about this particular helicopter gunship 'shoot', but I DO seem to remember the following salient points...

1. the gunship(s) crew(s) spotted a group of 10-12 people forward of advancing US troops.

2. multiple members of the group could be seen carrying RPGs and RPG-reload ammo.

3. multiple members of the group could be seen going in and out of a particular house from which firing had been observed recently (don't know how far back in time that was).

4. a couple of members of the international press corps had chosen to 'embed' themselves with this group but they were not wearing standard-issue 'press' or 'media' vests which would have clearly identified them to hovering gunships as such.

5. if a target of opportunity presents itself and media have foolishly placed themselves in a position where they might be harmed by fire upon such targets, various R(ules) O(f) E(ngagement) may allow fire upon such targets, under various circumstances (I, for one, do not know if that is actually the case).

6. the gunship(s) fired and killed or wounded several members of the group and also damaged the house in which some of the members of the group have been seen moving in and out of.

7. a van was brought-up to evacuate one or more of the members of that group very shortly after the initial shooting sequence.

8. the gunship(s) were still hovering and observing and occasionally letting loose with another burst when they saw movement and were still operating under the legal aegis of the weapons-release authorization that they'd received minutes beforehand.

9. from hovering-orbiting altitude, the gunship(s) crew(s) perceived that the van was being utilized to help members (injured and otherwise?) of a group which to escape, a group which they had been given permission and orders to kill.

10. they fired upon the van and killed its occupants.

11. the van contained a mixture of 'involved' or 'culpable' people and complete innocents.

12. opponents of the war, and a large number of Liberals in general, and those on the side of the Iraqi insurgents, portrayed that 'van shoot' aspect of the 'overall engagement' to have been an intentional firing upon innocents, when, in fact, that may very well not have been true.

I was left with the impression that it was an unfortunate but 'righteous' shoot, from the vantage point of both the crew(s) and the command-authority who issued the weapons-free release order.

Not sure if I'm remembering all of that correctly as a matter of pure, un-researched, half-forgotten extempore, but that's what I remember of the incident from earlier discussions, on other boards, quite some months ago, and, I suppose, it's my point of departure for any resurrected opinions on that by-now almost forgotten incident, today.

 

[FA_Q2]

"...Who delivered them is utterly meaningless. The gunning down of those civilians was NOT the crime. If you read what bothers me, it was the fact that they engaged the vehicle that came in for the one wounded person. That goes against everything that I know about proper ROE and I am military. This is not coming out of my ass."

I do not remember everything that I read, many months ago, about this particular helicopter gunship 'shoot', but I DO seem to remember the following salient points...

1. the gunship(s) crew(s) spotted a group of 10-12 people forward of advancing US troops.

2. multiple members of the group could be seen carrying RPGs and RPG-reload ammo.

3. multiple members of the group could be seen going in and out of a particular house from which firing had been observed recently (don't know how far back in time that was).

4. a couple of members of the international press corps had chosen to 'embed' themselves with this group but they were not wearing standard-issue 'press' or 'media' vests which would have clearly identified them to hovering gunships as such.

5. if a target of opportunity presents itself and media have foolishly placed themselves in a position where they might be harmed by fire upon such targets, various R(ules) O(f) E(ngagement) may allow fire upon such targets, under various circumstances (I, for one, do not know if that is actually the case).

6. the gunship(s) fired and killed or wounded several members of the group and also damaged the house in which some of the members of the group have been seen moving in and out of.

7. a van was brought-up to evacuate one or more of the members of that group very shortly after the initial shooting sequence.

8. the gunship(s) were still hovering and observing and occasionally letting loose with another burst when they saw movement and were still operating under the legal aegis of the weapons-release authorization that they'd received minutes beforehand.

9. from hovering-orbiting altitude, the gunship(s) crew(s) perceived that the van was being utilized to help members (injured and otherwise?) of a group which to escape, a group which they had been given permission and orders to kill.

10. they fired upon the van and killed its occupants.

11. the van contained a mixture of 'involved' or 'culpable' people and complete innocents.

12. opponents of the war, and a large number of Liberals in general, and those on the side of the Iraqi insurgents, portrayed that 'van shoot' aspect of the 'overall engagement' to have been an intentional firing upon innocents, when, in fact, that may very well not have been true.

I was left with the impression that it was an unfortunate but 'righteous' shoot, from the vantage point of both the crew(s) and the command-authority who issued the weapons-free release order.

Not sure if I'm remembering all of that correctly as a matter of pure, un-researched, half-forgotten extempore, but that's what I remember of the incident from earlier discussions, on other boards, quite some months ago, and, I suppose, it's my point of departure for any resurrected opinions on that by-now almost forgotten incident, today.

Most of that is correct except for 8. They were NOT still under weapon release. They had to request weapons free again. I generally support your assertions that this is an unfortunate event considering the circumstances as I don’t think that the crew was doing anything incorrect up until the point that they shot the van that was pulling out wounded (only one wounded remained). They even circled that wounded individual and DID NOT FIRE on him because he was determined to be unarmed. That did not change when the van came to get him. Once the thread is neutralized you are not supposed to continue to get the kill. Wounded are not supposed to be fired upon if they are not reengaging and I don’t see the justification for hitting the van.

Certainly I do not fault the troops here, they requested weapons free and they got a weapons free. I question the one that put a policy in place that gave that weapons free command and the one that authorized it.

Nowhere will you see me claim that this was EVER an intentional shooting of innocents. I think that kind of claim is usually extremely ignorant on the stress and conditions of battle where you do NOT have the luxury of a second chance.

 

[daveman]

From the investigation:

LTC The van comes up, you engage it. Did you acquire or see at anytime the size of shape of people in the van?

CW3 I saw, when they opened the doors, three to four individuals. I saw them go in and out, extract the personnel and weapons, and carry the guy back to the van. I did clear the individuals in the van.

LTC Did you see anything in the van?

CW3 I couldn’t see anything inside the van, but they ran around right after I had seen them extract weapons and individuals.


Collateral Murder - The WikiLeaks Deception | Telling the Whole Story

 

[MikeK]

Most of that is correct except for 8. They were NOT still under weapon release. They had to request weapons free again. I generally support your assertions that this is an unfortunate event considering the circumstances as I don’t think that the crew was doing anything incorrect up until the point that they shot the van that was pulling out wounded (only one wounded remained). They even circled that wounded individual and DID NOT FIRE on him because he was determined to be unarmed. That did not change when the van came to get him. Once the thread is neutralized you are not supposed to continue to get the kill. Wounded are not supposed to be fired upon if they are not reengaging and I don’t see the justification for hitting the van.[...]

I believe you are quite right about firing on wounded or on personnel aiding the wounded. It's been a long time since I was in the military but as I recall doing that is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

Like you, I can't agree with charging the troops with murder because that would be judging behavior occurring during the organized insanity of armed combat by peaceful civilian standards. There is virtually no place for the word murder in an armed combat zone.

But there is something very wrong with the very nature of that helicopter incident. I believe it comes down to inadequate and/or improper imposition of the Rules of Engagement, for which some at command levels should be held to account. That helicopter crew should have been made to know the difference between right and wrong in such situations.