More killing of wounded!

sovtek

Sparks posted a clip not too long ago showing the killing of a wounded Iraqi man (not sure if soldier or insurgent).
Evidentally it's happened more than once. One has to wonder if pervasive.

[URL=http://]http://tyndallreport.com/[/URL]

" CANNON FODDER The crash of a Blackhawk helicopter, possibly downed by guerrillas, made the conflict in Iraq the lead story in a light week—the Top Ten was the year’s fourth smallest (123 min v 168 avg). ABC’s Martha Raddatz snared exclusive access to night-vision gun-camera videotape from an Apache helicopter of three men in a field north of Baghdad last December. We saw one of them drop an object in a field that the crew assumed was a weapon. In response the helicopter unleashed 100 30mm cannon rounds killing two and wounding the third. As the wounded man crawled away, the crew was ordered to kill him too: “The army acknowledges that the cannons used were far bigger than needed,” reported Raddatz, “but it is the smallest weapon Apaches have.”"

Victor

Originally posted by sovtek
[URL=http://]http://tyndallreport.com/[/URL]

Linky brokey. Fixed http://tyndallreport.com/

Video footage [WARNING: PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN THIS VIDEO]http://www.barrierislandgraphics.com/forumfiles//224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg

gandalf

Err Victor can't get that video ? Did you download it?

Gandalf.

Victor

Originally posted by gandalf
Err Victor can't get that video ? Did you download it?

Doh! I deleted the "h" from "http" in my own link

Exit

****ing hell, that was violently unnecessary!

spongebob

It looks bad but it was hardly an AC130 attack . Arguably the US army is better equipped to fight at night than during the day and has evolved its military doctrines accordingly.

M

gandalf

Apart from the Human rights side of things in killing the wounded person logic would dictate he would be worth more alive for the information that he could have given them.

Gandalf.

Skyclad

They aint going to land their helicopter in hostile territory jsut so they can pick up a joe soldier who probably doesnt know squat. And, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys. Anything else is just cynical, so if a guy is injured, it means the first bullet didn't do the job properly.

Dave

spongebob

I suspect is was leaked footage to show that the night belongs to the Americans psy ops for the benefit of Al-Jazeera most like.

It was a lot more discriminate than that attack on the house in Mosul where the US shot it to pieces in a residential area to kill Saddams sons.....no regard for collateral damage to the civiian neighbourhood there at all was there ?

M

Sparks

Originally posted by Skyclad
They aint going to land their helicopter in hostile territory jsut so they can pick up a joe soldier who probably doesnt know squat. And, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys. Anything else is just cynical, so if a guy is injured, it means the first bullet didn't do the job properly.
Dave

You may think so - but the Geneva Convention, which the US ratified in '49, specifically prohibits this kind of action. It is, in other words, a war crime. And if we hang/imprison people for war crimes....

Hobbes

Wow its a good thing the US didn't sign up for the ICC.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
You may think so - but the Geneva Convention, which the US ratified in '49, specifically prohibits this kind of action.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hors%20de%20combat
Out of the combat; disabled from fighting.

If he's still able to crawl, he's still able to pull a trigger.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Skyclad
They aint going to land their helicopter in hostile territory jsut so they can pick up a joe soldier who probably doesnt know squat. And, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys. Anything else is just cynical, so if a guy is injured, it means the first bullet didn't do the job properly.

Dave

Typical gung-ho comment.
The aim of war is to win the war, not kill every enemy you see.
It certainly doesn't mean killing wounded men.

The man posed no threat to anyone after he was hit the first time (a round 3 cm in diameter will drop you pretty quickly)

The point about landing the helicopter is ridiculous. They wouldn't land there anyway, a helicopters job is to close air support of troops on the ground and ground troops would have already been on the way to the scene who could then secure the wounded man.

Killing wounded men who pose no obvious threat is against the Geneva Convention

And releasing the video at all shows a total lack of respect for human like.

MrPinK

Originally posted by Skyclad
And, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys. Anything else is just cynical, so if a guy is injured, it means the first bullet didn't do the job properly.

Putting the whole ethical issue to one side, even from the miltary point of view there is nothing to be gained from shooting a wounded man. Tactically speaking, an incapacitating wound is better than a kill. Not only is the wounded guy taken out of the action, but someone else will have to carry him out of there, temporarily removing them action. Then the enemy have to waste their resources treating him. That's why landmines are designed to blow off a guys legs but still leave him alive and screaming for help.

There's nothing to be gained from shooting a wounded man crawling on the ground. It's just plain cold blooded.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Meh
If he's still able to crawl, he's still able to pull a trigger.

Assuming they were armed and were insurgents or terrorists or whatever. Hilarious. Try saying that with a comedy japanese accent.

Meh

Originally posted by Redleslie
[IMG-http://fanboy.frothersunite.com/imag/comics/pigs.jpg[/IMG]

That's funny, I don't remember seeing any doctors, hospital beds or medical equipment in the video. What exactly does this cartoon have to do with this thread?

bonkey

Originally posted by Skyclad
nd, in a war, the aim is to kill the other guys.

Are you saying that given the choice, the US would have refused a surrender from the Iraqi's saying "sorry lads - this is a war, and that means we have to kill you. Surrender just isn't an option"????

Indeed, the entire existence of the Geneva Conventions concerning POWs etc would seem to imply that the aim is not to kill them, given that the rules cater for dealing with enemy soldiers who are captured? If the aim was to kill them, the GCs could be reduced to "Just kill them".

Anything else is just cynical,

First time I've heard someone refer to the Geneva Conventions - albeit indirectly - as cynical.....

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
If he's still able to crawl, he's still able to pull a trigger.

I find it stunning that you could actually go and pull point one of Article 3 of the Convention (which you posted) and not have read point two of the same Article.

Allow me to save you having to click on your own link :

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

Note - "cared for" is not an established euphemism for "blown apart with 20mm fire".

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

Note - "cared for" is not an established euphemism for "blown apart with 20mm fire".

So if someone has a bullet scratch on their leg or a bad cold, then shooting them is a war crime? Somehow I doubt this interpretation. This paragraph is clearly only meant to refer to those placed hors de combat as a result of wounds/sickness, as defined in the previous paragraph.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Meh
If he's still able to crawl, he's still able to pull a trigger.

Even if he doesn't have a gun? Now that would be something.

Anyone with a 30mm diameter hunk of hot steel inside them poses no threat to anyone.

Plus I'd imagine the soldiers would have sufficient training to take in 1 wounded prisioner.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Meh
So if someone has a bullet scratch on their leg or a bad cold, then shooting them is a war crime? Somehow I doubt this interpretation. This paragraph is clearly only meant to refer to those placed hors de combat as a result of wounds/sickness, as defined in the previous paragraph.

That's your own (ridiculous) interpretation of the convention.

Those with a scratch or a cold would still pose a significant threat if armed.

Those rolling around the ground in agony dying probably do not.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Meh
That's funny, I don't remember seeing any doctors, hospital beds or medical equipment in the video.

I don't remember seeing any weapons either. I couldn't find any WW2 comic strips featuring evil japs killing unarmed and wounded civilians. Apologies. Unarmed and wounded (but still able to pull a trigger!) soldiers had to do.

What exactly does this cartoon have to do with this thread?

Your moronic comment suits the cartoon perfectly don't you think?

What next? Meh defends the Mai Lai massacre? 'The marine shot the 12 year old girl up the fanny because there might have been a VC tunnel complex up there.'

Meh

Originally posted by Kananga
That's your own (ridiculous) interpretation of the convention.

No, it's bonkey's interpretation. According to him, if I'm sick or wounded, no matter if I'm still able to fight, then killing me is a war crime.

Those with a scratch or a cold would still pose a significant threat if armed.

Those rolling around the ground in agony dying probably do not.

Looked to me like he was crawling, not rolling.

Originally posted by Redleslie:
I don't remember seeing any weapons either.

Plenty of other people did.

sovtek

Originally posted by Meh
So if someone has a bullet scratch on their leg or a bad cold, then shooting them is a war crime? Somehow I doubt this interpretation. This paragraph is clearly only meant to refer to those placed hors de combat as a result of wounds/sickness, as defined in the previous paragraph.

I think a guy crawling AWAY could well fit the description of hors de combat .

Redleslie

Originally posted by Meh
Plenty of other people did.

I thought you'd direct me to a report that said that weapons had been recovered from the scene, which still wouldn't justify killing wounded people, but no. All that's mentioned is that the crew thought they saw something like a "tube-shaped object". Maybe it was a tube? With an unwanted Britney poster in it?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Meh
No, it's bonkey's interpretation. According to him, if I'm sick or wounded, no matter if I'm still able to fight, then killing me is a war crime. Looked to me like he was crawling, not rolling.

You're right. And if a 10 year old kid is walking towards a market with a backpack, then you can shoot him in the head because he may or may not be a suicide bomber.
Hell, better shoot them all, just in case.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

This was not Bonkey's interpretation of the convention, it was a quote of the convention.

your interpretation of that was

So if someone has a bullet scratch on their leg or a bad cold, then shooting them is a war crime?

Nobody said

if I'm sick or wounded, no matter if I'm still able to fight, then killing me is a war crime.

If someone is incapacitated, and you bloody well would after a volley of 30mm cannon rounds, and unable to fight then it is against the Geneva convention to kill them.
It really is simple, if someone doesn't pose a significant threat to others, and he didn't (he had an attack helicopter's gun trained on him, what would you do?),
then you do not kill them.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Meh
Plenty of other people did.

Yeah and they had thrown that into a field minutes before!!!!!
He wasn't armed WHEN THEY SHOT AND KILLED HIM!!!!!

jank

meh seems to be more at home in sites like these

National Review

Right Wing News

Ann Coulter

what im reading from him is that "if he can breath he can fight", so basically take no prisoners is the point here, armed or unarmed, wounded or not

Sand

How do you propose an apache gunship takes prisoners? Like submarines and bombers they really cant. By the time ground forces arrive any wounded may have been rescued by their comrades, living to fight and kill another day.

Your man was crawling, so its safe to assume he could still pull a trigger, still throw a grenade and probably would enjoy killing any American who came close enough to try and take him prisoner, 72 virgins and all that. He wasnt incapcitated.

The question is not whether the pilots should have landed to try and take him prisoner, but rather whether they should have engaged at all. Whilst the pilots were there and actually saw the weapon the man was carrying, I cant see why they targeted the 2nd man and the tractor driver without any other cause than they were talking to the apparent insurgent. Again like I said they were there so maybe they had cause which wasnt detailed in reports, the shooting of the 1s/3rd man being the issue for most it seems.

Their rules of engagement sound very loose - that can only lead to mistaken identity and tragic mistakes which will hurt the coalition effort in Iraq more than killing a few guerillas/terrorists will help it.

Moriarty

mpeg link returns a 404

MrPinK

Originally posted by Sand
By the time ground forces arrive any wounded may have been rescued by their comrades, living to fight and kill another day.

It wouldn't really matter if he was rescued. A seriously wounded man is not an asset, he's a drain on resources. He was gunned down by an Apache helicopter , it's not like he's going to be patched up and be out fighting again in a week's time. If he were rescued by comrades, it's most likely that he'd just have been dumped outside a hospital where the Americans could pick him up fairly easily. Someone with a load of 30mm cannon rounds in them would stand out from the usual Kalashnikov victims.

Your man was crawling, so its safe to assume he could still pull a trigger, still throw a grenade and probably would enjoy killing any American who came close enough to try and take him prisoner, 72 virgins and all that. He wasnt incapcitated.

So in order to be wounded enough for the Geneva convention to apply, you have to be completely unable to move?