Reuters families demand US troops be tried over shooting!

You heard it right folks! The families are not too happy about there sons being killed,which in my opinion was a war crime and against the rules of engagement.

"The truth came out and the whole world saw. The American pilot should be judged by international justice and we want compensation because the act left orphans," said Safa Chmagh, whose brother Saeed Chmagh, a Reuters driver, died.

Although I myself do not believe in the "compensation" part, I do believe the pilots and commanding officer should be tried in a court which will set a precedent to others who believe firing upon unarmed civilians is not a big deal.

"I want the American pilot who killed my father to be judged," he exclaimed, while close to tears in the Chmagh family's Baghdad home. "Why did he do that? Were the victims not innocent? Were they not human beings? We want our father," he said. Samer Chmagh, the murdered Reuters driver's second son, said he did not understand why the US helicopter had opened fire. "They were not members of a militia. Everybody saw from the pictures that they were journalists," he said.

There is no way that the pilots would be able to identify anyone's faces on the ground as you can tell by the video. The quality at best is watchable. There is no excuse for what happen to these journalists or anyone else who is a civilian for that matter.

"I was very sad when I saw the images but today at least the American people will know the troops of their army were pleased to kill people." The White House on Tuesday described the leaked footage as "tragic" but President Barack Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs said US forces in war zones take pains to avoid civilian casualties.

I myself find the troubling part about the war in Iraq is the fact that you do not hear anything on the MSM anymore about these randoms acts of aggression from the American military. Ofcourse you will hear about the car bomb that went off in a plaza killing American soldiers but not the other way around. I guess the Pentagon and the white house learned from Vietnam that embedding journalists into the ranks to photograph and report on both sides of the story is VERY BAD for moral at home.



Link to Original article

It always changes things when you can put a face and a family to the civilian casualties.

I wonder what they're going to do now, if they issue even a formal apology to the family, there's going to be quite the line forming behind them. If they remain silent, that'll be terrible PR.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


Even if they did apology I highly doubt it makes any sort of TV coverage here at home. And judging by the 2 guys who were shot they were Muslim so thats another no on reporting on it unless its alternative news

Glad to hear some seeking criminal trial rather than just a civil trial.
Line 2.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Tormentations]

reply to post by Tormentations

Do you really believe they will go anywhere tho? Im sure the judge will dismiss it as a "causality of war" type of thing and the world will go on like usual

I've been watching this story develop since before Wikileaks posted the video... and as a result, I think that this situation deserves a little perspective. That's what this post is, perspective (mine at least), nothing more - not a discussion of whether or not we should be over there, American imperialism, et al...

Before I even get into it, I should say that I think that the pilots should go on trial... it's not going to happen in via the international war crimes tribunal, so I won't even give that a thought. This should be a U.S. military court marshal, flat out. So if you have a problem with that, stop reading and start flaming. If not, here's my take...

First, the guys on the ground; mostly civilians and two Reuters correspondents. I say mostly because it is clear that they were not all unarmed... one is brandishing an AK-47, one other an RPG launcher - I can't tell from the footage if it's loaded or not. Whether anyone else aside the reporters was armed is up for debate. In any case, you can call this a massive case of wrong place, wrong time (which doesn't excuse what happened which I'll get to in a moment). These guys weren't getting ready to shoot anything... strolling down the street, old west style (anyone that says these guys were asking for it sure as hell wasn't in Baghdad in '07, I would've been carrying every piece of weaponry I could get my hands on just to go to the market). That not withstanding, troops were within five miles being shot at - thusly they called in close air support, which is where these guys come in.

The ROE need to change, plain and simple. These guys were embellishing what they saw on the ground to their superiors asking for permission to engage - it should've been confirmed by at least one other air patrol, especially over a metropolitan area. Seeing a cat in Baghdad in '07 with a rifle may have been suspicious, but not warranting what happened. And the fact that they opened fire on this group, only one to two of them armed, is proof of that. The van was unforgiveable.

These guys do not need an example made of them. They were in an absolute warzone for too long, as have been most if not all of our guys that were sent on a fool's errand by a president who had no conception of personal responsibility. That being said, they need a lesson in reality - being that actions, however influenced by crap situations, have consequences. Military court marshal, dishonerable discharge (if either are still in service) and that the chain of command be held accountable. Apache pilots are some of the most highly trained in the world, and as a result are the most frequently called upon in close air support situations. They should not be used lightly (the video shows why), and any command structure that would send these guys, however redneck and ignorant they might have acted, out to support ground forces in a city setting, should be held accountable when things get fubar. That's the only way the rules of engagement are going to change, the only way things like this will be prevented.

The families of the reporters should be compensated, handsomely. It doesn't replace the loved ones lost, but it sets a precedent.

As far as the notion that these guys should be tried for war crimes by a civilian court, it comes down to moral relativism which I hate. I'd be the first one calling for a Nurenburg style telecast if douchface one had already been tried from Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge or any number of representatives from despotic regimes that got their rocks off by committing legit genocide. Anything less is hypocritical and represents a double standard I refuse to stand behind on behalf of the U.N.

It should be kept within the confines of the U.S. military, with the results made painfully public.

reply to post by Legion2112


If I'm being sent on a "fools" errand...........I'm smart enough and informed enough to realize I'm a fool for doing it. There is no excuse for the behavior of some US soldiers over in Iraq. From throwing puppies off of cliffs to murdering civillians without ill regard is disgusting warzone or not. When someone does something like this it's not done in the privacy fo a johnny on the spot with no one else being able to stop it or question it. Just like that idiot that threw the puppy off the cliff. Usually other soldiers are witnesseing the heinous act.

I would have had no problem supporting the troops and taking the position of its a war zone if these yahoos didn't glorify these killings like it's some sort of video game. "nice shooting"..............Well have a nice time rotting in jail.

The thing that gets me about this video is when did it become acceptable in the US’s terms of engagement to double tap wounded enemy soldiers, and more importantly since when do we fire on people rendering aid to wounded soldiers regardless of whether or not any of them were armed? I realize that the person in the van was not wearing identifiable combat medic insignia, but they were obviously unarmed and rendering aid in the same fashion as a medic does. We would be screaming bloody murder if an enemy intentionally targeted our medics, yet in Iraq it seems to be status quo for our troops to break Geneva convention accords. Somewhere along the line, the US went from being the Good Guys in this world to doing all the dishonorable things that our enemies of the past have done.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


Read the post, I'm not justifying it. I'm saying they should be held accountable and as an addendum, if the judge in their court marshal decides that simply dishonerably discharging them isn't enough, so be it. I'm simply suggesting that since this is a problem, making examples of these guys shouldn't be the ultimate goal. Making examples of the people that obscure the ROE to the point where random pilots can do this should. That is the only way events like this will change.

These guys are the crazed Rottweilers that need to be impounded or "put down" as it were... the guys holding the leash are the ones who should go to Leavenworth. What they did, what they said, was enabled. Unfortunately, those are the ones that thought this footage would never see the light of day - thusly, they're the ones who should be made an example of...

I didn't see anyone carrying an AK or an RPG.

reply to post by rizla


Then pay attention; 55 seconds in, guys on the top left of the frame. First one has the AK, second from the left holding the launcher.

www.youtube.com...

In any case, that's not the point...

It's a war people. I'm sure nobody here would make any mistakes over there.
It amazing to me how quick some people are to Blame the military, If any of you can do a better job.... enlist today

reply to post by Target Earth


I DO blame the military. They don't uphold the Geneva conventions codes and standards. We are always quick to blame other countries that break these laws but when it happens in our own military they turn a blind eye.

reply to post by Target Earth


I don’t think that anyone would fault them for a mistake, that is not the issue. The issue is that they continued to fire after the suspected enemy was wounded, and crawling. They continued to fire at anything that moved until it completely stopped moving. They fired at people rendering aid to the wounded. They did all this, and took a perverse amount of glee in doing so. I think that if we saw the same footage without all the cheerful side dialog it would leave a different impression in peoples minds, and folks would walk away from this feeling it was an unfortunate accident. It’s the cold blooded banter of the pilots, the excitement at killing something, and the disappointment that someone might actually get away alive, that makes it just sickening to watch.

I agree that the pilots should face some sort of charges, simply for the lack of professionalism and humanity they showed in the remarks made while this event was occurring.


[edit on 4/8/2010 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5


I agree, If they are thrill killing then yes, they don't belong in the military.
it just seems a lot of people jump over soldiers the first chance they get, and being Ex Military that doesn't sit well with me.

I hope we as a people come up with an acceptable and ethical action for this tragedy.
I do not have enough knowledge to determine the proper litigative action if any.
All I know is I do not blame my Daddy for flamethrowing a cave full of Japanese men,
I blame those who made my Daddy into that.

Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.

George S. Patton

Damn all the people who abuse Patton's words to justify lack of mature supervision and irresponsibility in leadership as status quo or excellent leadership.

However I looked at the video, put myself in the moment, and in realtime, thought I saw the "RPG" mentioned and the "AKs". This is war people.. The god of war has to stop and take bathroom breaks every so often. Sometimes good guys get exterminated in the fog of war.

I don't blame them completely. Big pharma has helped. Propranolol and Modafinil prescriptions have gone so far up. Modafinil gives some operators and the doctors prescribing them this the idea that 80 hour of nonstop action is somehow within a human's ability to handle completely rationally. They are dead wrong. There is a sentience lost in those 80 hours of awakeness. And if you combine with propranolol, you have a cocktail for a soldier whose emotional content of memories from the mission completed never go into long term storage.

Until you've been there, and seen how propranolol works on people you know, you'd never fully understand.


[edit on 9-4-2010 by elusive1]

Too bad that the reporter was embedded with the enemy, and quite possibly providing recon for them. This is from an on-scene investigator:

This footage shows the final engagement of the Reuters field reporters in New Baghdad. Missing is the overwatch video and earlier AH64 footage showing the development of the situation where the two reporters and armed men supported by a van and cars were shadowing a Coalition patrol. These reporters accompanied the armed men who were tracking a Coalition patrol about a city block away. The camera man would peek around corners to shoot a few digital frames of the patrol and then show the pictures to the armed men. If you have all the video footage, you will see this activity happened repeatedly. The operational suspicion was that this was enemy TTP (tactic, technic, or procedure) to help prepare for an attack; the digital photos would be used to quickly evaluate the target — to judge what it looked like, its shape, distance, terrain in between, where to aim, etc. This way, the RPG operator would select the right warhead, he’d preset the mechanical sights (elevation), and fix in his mind a visual picture of the target so he would limit his exposure time when stepping out in the street to fire. The recovered camera showed how the cameral man was aiding the enemy. What you also don’t have is the operational history of RPG attacks in New Baghdad. This was heavy JAM territory. I understand that it is disturbing to see calculated killing, but the engagement was not without cause. The engagement of the van should be understood in the overall context of earlier events. It is obvious the AH64 pilots and the operational commander conferred. This was not a war crime.

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


On scene investigator? As in someone who works for the military to investigate its own crimes? When will people learn that the Government or Military does not investigate ITSELF.

Of course they should be held accountable.

But, let's not kid ourselves. War tribunal's are a joke.

After all, even though the official investigation found no RPGs but rather children and 2 injured media members, not much was done about it. In fact, they still lied to the press (saying tanks weren't brought in when they clearly were -as the soldiers laughed).

Wouldn't get these families anywhere. They should have peace of mind knowing that people know their sons stories because that's as far as justice extends here.