Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years:

[FA_Q2]

Furthermore,

Section 27-10 of the Army Field Manual states that "maltreatment of dead bodies" is a war crime. When the Army jeep drove over the dead body, it violated this provision.

Again, you're welcome.

I disagree with that assessment. You are assuming that the event was intentional. I have doubts that the drivers even realized what they did. I believe that the vehicle was an MRAP and if it was – I can tell you that you have virtually no vision in those of the ground and even less awareness of anything you hit. We had a soldier in Kandahar that was hit and killed while crossing the road from an MRAP. The driver did not know until they found the body and tracked down the incident. Not only did he never see the individu8al (and it was a front end strike) but the driver AND passengers never heard or noticed anything at all.

The vehicle is anything but small:

 

[FA_Q2]

the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules.

OK, I was right in my memory - a van without clear visible markings to suggest it is an ambulance IS a legal target even if somebody wounded is being loaded there.

There is no guarantee that inside the van there are no armed to the teeth insurgents who will open fire upon any possibility, especially under the disguise of the wounded bieng loaded in.



LARSEN: I want to move to the van video.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where's that van at?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right down there by the bodies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

LARSEN: And what you see is a van that's coming to help grab some of the wounded people on the ground. The Apache crew asks for permission to engage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, let us shoot.

KIMMITT: Again, that is an active battle field. That van could have other fighters inside of it with weapons. Those fighters could put our soldiers at risk, could kill those soldiers that they're fighting.
CNN.com - Transcripts

Not exactly. Positive identification IS a requirement for targeting individuals. TASB posted a very relevant section of the Geneva code.

 

[Vox]

Not exactly. Positive identification IS a requirement for targeting individuals. TASB posted a very relevant section of the Geneva code.

Geneva code is not applicable since identification is made impossible by one of the sides in the conflict - on purpose.

 

[Vox]

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded be collected and cared for. Article 17 of the First Protocol states that the civilian population "shall be permitted, even on their own initiative, to collect and care for the wounded." That article also says, "No one shall be harmed . . . for such humanitarian acts." The firing on rescuers portrayed in the "Collateral Murder" video violates these provisions of Geneva.

You're welcome for the education on international rules we essentially auithored, but disregard.

Not Applicable.

you are VERY welcome on education that Geneva articles are not applicable in situations were there are no distinctions between civilians and militants and where supposed vehicles of help have no distinctions at all.


Clear distinction of the armed individuals as a fighting side ( army, navy, aircraft) is a prerequisite for Geneva conventions to be considered.

 

[Ropey]

In the context of a possible 136 years, this is a fine bit of sentence for Bradley. He is to be reduced in grade, to forfeit pay and allowances and to be dishonorably discharged.

AP reports that he will be eligible for parole after serving a third of the sentence. Additionally he has just over three and a half years if credit towards the sentence as a result of time already spent and they often double time spent.

It's nice to see that they've removed all his pretties. Now he's just an ugly traitor.

 

[Vox]

that is the article 3 of geneva convention:

The wounded and the sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.

No distinctions were nowhere in sight.

as I said before - the van did not have a red cross or red crescent on it and was not driven by real nuns.
the insurgents are not wearing uniforms or any distinctive pieces of clothing - therefore making civilian population combatant population.

Geneva articles do not apply.

 

[dblack]

that is the article 3 of geneva convention:

The wounded and the sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.

No distinctions were nowhere in sight.

as I said before - the van did not have a red cross or red crescent on it and was not driven by real nuns.
the insurgents are not wearing uniforms or any distinctive pieces of clothing - therefore making civilian population combatant population.

Geneva articles do not apply.

Of course the problem with that revolves around the ambiguous nature of 'the battlefield' when it comes to the GWOT nonsense. By that framing, the battlefield is anywhere terrorists might be (i.e. everywhere).

 

[Vox]

that is the article 3 of geneva convention:

The wounded and the sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.

No distinctions were nowhere in sight.

as I said before - the van did not have a red cross or red crescent on it and was not driven by real nuns.
the insurgents are not wearing uniforms or any distinctive pieces of clothing - therefore making civilian population combatant population.

Geneva articles do not apply.

Of course the problem with that revolves around the ambiguous nature of 'the battlefield' when it comes to the GWOT nonsense. By that framing, the battlefield is anywhere terrorists might be (i.e. everywhere).

there is no ambiguity where the wounded are supposed to be and which vehicles are untouched for that matter.

loading a wounded person to undistinguished vehicle does not make it untouchable.

and yes, with the terrorists being undistinguished from the general population, the battlefield IS everywhere.

 

[dblack]

... and yes, with the terrorists being undistinguished from the general population, the battlefield IS everywhere.

That's what I was getting at. THAT is insanity eating away at us.

 

[daveman]

You've never commented on the Apache soldiers joking around while murdering innocent Iraqis. Not once. Not in this thread. Not in any thread. You and I both know this.

You're nothing but a skumbag liar.

That point has been addressed, IN THIS THREAD. I really can't add anything to it.

To me, it's a non-issue. But if you want to believe it makes our troops evil, evil people, you're entitled to that hate-driven wrong view.

Now, go weep some more for the terrorists.

Except they weren't terrorists. They were citizens in their own country enjoying their right to bear arms.

They are doing EXACTLY what you gun whacks say Americans should do. Walk around with guns to show how tough they are.

Wrong, but I'm not at all surprised you take their side.

They were walking around with guns to kill American troops.

No wonder you like them.

And again, you keep avoiding this- if the Army was on the up and up about this, why did they classify and hide the tape?

Dunno. You'll have to ask the Original Classifying Authority. But at a guess, it's because we didn't want the bad guys to learn something of our tactics.

Predictably, you will disagree, and claim it's because the Army knew they did something wrong...completely forgetting the fact that the Army could have made the tape disappear if it wanted.

 

[daveman]

Actually, it's still pretty henious. These guys weren't firing at the helicopter, and the guys in the Apache mistook the cameraman's camera for a gun.

But they didn't mistake the guy's RPG for a camera.

That's one of the bits Assange edited out.

So?

Point was, you had a bunch of guys standing in the street talking, a couple of them had weapons they weren't firing at anyone, and the helicopter just started firing on them.

And one more time, if the Army was on the up and up, why did they try to hide this video? And more importantly, who were they hiding it from?

You're kidding, right? You're upset American troops shot at people who were going to shoot at American troops?

You do know what war is all about, don't you? Kill the other guy and break his stuff.

 

[JoeB131]

What the heck was a PFC doing with access to information of a serious nature in the first place?

Good Question.


Here's a better one. Why was a PFC who almost washed out in Basic Training trained in data handling of sensitive information with very poor supervision.

Welcome to the stoploss policy...

 

[JoeB131]

[


You're kidding, right? You're upset American troops shot at people who were going to shoot at American troops?

You do know what war is all about, don't you? Kill the other guy and break his stuff.

Uh, there was no indication that they were going to shoot at the troops. in fact, this helicopter circled these guys several times and not one raised his weapon.

Has it occurred to you that after killing so many of the other guys and breaking so much of their stuff (again, Limbaugh and his anal cyst say the same thing), we are no closer to winning the war than we were in 2001?

 

[JoeB131]

That point has been addressed, IN THIS THREAD. I really can't add anything to it.

To me, it's a non-issue. But if you want to believe it makes our troops evil, evil people, you're entitled to that hate-driven wrong view.

Now, go weep some more for the terrorists.

Except they weren't terrorists. They were citizens in their own country enjoying their right to bear arms.

They are doing EXACTLY what you gun whacks say Americans should do. Walk around with guns to show how tough they are.

Wrong, but I'm not at all surprised you take their side.

They were walking around with guns to kill American troops.

No wonder you like them.

My side is the one where we don't take poor kids and send them halfway round the world to die for nothing.

Your side is all over that, apparently.

It was their country. They were doing the exact same thing you say you'd do if someone invaded THIS country.

And again, you keep avoiding this- if the Army was on the up and up about this, why did they classify and hide the tape?

Dunno. You'll have to ask the Original Classifying Authority. But at a guess, it's because we didn't want the bad guys to learn something of our tactics.

Predictably, you will disagree, and claim it's because the Army knew they did something wrong...completely forgetting the fact that the Army could have made the tape disappear if it wanted.

So they didn't want the enemy to know that we have this tactic of "Let's shoot up newsmen doing their jobs because we can't verify what we are shootnig at!"

Hey, you got a point. Most incompetant people want to hide their incompetence...

 

[Billo_Really]

If you'd seen what Assange edited out, you'd have seen that he lied by omission.

Why is it, I can explain the difference between the two videos and you can't?

 

[Pete7469]

that is the article 3 of geneva convention:

The wounded and the sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.

No distinctions were nowhere in sight.

as I said before - the van did not have a red cross or red crescent on it and was not driven by real nuns.
the insurgents are not wearing uniforms or any distinctive pieces of clothing - therefore making civilian population combatant population.

Geneva articles do not apply.

Of course the problem with that revolves around the ambiguous nature of 'the battlefield' when it comes to the GWOT nonsense. By that framing, the battlefield is anywhere terrorists might be (i.e. everywhere).

You raise a good point, and that's where I agree with a lot of libertarians. The GWOT makes the battle fields too ambiguous. It gives license to tyrants like the moonbat messiah and holder to direct drone strikes anywhere in the world they see fit. That means in Mississippi or Vermont. With a media that seems to go out of it's way to protect the messiah, such power is terrifying to those cognizant enough to understand the potential end result.

 

[Kondor3]

"...KIMMITT: Again, that is an active battle field. That van could have other fighters inside of it with weapons. Those fighters could put our soldiers at risk, could kill those soldiers that they're fighting..."

Sorry, Vox, I can't bring myself to agree with this. 'Coulda-shoulda-woulda' isn't sufficient grounds for opening fire upon wounded and those helping the wounded, when no hostile acts nor armaments are manifested and under circumstances wherein the shooter has ample time to think-through his decision and is not being fired-upon himself nor at reasonable risk or same. Or so it seems to me, at first glance.

"Not exactly. Positive identification IS a requirement for targeting individuals. TASB posted a very relevant section of the Geneva code.

Yes, positive ID is NOT always possible but it sure as hell was in THIS case; with the Bradleys no more than a block or so away and with everybody but the wounded and their rescuers neutralized and no longer a danger to any Bradley that might pull in front of the van to stop it from moving, under pain of death.

Personally, I've come to believe (reserving the right to change my mind if appropriate at a later date) that...

...Shoot Sequence No. 1 probably WAS Righteous...

...and that Shoot Sequence No. 2 (the van) was probably NOT Righteous...

...given the luxury of how much time they had to decide...

...and given that one Bradley, buttoned-up, and no more than a block away by then, would have been more than enough to stop the van and to get all of the ambulatory passengers to dismount and lie on the ground and for the grunts to hop-out and check the interior, under cover of both the Bradley and the gunships...

It's killing me to say this, but I don't see how Shoot Sequence No. 2 could be called Righteous by any reasonable benchmark, without abandoning ALL obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War...

 

[Kondor3]

Sometime back, Vox raised the point about vehicle markings, and legality...

I see the point, and it may be a valid one...

If true, Shoot Sequence No. 2 may have been a LEGAL shoot, after all...

But that does not make it a RIGHTEOUS shoot (one that sits well ethically and in the spirit of care for the wounded as well as the letter of the law)...

It may very well be, using Vox's 'unmarked vehicle' defense, that the firing upon the van would hold-up in a court of law...

But it does not pass the Smell Test as Righteous, in my personal opinion...

Shoot Sequence No. 1, however, DOES pass the Smell Test as Righteous... again, in my personal opinion...

Maybe that's what's got us hung-up at the moment...

Squabbling over what is LEGAL versus what is RIGHTEOUS...

Every so often, the two don't cross paths...

This MAY prove to be one of those times...

With very little hope of reconciliation between the two perspectives...

 

[Vox]

Sometime back, Vox raised the point about vehicle markings, and legality...

I see the point, and it may be a valid one...

If true, Shoot Sequence No. 2 may have been a LEGAL shoot, after all...

But that does not make it a RIGHTEOUS shoot (one that sits well ethically and in the spirit of care for the wounded as well as the letter of the law)...

It may very well be, using Vox's 'unmarked vehicle' defense, that the firing upon the van would hold-up in a court of law...

But it does not pass the Smell Test as Righteous, in my personal opinion...

Shoot Sequence No. 1, however, DOES pass the Smell Test as Righteous... again, in my personal opinion...

Maybe that's what's got us hung-up at the moment...

Squabbling over what is LEGAL versus what is RIGHTEOUS...

Every so often, the two don't cross paths...

This MAY prove to be one of those times...

With very little hope of reconciliation between the two perspectives...

you are trying to separate between the law and morality.

You can do it in the safety of your chair in front of the monitor ( and I can do, too).

But those soldiers, if they would be put in the position to choose between the two - do the right ( technically from the battle point of view) thing or do the right ( from a moral point of view) thing - if they would be forced to take too much time in struggle with a choice - they will very soon be one more fatality in the report back home.

Soldiers are not jurors or judges - they do not have the luxury of TIME very often - they have to chose an option which has to have their own safety first and foremost included as well.

and from that standpoint they did absolutely the right thing - they killed the enemy and survived themselves.
That is what soldiers are supposed to do - that is their JOB.

War is a very dirty and bloody area of human actions.
And civilian rules of conduct and civilian touchy-feely crocodile tears do not apply there.
It is civilians who send them there and then tear the shirts in fake outrage - ah, they were cruel to civilians! yes, they were.. To save their own life. what do you expect? it's a WAR.

 

[Billo_Really]

Sometime back, Vox raised the point about vehicle markings, and legality...

I see the point, and it may be a valid one...

If true, Shoot Sequence No. 2 may have been a LEGAL shoot, after all...

But that does not make it a RIGHTEOUS shoot (one that sits well ethically and in the spirit of care for the wounded as well as the letter of the law)...

It may very well be, using Vox's 'unmarked vehicle' defense, that the firing upon the van would hold-up in a court of law...

But it does not pass the Smell Test as Righteous, in my personal opinion...

Shoot Sequence No. 1, however, DOES pass the Smell Test as Righteous... again, in my personal opinion...

Maybe that's what's got us hung-up at the moment...

Squabbling over what is LEGAL versus what is RIGHTEOUS...

Every so often, the two don't cross paths...

This MAY prove to be one of those times...

With very little hope of reconciliation between the two perspectives...

Article IV of the Geneva Convention...

Article 4 defines who is a Protected person:
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

The Iraqis standing around outside that house certainly meet this definition.

Article 13.
The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.

Those Iraqis were definately part of the population of a country in conflict.

Article 32.
A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment'.

Basically, in a nutshell, you cannot target people taking no part in hostilities.

And it doesn't matter which video you watch, none of those Iraqis were making any hostile gestures towards American forces in the area.