Oink

Oh come on, everybody skirts the law a bit. Whether its a bit of tax dodging, slipping an extra item in your bag at a self-serve till or a cheeky fingering of the cat while you're watching the telly, you've got to have a bit of fiddle to make life interesting. The point is you don't need people grassing you up.

JonboyE

Did some of those attacked actually have guns?
If they did, did that make them a military target?
If it did, are the non-combatant's death and injuries acceptable to achieve this particular military objective?
Is it acceptable for the military to engage when they don't know whether or not there are non-combatants about?

I have a view, but it is not one informed by any knowlege of military matters.

Being within the terms of engagement doesn't necessarily, in my opinion, make something right.

I still think that public interest is a reasonable defence for this particular video.

Almost Canadian

As I said above, that would depend upon what notice was given to the local population. If it was something along the lines of, "In light of the recent attacks against our forces, lethal force will be used against any person found with a weapon without any prior notice being given."

The answer to the questions you have posed would likely be:

From what I could see from the video there was evidence of weapons. The commentary of the video (from both those in the helicopter and those closer to the ground) gave the impression that some were armed.
Of course it does. Why would they have weapons unless they intended to use them?
Non-combatant's deaths are always tragic but, unfortunately, in theatre one cannot check who is carrying concealed weapons and who is not until after the event. The existence of some with weapons, I believe, justifies use of lethal force.
That would depend upon the circumstances. If it was not permitted, one's foes would simply have to travel to a populated area for one to be prevented from using lethal force. It is a tactic used all over the world. Hide among civilians and let the media blame one's foes when innocents are killed.

So what does make something right? The morals of the US soldiers? The morals of their opponents? The morals of armchair critics?

What is the use of rules of engagement if they cannot be relied upon?

There was a particular rule of engagement in NI that was very strange. The scenario was when you could shoot someone throwing a petrol bomb at you. You couldn't do so before it left the person's hand, as you didn't know if they would actually throw it; you couldn't after it left their hand as, to do so then, would have no effect upon the bomb; one had to be able to state that the shot was fired just as the bomb was being released as that was the only time one could be sure that it was going to be released and that shooting the thrower would have an effect. Clearly, it was written by a lawyer

What public interest did it actually serve? Do you not think that the public would be equally appalled by film of "moral" battles?

As I have said many times before, normally, the last people that wish use lethal force are those that have used it previously. I would much prefer that those that give the executive orders were on the ground themselves, much like we are led to believe happened in days of olde.

The public has no real idea what goes on during armed conflict and is, usually, horrified when they have to inadvertently experience it during episodes such as 9/11 or the Troubles.

Jingsamichty

I would really like to be able to believe you there, but unfortunately I just can't.

Perhaps the more considered and pre-planned world of special forces creates deeper thinkers than the gung-ho, shoot 'em-up-from-a-mile-away yee-haws that seem to be doing most of the killing.

I read a book about the Blackwater operatives in Iraq. Most disturbing. Despite what you say, some people just like shooting at other people.

caretaker

Before flying around the building the Apache gun camera showed 2 men following the main group carrying rifles, and as it flew around the building a man can be seen crouching around the corner of the building holding what could be an rpg, (rocket propelled grenade launcher). The group of people they opened up on when they came around the building did not appear to have any weapons and had been making no effort to get away from the helicopter. When the crosshairs are first on the reporters with their cameras around their necks you can hear the gunner saying, "Yeah that's a weapon." I think that's why the film was buried, when Reuters demanded an inquiry into why their reporters were killed the US Army didn't want anyone to see them gunned down in a group of unarmed civilians. War and war crimes go hand in hand.

Novocastrian

Frankly. I'm getting a bit sick of AC's sanctimonious barack room lawyering style of "debate". He pretends to have total faith in the systems of justice (why did the Guardian reporter's partner get detained at Heathrow under the Prevention of Terrorism Act?) but he appears to actually espouse a repressed yearning for militaristic repression.

Not good AC.

Almost Canadian

I disagree with you too. Most special forces are not the clinical assassins the Bourne films, they are one step away from being certified pychos which is why they are there.

US soldiers have a reputation for being very gung ho. They are certainly far more gung ho than their counterparts in the British Army and all of them have stories to tell.

Most when under fire absolutely shit themselves. Very few, having experienced it, wish to do so again.

Who or what are Blackwater?

I accept there are many that like shooting people.

Almost Canadian

Were they not the same group? I honestly don't recall.

As I said, if any soldier behaves inappropriately, they should be subject to the law. That is the case whether they are shooting from a helicopter or inappropriately disseminating classified material.

Almost Canadian

Of course you do, anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong; end of

Please point out where I have been sanctimonious

I see you still haven't learned how to use the ignore button.

Where have I advocated any such yearning. Has is never occurred to you that I usually take the side of the contrarians in such debates? For some one reportedly so clever, you can come across as a bit, well, thick, on occasion.

Do soldiers act first and think later? Sometimes they do. Is that tragic? Of course it is. Will that ever change? Of course it won't.

I am in Court often enough to know that the system of justice in England and Alberta is nowhere near infallible that one should every place one's complete faith in it but, whether you like it or not, it is all there is.

I prefer to accept this rather than taking offence or alleging some wild conspiracy theory when, rather than listening or reading the actual evidence presented oneself, one chooses to decide that whatever one's preferred media choice states is the case, actually is.

I have no idea why the partner of someone linked to the Snowden affair was detained at Heathrow. As usual, rather than jumping to silly and childish conclusions, I will wait until more facts are released before stating an opinion. If that is me yearning for what you allege I do, then so be it.

I suggest a straw poll:

Was OJ guilty?
Was Michael Jackson guilty?
Was Trayvon Martin guilty?

I bet that most that "know" the answer listened to not one scintilla of actual evidence

Dave n Ailsa

Who's Brad Manning?

JonboyE

US soldier. Sent classified infomration to wikileaks Got banged up for 35 years.

Almost Canadian

Let's see if Obama pardons him.

orly

He'll be out in less than 12 apparently.

Novocastrian

Ahem.

Pulaski

The former name of Chelsea Manning.

Hot news on Bradley Manning