[VID]Apache Crew Murders Surrendering Combatants

[15357]

Bottom line is if someone surrenders and you kill them anyway you are breaking international law. Thank you gray fox for bringing in some logic here.

Not exactly; they have to be first recognized as a member in a valid combat group, otherwise they don't get the protection stated in the Geneva Convention.


Not that I support killing people, its just that we have to understand the situation at hand.

 

[unozero]

Im pretty sure that the helo pilots didn't have enough time to react....cuz they could be kinda far away,the cam could be zoomed and they had the auto range finder on...but we will never know until the pilots are maybe interviewed

 

[Solaris]

As a supporter of the coallition in Iraq I must still side with no-limit here.

We are part of a coallition of democracies who hold liberal values such as right to life and other human rights as sacred.

If we do not conduct ourselves in war in as clean and cultured way as possible then we lose any right to be there. I firmly believe it is never acceptable to execute prisoners. We must firmly maintain the moral highground against out enemies, if we fail to do that then we are as bad as they are.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Not exactly; they have to be first recognized as a member in a valid combat group, otherwise they don't get the protection stated in the Geneva Convention.

Not strictly true. A person's status, whether 'lawful' or 'unlawful' combatant, can only be determined by "a competent tribunal", and until that time must be treated as a POW. Anyone surrendering in battle is therefore afforded rights and provisions by the Convention.

As Grey Fox noted, the shooting of a person who has surrendered is, no matter how many excuses are made, illegal. There may have been a mistake, and no particular figure might be blamed, but the rules have still been broken.

Furthermore, I see a lot of absolutely groundless conjecture in this thread being passed off as level-headed consideration. The words "probably" and "likely" are sneaking into your posts. We seem to have two key ideas being bandied about here:


- Probably the military was chasing the guy for a reason, and he probably did something wrong, and accordingly it was some kind of crisis situation where a snap decision had to be made. This isn't sound, and belongs to the same old discredited "I trust the policeman's word over yours" field of logic that saw men like the Birmingham Five locked up on spurious charges. It isn't sufficient to assume the military is right by default, especially when the video contains no indication of A. for what reason the fellow was being chased or B. whether there was any necessity at all to shoot him.

- Probably the gunner fired before the man even surrendered. While this is suggested by the constant and fairly innaccurate dust-puffs that blossom continually around the edges of the vehicle, I don't believe that any of you can reliably make such an assessment without an accurate account of the helicopter's speed, distance, projectile velocity, etc.

In short, people are taking vague "what ifs" and blowing them up into excuses for the pilot. Perhaps the man in the car had just blown up a humvee with an RPG, and perhaps the pilot had already fired when the target began to exit his vehicle. But there is not much more evidence for this scenario than there is for "the man had done nothing wrong but panic, and the pilot shot him out of spite".

The video is from a UAV perspective and does not tell us much about the situation, so it can't give us a rock-solid conclusion. But that works both ways: it is no more sensible to breezily absolve the pilot with "probably" than it is to scream bloody murder immediately upon watching. What we see is a potentially illegal act: that is alarming and worthy of further investigation.

This all bears out Grey Fox's accusations of hypocrisy. The pilot is innocent until proven guilty, but the man in the car is guilty by association. When all we have to go on is the video, the assumption that he was an insurgent essentially boils down to "he's running - get him!"

He's being chased by a helicopter, I'd say that's reason enough.

Pretty naked, no?

So even those people who are disputing the value of the Convention (they are wise to take that route, because the act, if it is what it looks like, is definitely illegal) cannot demonstrate that there was actually cause to take a "snap decision" here. Even as they establish their own, new, unquantifiable moral principles, they cannot show that those principles have been followed.

Almost all of that is wrong.

Nice strong argument you have there.

EDIT: A moral high ground that we have already in many ways abandoned, Solaris - perhaps we abandoned it upon the moment of invasion, or even earlier. But the point is well made.

 

[Tyguy]

Your idea of engagement basically affords every insurgent caught planting an IED a loophole to get out of dying. That's correct, all they have to do is put their hands up and all is forgiven, right? Where the hell are you living because it sure as hell isn't on earth. I suppose every sniper should be convicted of war crimes for not trying to actively take an individual into custody. Just to clarify, we take prisoners when we have the ability to, when doing so will not jeopardize the safety of our soldiers to a higher degree. When you are flying a helicopter and your mission is to kill people who are caught engaging in some sort of insurgency act, it's not a pilots prerogative to take prisoners.

I don't understand how we are hypocrites in this situation, perhaps someone can explain this one in more detail. Last time I checked, I never complained insurgents didn't practice proper war ethic when flying their helicopters.

When all we have to go on is the video, the assumption that he was an insurgent essentially boils down to "he's running - get him!"

It's easy to try and argue he was innocent but we can all assume with a rather high level of certainty that he was not. Regardless, it's irrelevant.

 

[Sulkdodds]

It is not "my idea of engagement". It's international law. You are entitled to disagree with that but it's lame and disingenous to try and paint it as my own impractical peacenik kookiness.

Furthermore, a straw man gets us nowhere, and you are building a mighty big one there. The combatant who surrenders does not get "forgiven". He is captured, investigated, and, we hope, tried in a court. This is not a "loophole" unless your idea of justice is a summary execution.

The hypocrisy comes in where you favour the army pilot over the Iraqi civilian, holding the former to a very low standard and the latter to a very high standard of evidence, without any basis in the balance of the facts. You haven't demonstrated exactly how we can have such "certainty" that it was necessary to kill the man who surrendered. Please do so.

 

[Tyguy]

How are you going to capture this person? I honestly would like to hear your version of how this should happen. Seems to me there are two possibilities.

A. They send in the (ugh, i hate saying it) ground team or
B. They simply let this person go.

Both are stupid, one is by far less intelligent.

You're right, I've been holding the insurgents to low standards, I should really re-analyze how I see these people and fix my posts respectively.

You haven't demonstrated exactly how we can have such "certainty" that it was necessary to kill the man who surrendered. Please do so.

necessity is relative, but is it necessary we stop insurgents from planting IED's? I'd say so. I generally prefer any type of situation in which we have an upper hand. We have the ability to attack these people with a relatively high margin of safety, are you really suggesting that we compromise that to appease some sort of insane "fair play" tactic?

 

[CptStern]

there are two videos floating out there were us marines shoot wounded combatants ..one is an iraqi soldier from the early days of the invasion while the other is a combatant/militant ..the videos are clear as day, one showing a soldier walk up to the downed militant and shoot him point blank ..he was found guilty of voluntary manslaiughter, a much less severe charge than 2nd degree murder, and was sentenced to get this: nothing, he was discharged from the military


no US soldier will ever stand trial for war crimes, the US made sure of this before they invaded iraq

 

[Tyguy]

nor will some insurgents have to pay for removing the heads of our captured soldiers, but both are equally irrelevant.

 

[Pesmerga]

I think we can all agree that attacking the laws which protect surrendering soldiers is stupid. Playing "fair" under the Geneva convention is to ensure that some sort of civilized humanity is preserved during warfare, so the Rape of Nanking isn't repeated and Northern Civil War generals don't burn down and slaughter entire southern states.

We have all come to a perilous fork in the road- a choice between law and war. To uphold the law that men have made to bring sensibility to combat and condemn cruelty, or to achieve the quickest and most effective victory without rules, discompassionately. On one hand, law is preserved and civilization is comfortable that we have rules for killing- on the other, victory can be hastened and objectives secured without the squabbles of those not involved.

I choose law. But as it stands, I cannot condemn the pilots involved in this incident for there is such a lack of evidence that makes it impossible for me to tell even the most basic details. If the pilot made a conscious effort to kill the target despite knowing clear well in his head that he was about to surrender, then he ought to be tried under the US court of law. But from what little I can gather, it's impossible to tell one way or the other.

I cannot be opposed to people who choose less morally sanctioned methods, however. In my mind, neither mindset is completely correct nor entirely wrong.

 

[CptStern]

nor will some insurgents have to pay for removing the heads of our captured soldiers, but both are equally irrelevant.

apples and oranges ..they're the bad guys, you're supposed to be the good guys ..they're bad so they do bad things, what's your excuse?

 

[Tyguy]

apples and oranges ..they're the bad guys, you're supposed to be the good guys ..they're bad so they do bad things, what's your excuse?

excuse for what, being on the offensive from time to time? Ensuring as much safety as possible for the soldiers on the ground? I sense you feel like this person was completely innocent and any inference of hostility on my part is just an excuse for not agreeing with you.

 

[CptStern]

excuse for what, being on the offensive from time to time? Ensuring as much safety as possible for the soldiers on the ground? I sense you feel like this person was completely innocent and any inference of hostility on my part is just an excuse for not agreeing with you.

? you're making assumptions and misinterpreted what I said, the "what's your excuse" is referring to the US, not you personally

 

[unozero]

so nobody has thad the idea of saying that these guys were to far away to react fast enough to him surrendering?

 

[No Limit]

so nobody has thad the idea of saying that these guys were to far away to react fast enough to him surrendering?

Actually that's been said on more than one occasion, try to keep up .

You're comparing the execution of what essentially amount to captured hostages to unpredictable combatants that we have no way of apprehending, against enemies known for feigning surrender or death as a ploy to kill troops. I fully sympathize with judgment calls made on the field that spare needless troop casualties. You talk of sending in a "ground team" as if it only requires a quick snap of the fingers.

Why do you continue to say its impossible? It's not. Is it an inconvenience? Sure, but its not impossible.

War ain't what it used to be. If you sign up to kill Coalition troops, this is the shit you should be prepared to get into. We're not talking about a brigade of US soldiers storming a building and slaughtering a mass of insurgents with their hands above their heads. It's a measure of risk. I'm sorry if I don't always support the rule of law, especially in something that gets as dirty and messy as modern warfare. I'd rather the military get its job done as efficiently and practically as possible instead of tying itself down to extract one, lone insurgent that had up to that point spent its time fleeing only to come back another day (if he was indeed an insurgent). Maybe if the chopper in the video hovered around for half an hour before deciding to blow him up, I'd feel differently. Otherwise, I see it as a call fit to be exercised by those in the field.

You keep trying to change topics. We are not talking about this perticular video any more. We are talking about a general case of someone being chased by a helicopter and then stopping and surrendering. I am making the argument that you follow international law in that case and pick them up as a POW. You are making the argument that you blow them up because it's too inconvenient to pick them up. So please try to stick to this one point, because we already agree on this video so I dont know why you keep bringing it up.

 

[unozero]

well I think unless the pilots are questioned it's kinda pointless to go as far and start talking about Geneva conventions etc.....

 

[Tagaziel]

Reading this thread made me realize just how low HL2.net users can go.

 

[Tyguy]

Why do you continue to say its impossible? It's not. Is it an inconvenience? Sure, but its not impossible.

Good call, let's have our troops on the ground look for...a guy with a black shirt. I hope he stands still, it's gonna be hard finding him again. Id end it here, but I assume you are going to come back with "the chopper could watch where he goes". First place he goes is back to his buddies, still want to send in a ground team?

It's a stupid idea, we both know it, stop bringing it up. You have zero tactical sense if you imagine this to be a practical idea.

Reading this thread made me realize just how low HL2.net users can go.

what does that even mean?

 

[Sulkdodds]

How are you going to capture this person? I honestly would like to hear your version of how this should happen.

I feel no necessity to do so (although I invite you to consider the option of Iraqi police). Why should it be alright to summarily execute someone because keeping them alive would be inconvenient to you?

necessity is relative, but is it necessary we stop insurgents from planting IED's?

That's not what I asked. Was it necessary to kill this man?

Further, in the abstract nonspecific example of a suspected insurgent being held at gunpoint by a helicopter, can you show us that it is absolutely necessary to execute him on the spot? Claiming that something is "necessary" requires that it actually be a necessity. If anything there is a strong argument for the necessity, both moral and practical, of playing by the rules. Occupying forces that shoot after surrender do not inspire a huge amount of popular sentiment.

Ultimately, I doubt the war in Iraq would have gone very much better or quicker if a few more suspected insurgents had been shot without hesitation. Your rebuttal is of the "if you disagree, you want the terrorists to win" school of justification.

I agree with Pesmerga - one cannot outright condemn the pilot in this situation but only because one doesn't know all the facts. All other arguments are fairly absurd, and not even 'necessity' is entirely credible when the causal link between "summary execution" and "good fortune for US soldiers in Iraq" remains as cloudy as a Scottish summer.

 

[Tyguy]

Your rebuttal is of the "if you disagree, you want the terrorists to win" school of justification.

My rebuttal has been, and continues to be that risking lives is stupid when you don't need to.
Envision a scenario where we saw the guy surrender, followed him around, and sent people in to extract him. What happens is a firefight between our guys and his. Seeing as we don't know who the **** we are looking for, it's going to be hard to get this guy. Meanwhile, more people on each side are dying...but thats ok, we wouldnt want to kill somebody when we could simply just shoot our own soldiers and be done with it.

Why do we even have helicopters if we can't use them to our advantage?

 

[No Limit]

Good call, let's have our troops on the ground look for...a guy with a black shirt. I hope he stands still, it's gonna be hard finding him again. Id end it here, but I assume you are going to come back with "the chopper could watch where he goes". First place he goes is back to his buddies, still want to send in a ground team?

It's a stupid idea, we both know it, stop bringing it up. You have zero tactical sense if you imagine this to be a practical idea.

I see you have a lot of tactical sense, let me guess, bf2? I bet you were even voted in as commander before, huh?

Do you understand the defenition of surrender? It means to give up, not flee. The person is sitting there with their arms in the air. You have no right to kill this person, period.

 

[Tyguy]

I see you have a lot of tactical sense, let me guess, bf2? I bet you were even voted in as commander before, huh?

Brilliant.

Do you understand the defenition of surrender? It means to give up, not flee. The person is sitting there with their arms in the air. You have no right to kill this person, period.

Military Necessity. Military necessity requires combat forces to engage in only those acts necessary to accomplish a legitimate military objective. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In applying military necessity to targeting, the rule generally means the United States Military may target those facilities, equipment, and forces which, if destroyed, would lead as quickly as possible to the enemy’s partial or complete submission.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

 

[Tagaziel]

You are really adept at deconstructing your own argument, Ty:

Military Necessity. Military necessity requires combat forces to engage in only those acts necessary to accomplish a legitimate military objective. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In applying military necessity to targeting, the rule generally means the United States Military may target those facilities, equipment, and forces which, if destroyed, would lead as quickly as possible to the enemy?s partial or complete submission.

And.

what does that even mean?

Denying dignity to (perceived) enemies robs you of any moral superiority you might have, in essence, making you as bad as insurgents beheading people.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Tyguy you are so very very wrong. I actually agree with No Limit and am appalled so many people could justify the killing of an unarmed POW if that were what happened in the video.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Surrender-(military)

Surrender is when soldiers, nations, or other combatants stop fighting and become prisoners of war, either as individuals or when ordered to by their officers. A white flag is often used to surrender, as is the gesture of raising one's hands empty and open above one's head.

Surrender may be conditional, if the surrendering party promises to submit only if after the victor makes certain promises. Otherwise it is unconditional surrender; the victor makes no promises of treatment other than those provided by international law. Normally a belligerent will only agree to surrender unconditionally if completely incapable of continuing hostilities. Unconditional surrender refers to a surrender without conditions, except for those provided by international law. ... This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. ...

The Third Geneva Convention states that prisoners of war should not be mistreated or abused. United States Army policy states that surrendered persons should be treated according to the "5 S's" until turned over to higher authority.

* Silence: so that they cannot plan an escape attempt.
* Search: for weapons or items of intelligence value.
* Secure: tie up and/or guard carefully at all times, particularly at first.
* Safeguard: do not allow the dangers of the battlefield to hurt them
* Separate: soldiers from officers, men from women, combatants from civilians, to make them easier to control.
* Shoot enemy POW in our helichoopters! YARRR!

Granted in this case I believe the helicopter gunner fired before the guy surrendered. If he had fired afterwards the gunner would/should have been court marshaled. End of story. Your opinions don't matter when it comes to international law and the geneva convention.

 

[Tyguy]

He wasn't a POW glirk

Geneva Convention definition A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict

 

[unozero]

Tyguy you sound like you know your shit,you've been Iraq bro?

 

[Glirk Dient]

He wasn't a POW glirk

So in your eyes we can shoot every enemy combatant that surrenders as they aren't a POW until they are in jail? Nice, enjoy your court marshal.

I hope a cop beats your ass until your in jail and tell your it's ok because your only handcuffed and unable to defend yourself...your not in jail yet.

Or if he isn't a soldier under whatever definition your using then he is a civilian and should have been arrested irregardless of what he had done before the video. He should only have been killed if the civilian presented an immediate threat to the soldiers, and seeing as how his car wasn't mounted with anti-air missiles there was no reason to kill him. You are simply wrong, the only excuse for this is that the pilot fired before he surrendered.

 

[Sulkdodds]

He wasn't a POW glirk

Wrong. All combatants (if he was one) are to be treated as POWs until their status is determined.

My rebuttal has been, and continues to be that risking lives is stupid when you don't need to.

You cannot allege necessity without foundation. I was drawing a comparison to people who say that the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq is "necessary" to SAVE AMERICA, without being able to fully justify why or how. Those who do not accept the necessity are then endorsing death OH NO

"Is it necessary we stop insurgents from planting IEDs?" Nobody has said otherwise, but by asking that you distract from the real issue, which is that there is no way to be sure that this guy was an insurgent or was planting an IED. You are literally asking us if we want the terrorists to win. I thought the time was gone when anybody could ask a question that stupid without great irony, but I guess I was wrong.

So how do you quantify the necessity? By positing an entirely imaginary situation that doesn't have much to do with the video's one (as far as we know) even in a hypothetical sense.

Seriously, what are you talking about?

Envision a scenario where we saw the guy surrender, followed him around, and sent people in to extract him. What happens is a firefight between our guys and his. Seeing as we don't know who the **** we are looking for, it's going to be hard to get this guy. Meanwhile, more people on each side are dying...but thats ok, we wouldnt want to kill somebody when we could simply just shoot our own soldiers and be done with it.

I don't understand. Who are "his guys"? Why would they have a "firefight" with an Apache gunship? Who is proposing to shoot our own soldiers? And wouldn't it be more useful for us to envision a scenario that bore the slightest resemblance to the one that we are discussing?

 

[unozero]

umm he didnt say that ,he said in this particluar situation it just work out anyway...which is up to debate thats true. But don't put words in his mouth.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Where have I done so? I'm asking questions.

His intentions don't define his statements. Legibility defines his statements.

EDIT: Remember what you are defending.

Nobody is asking you to defend "killing a man who raises a gun" or "killing a man who is a direct danger to US troops" or even "killing a man who doesn't comply" or "killing a man who runs away". But you seem to be attempting to justify "killing a man who has no weapon, is not necessarily an insurgent and is stationary with his hands in the air".

 

[Tyguy]

His intentions don't define his statements. Legibility defines his statements.

so my statements are...legible? Ok, good.

Nobody is asking you to defend "killing a man who raises a gun" or "killing a man who is a direct danger to US troops" or even "killing a man who doesn't comply" or "killing a man who runs away". But you seem to be attempting to justify "killing a man who has no weapon, is not necessarily an insurgent and is stationary with his hands in the air".

He was involved in 3 out of the 4 you just mentioned...unless you want to revert back to just assuming the pilot is a maniac and shoots at random people.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I've asked you repeatedly to explain exactly why you are assuming that this surrendering man was "involved in 3 out of the 4". You haven't yet, so I've got to unfortunately repeat that I can't see any compelling evidence that they had any reason to chase him, apart from the fact that they were chasing him (which is flawed and circular logic).

Yeah, the car was driving, and he got out and surrendered, but at that moment of surrender he ceases to become a man who is running away or a man who isn't complying.

 

[Tagaziel]

He was involved in 3 out of the 4 you just mentioned...unless you want to revert back to just assuming the pilot is a maniac and shoots at random people.

How is a guy in a white car with no guns danger to US troops?

 

[Pesmerga]

so my statements are...legible? Ok, good.



He was involved in 3 out of the 4 you just mentioned...unless you want to revert back to just assuming the pilot is a maniac and shoots at random people.

Destroying a target when it is actively engaged in such activities is justifiable- but you cannot lawfully kill combatants who have declared surrender by one method or another. If the combatant continued threatening activities after feigning surrender, then he has forfeited all rights of surrender.

Also, you cannot assume he was involved in anything previous to his death. For all we know, he was just driving a truck and was shit scared of a helo passing overhead, so he decided to book it. This is unlikely, of course, but you cannot say for sure.

Any continued argument that uses assumptions and implications as a basis is hereby void of my response. If you wish to use information aggrandized from the video itself to present as evidence for your logic, please do so.

 

[Tyguy]

So in your eyes we can shoot every enemy combatant that surrenders as they aren't a POW until they are in jail? Nice, enjoy your court marshal.

And id be the first civilian to be court marshaled. Sweet

I hope a cop beats your ass until your in jail and tell your it's ok because your only handcuffed and unable to defend yourself...your not in jail yet.

Thanks, really mature. I can tell you are getting frustrated, I apologize if im making this hard for you.

How is a guy in a white car with no guns danger to US troops?

Operating under the assumption that the pilot observed this person doing something he wasn't supposed to, I can easily validate their decision to take action.

Also, you cannot assume he was involved in anything previous to his death. For all we know, he was just driving a truck and was shit scared of a helo passing overhead, so he decided to book it. This is unlikely, of course, but you cannot say for sure.

Why can't I assume he was involved in something? You seem to be able to assume he was an innocent civilian, that's not very fair.

Any continued argument that uses assumptions and implications as a basis is hereby void of my response. If you wish to use information aggrandized from the video itself to present as evidence for your logic, please do so.

This entire debate is based on assumptions, although it has gone from a surrendering insurgent to a scared civilian in a matter of minutes.

 

[Pesmerga]

Why can't I assume he was involved in something? You seem to be able to assume he was an innocent civilian, that's not very fair.

No, wrong. I am not making any assumptions. Without more evidence or facts, I cannot make any assumption about anyone in this video. Please tell me, please directly quote where I made any assumption about the target. It is probable that he is a military target and it is probable that he was attempting to surrender; it is also probable that the helicopter pilot didn't react quick enough, or the shots were already in-route before he put his hands over his head.

That is my opinion on the whole thing.

This entire debate is based on assumptions, although it has gone from a surrendering insurgent to a scared civilian in a matter of minutes.

Wow, entirely wrong again and for the same reasons. You are the one making assumptions. You are trying to pull an argument out of your ass and it is so amusing I stopped jacking off just to respond to it. That's how happy you make me. Now excuse me, I must return to pleasuring myself.

 

[Tyguy]

Wow, entirely wrong again and for the same reasons. You are the one making assumptions. You are trying to pull an argument out of your ass and it is so amusing I stopped jacking off just to respond to it. That's how happy you make me. Now excuse me, I must return to pleasuring myself.

Id say your the one pulling things out of your ass, you don't have any pants on.

Just to clarify, im wrong because i said the entire debate is based on assumptions? Can you really tell me that isnt the case or have you been jacking off through this entire discussion?

 

[Glirk Dient]

This is like arguing with a child. Tyguy you don't understand what any of us are saying. You keep assuming this guy is a terrarst and must be shooted. In reality we need to treat everyone in accordance with international law and you have time and time again said that we should commit war crimes for unknown reasons. You sir have nothing to back your arguments and have time and time again failed to follow logic. We have laid it out plain and simple and every time you refuse to agree with international law and think that a surrendering civilian should be murdered. No one should be shot when surrendering. End of story, you can think whatever you want but your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Operating under the assumption that the pilot observed this person doing something he wasn't supposed to, I can easily validate their decision to take action.

"Why was the pilot chasing him? He must have done something wrong. How do I know he did something wrong? The pilot was chasing him."

Similar to:

"Why is he running? Because the pilot is chasing him. Why is the pilot chasing him? Because he is running.

Why can't I assume he was involved in something? You seem to be able to assume he was an innocent civilian, that's not very fair.

A certain well-known legal principle suggests itself.

 

[Glirk Dient]

A certain well-known legal principle suggests itself.

Guilty until innocent? Shoot first, ask questions later. Let god sort them out!