Firing Squad?

I don't support the death penalty under any circumstances, and that includes this case. That being said, if it's appropriate anywhere, this would certainly be a candidate. Their actions against the civilian victims is bad enough. But their crime is far more heinous than that. They have dishonored their country. They have dishonored the armed forces. And as several have pointed out, they have materially and substantially increased the danger to those that they served with.

Of course, I can also see the logic of giving one of the malefactors a reduced sentence so he will roll on the others. But even at that, 24 years seems light. Because what they have done will undo the good (assuming that there is any good) of thousands of acts of kindness shown to Afghan civilians by literally tens of thousands of their fellow soldiers. In essence, they have undermined the ostensible mission that the country sent them to fulfill and have committed treason.

I'd wish Wakeup would comment on this thread.

Why thank you Nina, what is life without dreams?

With all due respect, and perhaps we are speaking of different videos, but the people with the reporters who were killed were very clearly armed. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

as far as i am concerned They were unarmed. Cameras have been mistaken for weapons. Severe mistake.
are we talking about this video here? That`S the one i am referring to.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...978017,00.html

I don't support the death penalty under any circumstances, and that includes this case. That being said, if it's appropriate anywhere, this would certainly be a candidate. Their actions against the civilian victims is bad enough. But their crime is far more heinous than that. They have dishonored their country. They have dishonored the armed forces. And as several have pointed out, they have materially and substantially increased the danger to those that they served with.

Of course, I can also see the logic of giving one of the malefactors a reduced sentence so he will roll on the others. But even at that, 24 years seems light. Because what they have done will undo the good (assuming that there is any good) of thousands of acts of kindness shown to Afghan civilians by literally tens of thousands of their fellow soldiers. In essence, they have undermined the ostensible mission that the country sent them to fulfill and have committed treason. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Intellectually and hypothetically i agree with you, but you know as well as we all do that reality is always different, and happenings like that are just the top of the iceberg. Remember the vietnam war where soldiers have gone berserk on women or even their own soldier - collegues. War is dirty. I pledge to avoid them in the first place.

as far as i am concerned They were unarmed. Cameras have been mistaken for weapons. Severe mistake.
are we talking about this video here? That`S the one i am referring to.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...978017,00.html Originally Posted by ninasastri

Nina – yes, it’s the same strike. No one is claiming the reporters were carrying weapons. They were walking with other men who had weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12...hdad_airstrike


Murphy’s Laws of Combat Operations: In combat—
1) never share a foxhole with anyone braver than yourself. They draw fire.
2) anything you do can get you killed, including nothing.
3) remember, friendly fire isn’t.

Unfortunately if you are in a war zone the danger is inherent and you are at risk, armed or not. War is insane and it is unrealistic to think that someones sanity could not slip it's reins given certain circumstances. God does not allow wars to happen, he allows us to allow them.

Nina – yes, it’s the same strike. No one is claiming the reporters were carrying weapons. They were walking with other men who had weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12...hdad_airstrike


Murphy’s Laws of Combat Operations: In combat—
1) never share a foxhole with anyone braver than yourself. They draw fire.
2) anything you do can get you killed, including nothing.
3) remember, friendly fire isn’t. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No one was engaging in wARFARE. They were walking relaxed. They intended to shoot, because they mistook a large camera for some AK something weapon. They shot at the reporter first. The fat one, the older one. The whole reason why they started shooting was him and his camera.
But if you don`t mind me asking - why shoot someone that lies on the floor? And why shoot some van that clearly tries to rescue the wounded? Even if they are with weapons don`t they deserve to get medical treatment? do they have to be killed?

And the other question? Reuters was making investigations into that and why did they never get an information? What is the problem? Its not that some tactical stuff was given out? Or some hidden military secrets? The misinformation that was handed out after that incident speaks volumes. I have seen the video from beginning to end about three times. I could not understand why they would shoot in the first place. There were no weapons. They run around without cover. Who would do that if intending to shoot or engage in warfare?
But .....about wikipedia: here is some additional discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ju...hdad_airstrike

No one was engaging in wARFARE. They were walking relaxed. Originally Posted by ninasastri

You evidently are choosing not to understand the nature of war. So, hypothetically, what would you say if it was a murderer or rapist leaving the scene of a crime? Is s/he less a criminal because s/he is “walking relaxed” away from the scene of the crime? So, by extension, is an enemy combatant "walking relaxed" to or from a battle less of an enemy combatant because s/he is not actually shooting at an American at that particular moment in time?

They intended to shoot, because they mistook a large camera for some AK something weapon. Originally Posted by ninasastri

The Apache’s targeting system (a camera – with telephoto capability) makes it appear that this engagement occurred at close range. I too have watched the video three or four times—I saw the weapons. I also noticed that nobody in that group appears to be aware of the Apache helicopter (you know – those dangerous, windy, noisy things that hang in the air), which indicates that the helicopter was probably 200 or 300 hundred meters (maybe more) away from the group. The weapons officer noticeably (per the audibles) focuses on the men openly carrying weapons in a combat zone. As such, they were legitimate targets. As such, the Apache engaged.

They shot at the reporter first. Originally Posted by ninasastri

In combat, anything you do can get you killed, including nothing. The reporters were standing ten feet or so in front of the men carrying weapons. Therefore, the reporters were part of the targeted group—not the reporters per se—but they were in the line of fire.

The whole reason why they started shooting was him and his camera. Originally Posted by ninasastri

The weapons officer indentified – by type – the weapons the other men were carrying before engaging. What he thought about the cameraman, you and I do not know.

But if you don`t mind me asking - why shoot someone that lies on the floor? Originally Posted by ninasastri

???? It’s a war. In combat, anything you do can get you killed, including nothing. You engage the enemy as you find him. Unless the enemy combatant is seriously wounded, has a white flag or his hands are empty and in the air, he is otherwise considered a legitimate target.

And why shoot some van that clearly tries to rescue the wounded? Originally Posted by ninasastri

What is obvious to would be “arm chair commanders,” using 20/20 hindsight, sitting detached in the comfort of their homes, was probably not so obvious to the weapons officer in the heat of combat.

Even if they are with weapons don`t they deserve to get medical treatment? Originally Posted by ninasastri

According to the article we are both citing, the survivors were indeed given medical treatment.

do they have to be killed? Originally Posted by ninasastri

???? It’s the nature of war.

And the other question? Reuters was making investigations into that and why did they never get an information? What is the problem? Its not that some tactical stuff was given out? Originally Posted by ninasastri

It is exactly that: classified tactical information.

Or some hidden military secrets? Originally Posted by ninasastri

No. It’s not a secret.

The misinformation that was handed out after that incident speaks volumes. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Assange is the one guilty of misinformation.

I have seen the video from beginning to end about three times. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Questions: Did you have a hot cup of coffee with some pastries while you were watching? Was there anyone shooting at you? Did you hear explosions? Were you jarred by the concussions? Did the rattle of gunfire distract you in any way? And those radio calls for help from the men on the ground, did you sense any desperation in the voices. These are just some of the factors that play into combat decision making that “arm chair commanders” gloss over when they criticize.

I could not understand why they would shoot in the first place. Originally Posted by ninasastri

???? It’s the nature of war.

There were no weapons. Originally Posted by ninasastri

How can you deny this when even Assange admits there were weapons?

They run around without cover. Who would do that if intending to shoot or engage in warfare? Originally Posted by ninasastri

I don’t care who you are, if you are in the target area of a 30mm chaingun you are going to scurry around looking for a deep hole to crawl into. You will not be worried about where it’s coming from, so much as you’ll be worried about getting out of its way. The idea of shooting back would come as a complete after-thought.

In combat, anything you do can get you killed, including nothing. That maxim explains what happened to the reporters.

You evidently are choosing not to understand the nature of war. So, hypothetically, what would you say if it was a murderer or rapist leaving the scene of a crime? Is s/he less a criminal because s/he is “walking relaxed” away from the scene of the crime? So, by extension, is an enemy combatant "walking relaxed" to or from a battle less of an enemy combatant because s/he is not actually shooting at an American at that particular moment in time? The Apache’s targeting system (a camera – with telephoto capability) makes it appear that this engagement occurred at close range. I too have watched the video three or four times—I saw the weapons. I also noticed that nobody in that group appears to be aware of the Apache helicopter (you know – those dangerous, windy, noisy things that hang in the air), which indicates that the helicopter was probably 200 or 300 hundred meters (maybe more) away from the group. The weapons officer noticeably (per the audibles) focuses on the men openly carrying weapons in a combat zone. As such, they were legitimate targets. As such, the Apache engaged. In combat, anything you do can get you killed, including nothing. The reporters were standing ten feet or so in front of the men carrying weapons. Therefore, the reporters were part of the targeted group—not the reporters per se—but they were in the line of fire. The weapons officer indentified – by type – the weapons the other men were carrying before engaging. What he thought about the cameraman, you and I do not know. ???? It’s a war. In combat, anything you do can get you killed, including nothing. You engage the enemy as you find him. Unless the enemy combatant is seriously wounded, has a white flag or his hands are empty and in the air, he is otherwise considered a legitimate target. What is obvious to would be “arm chair commanders,” using 20/20 hindsight, sitting detached in the comfort of their homes, was probably not so obvious to the weapons officer in the heat of combat. According to the article we are both citing, the survivors were indeed given medical treatment. ???? It’s the nature of war. It is exactly that: classified tactical information. No. It’s not a secret. Assange is the one guilty of misinformation. Questions: Did you have a hot cup of coffee with some pastries while you were watching? Was there anyone shooting at you? Did you hear explosions? Were you jarred by the concussions? Did the rattle of gunfire distract you in any way? And those radio calls for help from the men on the ground, did you sense any desperation in the voices. These are just some of the factors that play into combat decision making that “arm chair commanders” gloss over when they criticize. ???? It’s the nature of war. How can you deny this when even Assange admits there were weapons? I don’t care who you are, if you are in the target area of a 30mm chaingun you are going to scurry around looking for a deep hole to crawl into. You will not be worried about where it’s coming from, so much as you’ll be worried about getting out of its way. The idea of shooting back would come as a complete after-thought.

In combat, anything you do can get you killed, including nothing. That maxim explains what happened to the reporters. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ok i understand where you are coming from. You are right with the weapons i reread it after our discussion again. Nevertheless, even if i don`t seem to understand the nature of the war like you seem to it is my understanding that people who are already victims don`t need to be shot at again.

No one was using the weapons after everyone already has been lying on the floor. The shooting of the van was completely and outrageously unnecessary. Also victims of war - yes the ones that survive - and they had no weapons lying around to shoot back - have a right to live. It was unnecessary to shoot the van , and it was a mistake (although a comprehensible one) that they shot the people in the first place.

But other than that i agree with you. Yes even Assange admitted there were weapons. I just don`t see what is classified about that information. I think the relatives of the people have a right to know. And the military lied about how things went down. They also could have chosen to NOT say anything or to say the truth.

So , if you are right, and i think you are - although i disagree with some of th emotivations - then why would they need to distract information and present the things differently than they were? That IS an act of political disinformation.

Ok war journalism IS dangerous, everyone who is a journalist knows that. Its the highest paid journalism and the one that can get you killed eventually. So its not surprising these things happen. What is surprising is that the military decided to present these happenings differently. Why is that? Because they could not justify the original happenings?

I do understand that these things can happen. Its war and mistakes do happen. And we don`t know the history of that what happened before the shootings.

Mistakes were made. Innocents tragically died. My question is: “Why did Assange choose to manipulate and portray this incident as an act of malicious murder?”

Another question: “Where was Assange’s moral outrage when: 1) on April 10, 2004, American, Nick Berg, was captured in Baghdad and executed on May 7. He was a businessman. 2) June 11, 2004, Lebanese, Hussein Ali Alyan, was captured and executed. He was working as a construction worker. 3) July 22, 2004, Bulgarian, Ivaylo Kepov, was captured and executed near Baiji. He was working for a Bulgarian trucking company as a truck driver. 4) July 25, 2004, Jordanian, Marwan Zuheir Al Rusan, was shot and killed in Mosul. He was a businessman. 5) July 28, 2004, two Pakistanis, Raja Azad and Sajad Naeem, were captured and executed. They were working for Al Tamimi group as construction workers. 6) August 1, 2004, Turk, Murat Yuce, was captured and executed. He was working for Bilintur as a cleaner.” I could list many others, because these are but some of the 538 private contractor victims of the war in Iraq; most of whom were innocent victims killed by enemy combatants. Where is Assange’s moral outrage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...deaths_in_Iraq

Mistakes were made. Innocents tragically died. My question is: “Why did Assange choose to manipulate and portray this incident as an act of malicious murder?”

Another question: “Where was Assange’s moral outrage when: 1) on April 10, 2004, American, Nick Berg, was captured in Baghdad and executed on May 7. He was a businessman. 2) June 11, 2004, Lebanese, Hussein Ali Alyan, was captured and executed. He was working as a construction worker. 3) July 22, 2004, Bulgarian, Ivaylo Kepov, was captured and executed near Baiji. He was working for a Bulgarian trucking company as a truck driver. 4) July 25, 2004, Jordanian, Marwan Zuheir Al Rusan, was shot and killed in Mosul. He was a businessman. 5) July 28, 2004, two Pakistanis, Raja Azad and Sajad Naeem, were captured and executed. They were working for Al Tamimi group as construction workers. 6) August 1, 2004, Turk, Murat Yuce, was captured and executed. He was working for Bilintur as a cleaner.” I could list many others, because these are but some of the 538 private contractor victims of the war in Iraq; most of whom were innocent victims killed by enemy combatants. Where is Assange’s moral outrage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...deaths_in_Iraq Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You certainly make a good point with that. I don`t agree with everything Assange does or say, although i do find wikileaks important and the mobbing that happens against this source of information is - well - capital.

Mistakes were made. Innocents tragically died. My question is: “Why did Assange choose to manipulate and portray this incident as an act of malicious murder?”

Another question: “Where was Assange’s moral outrage when: 1) on April 10, 2004, American, Nick Berg, was captured in Baghdad and executed on May 7. He was a businessman. 2) June 11, 2004, Lebanese, Hussein Ali Alyan, was captured and executed. He was working as a construction worker. 3) July 22, 2004, Bulgarian, Ivaylo Kepov, was captured and executed near Baiji. He was working for a Bulgarian trucking company as a truck driver. 4) July 25, 2004, Jordanian, Marwan Zuheir Al Rusan, was shot and killed in Mosul. He was a businessman. 5) July 28, 2004, two Pakistanis, Raja Azad and Sajad Naeem, were captured and executed. They were working for Al Tamimi group as construction workers. 6) August 1, 2004, Turk, Murat Yuce, was captured and executed. He was working for Bilintur as a cleaner.” I could list many others, because these are but some of the 538 private contractor victims of the war in Iraq; most of whom were innocent victims killed by enemy combatants. Where is Assange’s moral outrage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...deaths_in_Iraq Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Were any of these people killed by the country that has heretofore had the greatest record in history on human rights? Just curious? Seems like because of who we are and what we aspire to be we should be held to the highest possible standards. Do you really disagree?

Were any of these people killed by the country that has heretofore had the greatest record in history on human rights? Just curious? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The U.S. still holds the greatest record in history on human rights. Are you suggesting that the deaths of these contractors are of no consequence, because U.S. agents didn't kill them? Is that really a moral position?

Seems like because of who we are and what we aspire to be we should be held to the highest possible standards. Do you really disagree? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

When U.S. service personnel commit murder (or rape, etc.), they should be punished. I think I've made myself clear on this point, via my posts in this thread, in regards to the OP's original question. Per the OP's original post subject, the U.S. is obviously still working to aspire to the highest possible standards. If you subscribe to the mock morality ascribed by Assange, you have left the moral arena and entered politics.

The US may or may not now hold the best record on human rights. It's certainly suffered greatly in the past ten years and shamefully, Obama is doing nothing to correct it.

No one has argued that the deaths of those you cite are of no consequence. But they have nothing to do with our human rights record nor do they justify, excuse, or lessen the immorality or inexusability of the conduct on these soldiers.