US Soldier Charged with Leaking Video of Reuters' Photographer Being Killed

Just Dave

Just Dave

In Memoriam
Suspended / Banned
Messages
29,876
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Just found this US Army Private Bradley Manning suspected of leaking video footage of a U.S. Apache helicopter strike in Baghdad that killed two employees of the Reuters news agency has been charged, the military said on Monday, no wonder gunners called crazyhorse

http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_GB&fs=1
.
 
We see very few photo shots like that.
The USA and our forces are keeping a tight rein on what can get out.

We no longer have civilian photographers wandering about doing as they please in active areas, like in Korea or Vietnam.

As a soldier he was asking for trouble when subject to military law.

But it begs the question how much photographic evidence is out there to be unearthed.
 
Those guys are sick. They should be charged with murder. As an ex soldier I find that totally sickening. The totally ignored the rules of engagement.
 
Coaster said:
Those guys are sick. They should be charged with murder. As an ex soldier I find that totally sickening. The totally ignored the rules of engagement.
Click to expand...

Hard to disagree with that assessment - it's not the first time either...

Maybe the initial contact is understandable - with hindsight the Canon lens is clearly identifiable, but if you're expecting to see an RPG, then that's what it looks like.
I did see one individual in the background behind the photographer with what looked to me like an unloaded RPG-launcher...

The subsequent attack on what was obviously a civilian ambulance (I've been there - they all look like that) was totally outrageous...no weapons visible, no immediate threat other than the removal of the 'combatants'...
 
isnt this the same video we had the same discussion about a few months ago?
(not meant as a dig- just curious if there had been another leak)
 
This is a sick world we live in .............
 
its the same one its just that the soldier that leaked it has been charged ive been following it on wikileaks twitter page.

hes also meant to have leak some diplomatic cables that would embarrass people if they came out we wait
 
I fortunately do not have to make a decision if some one is armed or not from an image like that, but it did seem that they just wanted to shot them from the minute they saw them.
 
They should be charged with murder.... big gun toting, trigger-happy, red-neck pricks... and then they wonder why people hate them? :shrug:
 
IMHO they didn't asses the situation properly, if the people on the ground had weapons, surly they would have used them.

It looked and sounded more like they were playing a video game, but with lethal consequences... absolutely sickening
 
clowds said:
its the same one
Click to expand...

Ive not been around in a couple of months soz for the repost

clowds said:
its just that the soldier that leaked it has been charged ive been following it on wikileaks twitter page.

hes also meant to have leak some diplomatic cables that would embarrass people if they came out we wait
Click to expand...

Mmmm good to hear one Americans got a conscience :exit:
 
DekHog said:
They should be charged with murder.... big gun toting, trigger-happy, red-neck pricks... and then they wonder why people hate them? :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's alway easy sitting safely at home to judge these situations. Being in the middle of it must be different.
 
It's alway easy sitting safely at home to judge these situations. Being in the middle of it must be different.
Click to expand...

As a ex soldier I agree with your comment.
 
Just Dave said:
Dont think so they are suppose to be focused, surely they could have zoomed in to see what Saeed was holding a gun or camera
Click to expand...

Maybe? Have you been in an milatary operation such as this? I haven't. Would value the views of those who have.....how about you?
 
DekHog said:
They should be charged with murder.... big gun toting, trigger-happy, red-neck pricks... and then they wonder why people hate them? :shrug:
Click to expand...

By that statement, I assume you have experienced the pressure, futility and general crap that soldiers in warfare have to exist in?

Not excusing the Americans one iota, but sweeping statements from your safe European home doesn`t count for much.

Safe European Homes............Recorded by the Clash I do believe.............:thinking:
 
well it is the same incident, and the threads are headed the same way!

synopsis of the last one:
pilots made mistake, lives were lost.
those of us on here who are servng, or have served tended to agree that it started badly, and got worse, others seemed to want to hang someone.

Life on ops is not a computer game where you get to respawn when you get killed.

a common military phrase is ' better to be tried by twelve than carried by six'

I do believe that this shouldnt have been hushed up, mistakes get made, only when they are hushed up do things go wrong.

and with ref to the rules of engagement: our rules are different to the americans, although on my last tour of Iraq the rules had changed slightly that would have made it possible for me to fire upon someone in less than direct contact

A mate was wiped out by an A10 in Iraq in 03, the cockpit tape was in the media for a while, it was not nice to listen to, but it was released, and they didnt try to hush it up, a big difference
 
fracster said:
If you want to die, yes.
Click to expand...

well yeah im unsure of the rules. but then how do you asses that risk.. i could wander around out there with an AK47 dangling from my shoulder and not mean anyone any harm (personal protection and all that). does that mean i deserve to get nailed by a hank in a helicopter watching me through a video camera?

im just after clarification on the rules :)
 
It's not the troops who should be under the spotlight! .... It's the politicians .... They send them there to do what they do .......
 
There are no rules other than live or don`t live.


*sigh*.............forget it! Your right, i`m wrong.................:thumbs:
 
Hm. There is a difference between being fired upon and actually being hit.
 
I'm in two minds about it the first engagement.

They are a) just doing their job, and that is to eliminate potential threats. They are looking for threats - weapons (rpg's and ak47's), and they see a long dark object and a shorter dark object. You look for a shadow in a dark wood of something sinister and you're bound to see something you don't like. It's human nature.

But then b) they're looking for things. They're desperate to fire. They are separated from the situation, and so all they are shooting at is images on a screen really. It lacks the emotional connection to the situation and therefore it's a bit more gung-ho. Quotes such as, "Come on, let me shoot!" reinforce this.

The second engagement is downright basic brutatility, and there is no two ways about this.
They want to engage the vehicle, and are LYING, saying they are picking up weapons AND bodies, when it is clearly evident that they're only picking up bodies, which gives them permission to shoot according to the ROE (correct me if I'm wrong here, Rob).

I've been watching Generation Kill recently, and it reminds me of a scene in that. They're driving up towards an airfield that they're going to assault, and they're desperate to shoot. The ROE have been changed to include any personnel in the area as a potential threat. Some people are tending to their camels, and under the ROE one soldier is given permission to open fire by his superior.

It is later discovered that he fatally wounded a small child - he was tending to his camels.

It's got to be a stressful environment to live in, no doubt about it. And all of you guys saying "Well he could have seen it was a camera."
No, you could have seen it was a camera if you were looking for a camera. If you're looking for an AK47 it looks bloody similar to an AK47.
 
Just Dave said:
Yes Ni Belfast
Click to expand...

What your view is then may have some value, but DEK HOG'S post seem's a little extreme to me.
Those helicopters are a fair distance away as I understand.
I alsao appreciate these:
Maybe the initial contact is understandable - with hindsight the Canon lens is clearly identifiable, but if you're expecting to see an RPG, then that's what it looks like.
I did see one individual in the background behind the photographer with what looked to me like an unloaded RPG-launcher...

The subsequent attack on what was obviously a civilian ambulance (I've been there - they all look like that) was totally outrageous...no weapons visible, no immediate threat other than the removal of the 'combatants'...
Click to expand...

As a ex soldier I agree with your comment
Click to expand...
 
Yeah it's a crazy world we live in with Canon making 70-200mm rpg's whats next?

That red neck was itching to pull the trigger, yeah it can't be easy out there doing a tour, but they had plenty of time to asses the situation, and clearly they made the wrong choices.
 
foodpoison said:
I'm in two minds about it the first engagement.

They are a) just doing their job, and that is to eliminate potential threats. They are looking for threats - weapons (rpg's and ak47's), and they see a long dark object and a shorter dark object. You look for a shadow in a dark wood of something sinister and you're bound to see something you don't like. It's human nature.

But then b) they're looking for things. They're desperate to fire. They are separated from the situation, and so all they are shooting at is images on a screen really. It lacks the emotional connection to the situation and therefore it's a bit more gung-ho. Quotes such as, "Come on, let me shoot!" reinforce this.

The second engagement is downright basic brutatility, and there is no two ways about this.
They want to engage the vehicle, and are LYING, saying they are picking up weapons AND bodies, when it is clearly evident that they're only picking up bodies, which gives them permission to shoot according to the ROE (correct me if I'm wrong here, Rob).

I've been watching Generation Kill recently, and it reminds me of a scene in that. They're driving up towards an airfield that they're going to assault, and they're desperate to shoot. The ROE have been changed to include any personnel in the area as a potential threat. Some people are tending to their camels, and under the ROE one soldier is given permission to open fire by his superior.

It is later discovered that he fatally wounded a small child - he was tending to his camels.

It's got to be a stressful environment to live in, no doubt about it. And all of you guys saying "Well he could have seen it was a camera."
No, you could have seen it was a camera if you were looking for a camera. If you're looking for an AK47 it looks bloody similar to an AK47.
Click to expand...

Good Analogy Sean, but zoom and lens come to mind
 
neil_g said:
thanks for the links, i'll have a read.

im not sure those people in the vid looked hell bent on killing anyone though to be honest.. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No noncoms ever do!

As stated previously, i`m not excusing what happened, but I can understand how it did.Yes, they were wrong,IMO.
 
I have no doubt that in the heat of battle mistakes can be made by decent soldiers. I can't imagine the pressure they operate under and wouldn't try to. On the whole our boys do us very proud and I support them 100%.

However the second engagement on the van is totally unwarranted - no sign of guns, they are clearly collecting wounded.

Some of the comments made do not reflect someone under pressure but someone eager to kill regardless of who or why.

The final insult is to say this is what you get if you bring your kids into battle - just because people are in uniform doesn't mean they operate outside of the law or common human decency - animals ...
 
neil_g said:
is it still the case that youre not supposed to fire unless fired upon?
Click to expand...

I think that's only on UN operations where the UN forces are clearly marked as peacekeepers. The war in Iraq was a policing action, not a peacekeeping/humanitarian one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top