Because we haven't talked about Iraq enough...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This came up on my friend's page this morning.

followed by this .

When Rupert Hamer, the British journalist who served as the Sunday Mirror's war correspondent, was embedded with US forces in Afghanistan and was killed when an IED took out the MRAP he was traveling in, nobody seemed to give much of a shit. No general outcry, no "Those murderers!", no wailing and gnashing of teeth from blogs as different as Balko and BoingBoing.

But when a Reuters journalist is embedded with insurgents in Iraq who are approaching US armored vehicles while armed with weapons specifically designed to destroy such vehicles, and is engaged and killed in their company by a gunship crew who follows rules of engagement and directly asks for permission first, a whole bunch of people just about wet themselves in their eagerness to decry those who killed him.

Why is this?
-"Phanatic"

I have my own take behind the cut but I'm curious about what others have to say.


There is no discernible difference in my eyes, both were killed in action.

The responses to this incident reminds me of the Joker's monologue from "Dark Knight".

Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, it's all "part of the plan"...

...But if one of our Soldiers "The Good Guys", blows up a journalist everyone loses their freaking minds.

An american helicopter crew spotted a group of men gathering near an american convoy.

Weapons are clearly visible, 2 RPGs and a Light Machine-Gun. The standard AQ fire-team everywhere from Afghanistan to Chechnya for the last 15-20 years. Since the insurgents don't wear uniforms this armament and organization is the single best identifier.

They reported the situation and waited for permission to engage.

The enemy was defeated. Additional Insurgents attempted to extract the wounded before they could be captured but in doing so exposed themselves to American forces and were defeated as well.

This is war.

Support it, or oppose it, I won't judge.

All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it.


Disclamer:
I am an Iraq War vet, and a helicopter crewman to boot, so this story hits a little close-to-home for me.

Edit:
In the interests of "citing sources" here is CENTCOM's official report on the incident.

Comments

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Interesting thing that you brought up Palestine Hotel. You know why it was shelled? Cause one of the journalists decided to take a picture of the tanks passing by on the street. As in this case with reuters reporter, pointing long tube-ish objects without warning and identification at tanks, humvees, gunships and people with weapons in general - not the smartest idea. One of the tank crews noticed a guy up on the balcony aiming something that looks like an rpg at them, turned the turret and fired.

[paft.livejournal.com]

M: You know why it was shelled? Cause one of the journalists decided to take a picture of the tanks passing by on the street.

That was one of the reasons offered, along with the claim that the tank had been fired on from the hotel and that they'd seen an Iraqi "spotter" at the hotel. The problem with this is that the American military had, in fact, been told that there were reporters in the hotel. Firing on it because a war correspondent was doing his job (taking pictures of the war) indicates either a deliberate attack on journalists (doubtful) or a criminally negligent failure to inform the tank gunner that the Palestine Hotel was not a valid target.

m: As in this case with reuters reporter, pointing long tube-ish objects without warning and identification at tanks, humvees, gunships and people with weapons in general - not the smartest idea.

Where in this video does the reporter do this? In particular while, badly wounded, he's desperately crawling on his belly in an attempt to get away?

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Seriously do you think tank crew stopped for a second to check that building's address first? And they could have been taking fire. I don't remember all the details.

Who do you think was crouching around the corner of the building? If you read the reports (and I guess you didn't) there's a picture that was found on the reporter's camera - of the humvee several blocks away.

They didn't shoot while he was on the ground, they wanted to hence asking him to pick up a weapon, but they didn't. They shot when the van showed up, which by all accounts is a legitimate target. Since it's also wasn't marked and was assisting to what they thought was insurgent.

[paft.livejournal.com]

M: Seriously do you think tank crew stopped for a second to check that building's address first?

The Palestine Hotel was a rather significant landmark and yes, tank gunners are supposed to know what to fire on and what NOT to fire on.

M: And they could have been taking fire. I don't remember all the details.

I do. There is not a shred of evidence that they were taking fire from the hotel.

M: Who do you think was crouching around the corner of the building? If you read the reports (and I guess you didn't) there's a picture that was found on the reporter's camera - of the humvee several blocks away.

And this indicates....?

M: They didn't shoot while he was on the ground, they wanted to hence asking him to pick up a weapon, but they didn't. They shot when the van showed up, which by all accounts is a legitimate target.

A van picking up the wounded? No, that is not "by all accounts" a legitimate target.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

This indicates that a reporter in a group of armed men approached an intersection 200 meters away from army convoy and crouching behind the corner took a sneak picture of a humvee.

Now if you are circling 2km away above the city - you see a group of well armed men approaching an intersection 200 meters away from army convoy that you are protecting from above and see how one of the men sneaky crouching around the corner lifting up a long tube and aims it at the humvee...

If you are such a stickler to what you think are the rules everyone suppose to follow, did you ask yourself why the reporters didn't wear their PRESS blue jackets that would identify them?

A van that rushes on cue into an opening where people were just shot with 30mm chaingun, while several blocks away there's a moving convoy of humvees and bradleys, looks more like more insurgents coming in to rescue their buddies.

[paft.livejournal.com]

m: This indicates that a reporter in a group of armed men approached an intersection 200 meters away from army convoy and crouching behind the corner took a sneak picture of a humvee.

While he was crawling on his belly leaving a smear of blood on the ground? I didn't see anything in his hands in that footage.

M; A van that rushes on cue into an opening where people were just shot with 30mm chaingun, while several blocks away there's a moving convoy of humvees and bradleys, looks more like more insurgents coming in to rescue their buddies.

"Rushes in on cue?" I didn't see anything to indicate that. It happened to be there. The driver saw someone who was obviously severely injured, and stopped to do the right thing.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

p: While he was crawling on his belly leaving a smear of blood on the ground? I didn't see anything in his hands in that footage.

Noone was shooting him while he was crawling there. He was shot before that.

p: "Rushes in on cue?" I didn't see anything to indicate that. It happened to be there. The driver saw someone who was obviously severely injured, and stopped to do the right thing.

Did you see another live soul on those streets when camera zooms out. Noone in their right mind will go ooh i just saw two gunships spewing 30mm rounds from their chainguns.... oooh and I hear some small arms fire and Bradleys 25mm cannon! Let me go check it out what's going on!

[paft.livejournal.com]

p: While he was crawling on his belly leaving a smear of blood on the ground? I didn't see anything in his hands in that footage.
M: Noone was shooting him while he was crawling there. He was shot before that.

Well since that sequence is the one I've been talking about, what relevance do you imagine him earlier taking a picture of a Humvee has in this context?

m: Did you see another live soul on those streets when camera zooms out. Noone in their right mind will go ooh i just saw two gunships spewing 30mm rounds from their chainguns.... oooh and I hear some small arms fire and Bradleys 25mm cannon! Let me go check it out what's going on!

According to the surviving family members, the man who owned the van lived nearby and was taking his two children to a tutoring session. I suspect gunfire is not an uncommon sound in that area, even today. The guns had been stopped for several minutes. I can easily imagine someone thinking, okay, the guns have stopped. I can get my kids to their tutoring session now, pulling out, finding the injured man, and stopping to help him.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

And they could have been taking fire. I don't remember all the details.

They weren't taking fire. It had been dead for a while.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Considering how short a time it takes for an RPG to be fired, and the damage it can do, I cannot fault military personnel for shooting first. It's called self-preservation. Photographers have been warned over and over and over and over about telephoto lenses.

[paft.livejournal.com]

da: Considering how short a time it takes for an RPG to be fired, and the damage it can do, I cannot fault military personnel for shooting first. It's called self-preservation. Photographers have been warned over and over and over and over about telephoto lenses.

First, I want to get one thing out of the way here. I've said it once. I've said it twice. Okay. I'll say it one more time.

The Palestine Hotel WAS KNOWN to the American Military as a place where unembedded reporters were gathered. The American military was supposed to know NOT TO FIRE ON THE PALESTINE HOTEL. Given the job these reporters have, the American military was also supposed to know that reporters were going to be TAKING PICTURES OF THE WAR.

Because, you see, that was their job. As war correspondents.

Second, by every account, the tank firing on the Palestine was not some split second decision, done almost on reflex in response to a danger. It was quite deliberate. The tank turret swiveled. It aimed. It fired. This was not something that happened "quickly."

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

"I'm sorry to say it, but I'm the guy who killed the journalists. I'm really sorry, and I feel badly for their families, but I had no choice. My soldiers' lives were in danger."

That's what the Captain, as commander of the tank involved, said after the incident. It was dark, the soldiers were taking heavy machine gun fire, and thought they were returning fire at an enemy forward observer. All of the arrested soldiers were exonerated.

As a former tank platoon leader, I can assure you that tank firing at a target IS a split second decision, done on reflex in response to danger. From target sighting to firing the main gun, you have about 8 seconds to get a round off. If you don't - you're dead. I would have done the same thing.

Declaring a building "off limits" in the middle of a war is a fine thing, but it doesn't always work out.

[paft.livejournal.com]

da: It was dark,

It was during the day, and AFTER most of the heavy fighting. Hardly in the thick of battle.

da: the soldiers were taking heavy machine gun fire, and thought they were returning fire at an enemy forward observer.

There is not a shred of evidence anyone in or near the hotel was firing at them and in fact, most of the shooting had already stopped.

da: As a former tank platoon leader, I can assure you that tank firing at a target IS a split second decision, done on reflex in response to danger. From target sighting to firing the main gun, you have about 8 seconds to get a round off. If you don't - you're dead. I would have done the same thing.

By the soldier who fired the tank's own account, it was not done "on reflex." "I hesitated," he said. He swung his guns towards the hotel and asked his captain's permission to fire. It came ten minutes later. Then he fired.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

You are correct on the time of day; I found numerous conflicting early reports online in that regard. However, according to BOTH military and civilian journalists who were present, "most" of the fighting had NOT stopped in the area of the bridge, where the tanks were located. The hit on the Palestine Hotel was against a suspected forward observer (who would have been directing enemy mortar and rocket fire at U.S. troops), using an anti-personnel round designed to kill people - not destroy buildings.

The gunner requested permission to fire - not unusual given that particular situation - and received permission from the tank commander.

"I have just given the order that under no circumstances is anyone to shoot at the Palestine Hotel, even if they are taking fire, even if there is an artillery piece on top of the roof. No one is allowed to shoot at the Palestine Hotel again." This statement by the Captain's superior officer (who was not himself under fire) is bullshit by someone trying to cover their own ass after the fact. In a battle, tanks are vulnerable to rocket and mortar fire SPECIFICALLY directed by enemy forward observers.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I had been in that situation, I would have fired to protect my men - and suggested to the Colonel that he go get skull-f**ked. I would have been subsequently arrested, as were the soldiers involved, and then released, as they were. It was a bad outcome, and I would have felt as bad as the Captain did, but he still made the correct decision under the circumstances.

I don't see that much similarity between this and the video of the helicopter attack on the wounded man; in that case, I agree with your assessment. There is no excuse for killing a wounded person who clearly poses no threat.

[paft.livejournal.com]

da: II said it before, and I'll say it again. If I had been in that situation, I would have fired to protect my men - and suggested to the Colonel that he go get skull-f**ked. I would have been subsequently arrested, as were the soldiers involved, and then released, as they were.

Which is why so many of us civilians consider military "justice" a revolting joke.

[paft.livejournal.com]

e: My immediate reaction as the enemy on receiving that intelligence: Deploy an ambush team to the hotel, breaking in the back and into rooms at the front. Kill all witnesses. Initiate ambush on passing convoy with RPGs. The American Military Running Dogs will never expect an attack from a hotel containing journalists and if they fire back, their own people will eviscerate them for firing on innocent reporters and so popular support will diminish. Either way, I win!

I see Art Malik as the evil Islamofascist head of the ambush team, with maybe Kate Winslett as the feisty unembedded reporter and Keifer Sutherland as the tank commander. Bitchin!

Unfortunately, we're talking here about reality and nothing like that happened. The people who died in that hotel during the battle were killed by an American tank.

[paft.livejournal.com]

PFT: Unfortunately, we're talking here about reality and nothing like that happened. The people who died in that hotel during the battle were killed by an American tank.
e: Right, because the people inside the tank thought they were being targeted by a long tubular object that resembles offensive weaponry.

If that is the case, the people inside that tank saw a war correspondent doing his job from the very location where they'd been told war corresppndents would be staying.

e: I suppose they could have chanced it and maybe been blown up, but that would not have been the smart thing to do.

Riiiight. The SMART thing to do was to fire on a hotel they'd been told was full of reporters.

e: Yes, that hotel has unimbedded journalists in it. That doesn't give the hotel a pass in a warzone.

When the military officials have been notified that that is where reporters will be staying, and when in fact those same military officials recommend to unembedded reporters that they should stay there, so the military will know not to fire on the hotel, it most certainly does.

e: Might help if those photojournalists would stop using the ZOMG Penis Substitute Lens and stuck with something a little less similar to weaponry.

You really are intent on insulting these dead reporters, aren't you?

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

The terrorists might use disguises, Troops won't be able to identify them from real civilians until it's too late. Let's kill everybody. It's the only way our Troops can ever fight safely.

[paft.livejournal.com]

I understand it was also invoked during the St. Bartholemew's Day massacre.

Big fan of religious genocide, are you?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's the problem of fighting a war where the enemy is an extremist mutation of the culture of the majority of the population. Now, these strawmen do you no good.