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

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Yeah man like historically speaking medics wore those arm patches as a polite notification to enemy soldiers to shoot them first. That's exactly it, you understand the basic principles of being a civilized human being in a society so exactly.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Do you have any idea of when the "principles of the civilized world" were agreed upon or why

Hint: when was the Geneva Convention, was it before WWI? You can look that one up on Google if you have to

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

"Practical reality" being that it's better and easier to fight wars where medics are targeted, both sides use poison gas, genocide is the norm on any battlefield, and anyone unfortunate to be captured will be tortured and killed? The whole point of stuff like the Convention was that fighting lawless warfare using modern tools very nearly depopulated Europe, as in nobody left alive to win and nothing left to be won on any side, and outside of minor violations quickly called to light they've been very religiously held to since.

Are you like fourteen or something?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

My, you certainly showed some restraint.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Geneva convention is like rules at duels. I can guarantee you if, God forbid, we have a war for survival the convention will be the first thing out of the window.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Sure thing! We're not at war for survival right now, though, and ignoring the rules just whenever they get inconvenient is a great way to make any non-existential conflict into a war for survival.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify:

The Geneva Conventions state that protections must be afforded to people who “collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.” The understanding here is that such people are clearly designated as noncombatants—by wearing a prominently displayed red cross, or red crescent, on their persons, for instance—or who are obviously civilians. A “positively identified” combatant who provides medical aid to someone amid fighting does not automatically lose his status as a combatant, and may still be legally killed.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Not saying that the guy qualified for the protections of medics, it doesn't seem likely as I understand the rules - but what makes the guy driving the van "positively identified" as a combatant? The military investigation (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA) you yourself linked states only that the van was being "used as a means of escape" and that "It is unknown what, if any, connection the van had to the insurgent activity" - basically, doesn't sound like they thought the driver was a combatant at all.

Had the van been actually marked with the red cross/red crescent/red diamond I'd be sayin' the soldiers responsible should be in prison, alls I'm sayin' now is it's healthy to have some public furor and it'd be good to adjust combat policy to reduce the death rate of noncombatants like reporters and the guy in the van. This is about as low-stakes a war as war can be (for Americans), I think strict adherence to the Geneva Convention is called for, and to the extent it's feasible I'd rather the military erred on the side of sticking to the spirit of the law. It's sort of horrifying how many people here and elsewhere in the US want to just throw all the rules of civilization out the first instant they become inconvenient.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

And if reuters reporters wore their blue PRESS vests... btw they didn't even wore their press badges - they were recovered in their belongings or in pockets when their bodies were transported to base by iraqi police.
See I'm a little biased with these reporters. Back in 2008 reuters reporter in iraq was arrested for connection with insurgency. During 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon reuters photographer photoshoped pictures to show more destruction that there really was. Or France2 cameraman filming fake death of Al Dorrah in palestine. That's what I just remember from the top of my mind that's why I'm not discounting the thought that the reporters were there actually with enemy combatants.

... At the first instant the rules will get our troops killed more frequent than enemy.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

they were recovered in their belongings or in pockets when their bodies were transported to base by iraqi police.

Is that what they were saying? I took that part of the report to mean the reporters had ID on but when they infantry squad showed up they kinda, y'know, decided not to see anything funny, for pretty much the sort of reason you just described. A lot of this stuff is so goddamn vague anything that isn't immediately obvious can be read to favor whatever side you're more willing to assume more charitable things about, makes it a pain in the ass to really get anything worthwhile from.

The van was seen before in the unedited video.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7928/90016369.jpg
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You know, the reality is that the WWII powers that *did* ratify the Geneva Convention adhered to it strictly. Germany, Japan, the USSR, and the USA never ratified it before the war, and that very fact that the USSR had never ratified was the excuse Germany used to wage its genocide against the Slavs.

And it hardly depopulated Europe, the USSR took the worst casualties of any European power and unless I'm mistaken the USSR was Europe's largest country by population even after the Russian Civil War, the Stalinist terror, and the Axis-Soviet War.....

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Geneva Convention? Oh that treaty we signed that we currently ignore.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The USA never ratified it until after WWII.......

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

That explains why corpsman regularly DID NOT advertise.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Army medics regularly did, the Red Cross does. It's not obligatory, Americans don't always fight people who accept the rules of war as stated in the Geneva Conventions, and the system doesn't always work without fail any more than anything else involving tens of thousands of scared people with guns, but the importance of sparing combat medics has mostly been taken seriously enough that the bulk of organizations opt to wear the patches and be identified.

While the van was apparently not marked and thus not subject to any of these legal protections, killing medical personnel on the battlefield when they're clearly recognizable as such, as a general practice, still isn't cool, and it isn't smart.