posted by
n1
on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:44PM
from the known-unknowns-of-collateral-damage dept.
from the known-unknowns-of-collateral-damage dept.
A Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) hospital was bombed by the US. Result, 12 dead staff members and 10 dead patients. The coordinates of the hospital had been communicated to the US forces before to avoid mistakes. The US admits the attack was a decision. MSF is now seeking an independent inquiry.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Afghan Hospital Bombing: MSF Demands Investigation Under Geneva Conventions
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 97 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by moondoctor on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:24PM
While I believe this is a very, very important story, is this the Direction Soylent is heading? I like the nerdy stuff. Politics tends to get weird. Honest discussions about techy stuff with smart people with similar interests to me is why I'm here.
Gotta say, I like soylent a lot. Over time my split between here and the unmentionable site has been going more and more to soylent. Finding the discussions on this site to be interesting and informative and less cluttered with idiots and trolls. Thank you!
p.s. I think that there should be an impartial international investigation, with charges and penalties where required.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tramii on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:31PM
According to https://soylentnews.org/about.pl: [soylentnews.org]
"We are a volunteer-powered news aggregation site that deliver articles about technology, science, and general interest."
If you don't like discussing politics, then don't read the political posts.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:25PM
I'm feeling somewhat the same way, but then we just have an insulated and isolated site where we come to escape the brutality of the real world.
The truth is, these are very serious things that are happening. Our government has knowingly bombed a hospital, killed doctors who risked their lives as part of that group, and killed innocent patients. Even if those patients were known terrorists, high on the list, it's an affront to human decency, and a blight on America's soul, that we killed them and their doctors at the same time.
It was a *hospital*. Yeah, I don't like Politics either around here most of the time. However, do you *really* think this is political? Politics is reserved to *talking* about laws, treaties, etc. Politics is supposed to be the art of negotiation and compromise. Bombing a hospital is *not* politics. We've come so far from whatever respect we had as honorable participants in military action, that we are just highwaymen and thugs now.
SoylentNews posts these articles because American's (which I think may be the primary audience) need to know just how thoroughly, and abhorrently, their government is failing them. We've become the monsters we hated. Perhaps we should know that. I for one don't want an insulated site where we delude ourselves into thinking everything is okay. It may not be as bad as many misanthropes feel it is, but it's for damn sure not anything rosy either.
I'm going to disagree, and say that we need to hear these things.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday October 08 2015, @10:17PM
After 9/11, watching American politics and foreign policy was a lot like watching the rise of Nazi Germany in slow motion, kicked off by America's own Reichstag fire [wikipedia.org] (9/11 itself).
But about the hospital bombing, I don't feel much sympathy for those killed or injured in the bombing because people who go to war-torn shitholes with populations of feral savages to save lives are a lot more stupid and insane than they are altruistic.
I feel sorry for those in the hospital like I feel sorry for people who stick their dicks in beehives.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday October 08 2015, @11:01PM
Let's remember that those beehive-abusing idiots are largely responsible for whatever goodwill we have with the rest of the world and those "shitholes". The fact they keep risking their lives and dying might actually be meaningful to *some* of the savages.
Otherwise, you're saying everything they did was in vain. I don't feel that way at all.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 09 2015, @12:59PM
Medecins Sans Frontieres generates goodwill, but not for America because they are a French organization. The US equivalent would be something like the Peace Corps, but I don't hear too much press these days about how the world loves us for the work those people do.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday October 09 2015, @01:08PM
Yeah man! USA! USA!! USA!!!
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Friday October 09 2015, @02:58AM
yup, which makes the US now guilty of violating the geneva conventions [icrc.org]. torturing people was bad enough, now we're actively violating the geneva conventions? everyone involved in this, all the way up to the general who approved the attack, needs to be tried for their war crimes.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:50AM
This Isn’t The First Time The U.S. Has Bombed A Hospital [thinkprogress.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday October 09 2015, @12:08PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hyperturtle on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:35PM
I think it is of value, since it certainly touches upon information security.
You know -- Trust, but Verify.
Something was lacking here, and someone should be responsible. Neutral parties -- the types you want to keep alive -- were killed due to what appears to be a command level ignorance related event. The pilot would certainly not know better, I would think, but he received orders. Those orders should have been fact checked.
Or, they were -- and the facts were ignored.
Or there was information that justified the decision due to information we are not aware of -- perhaps staff at the hospital had nefarious plans. Who knows.
The fact is, it is a large enough mishap that it should be treated seriously. An apology doesn't prevent mistakes from happening again.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Thursday October 08 2015, @10:07PM
Even if a doctor or patient there were planning something nefarious, was bombing the building and murdering innocents the only option? Is it okay now to murder people at random in pursuit of a suspect?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @11:57PM
A lot of people don't seem to understand war zones. I was deployed to Iraq for more then a year, and out on mission daily. Let me clue some of you in.
To start with the call came in from an allied unit. Something along the lines of we need air support, receiving heavy hostile fire from these coordinates.
When you get that sort of call there is no list of "DO NOT BOMB LOCATIONS." there isn't. You depend upon the intel you were given. When you receive the request you send the planes. There is no if ands or butts. It is on the unit who is supplying the intel to ensure that they have sent you to the right location, and usually it is right. I mean you life depends upon it being right. You give the wrong coordinates you can end up calling in an air strike on yourself.
In this situation it was the Afghan unit that called in the strike. Now I cannot speak for the Afghans, but if I were to imagine the IA or IP in that situation I can think of a number of things that could have gone wrong.
1) They were receiving fire and did not know it was a hospital. Usually the units fighting in hotspots have few if any locals.
2) They were receiving fire and they did not care it was a hospital. The IA and IP did not seem to care about rules much.
3) They were receiving fire from elsewhere, and screwed up the coordinates. The local units rarely have excellent training.
Now no matter how inept the locals are I cannot see them calling in a strike if they were not under fire. I also not in my foggiest can I imagine the Americans bombing a hospital on purpose. It is drilled into you starting in basic and continuing throughout your career: You do not fire on places of worship. You do not fire on schools. You do not fire on Medical personnel or buildings. Hell you do not fire at an enemy once you have passed him. Once you pass him he is a pow.
The thing is our enemies know that, and they have NO qualms with breaking the rules of war, after all they are not a signatory to it. While I was deployed from Iraq we were attacked on numerous occasions from mosques and schools. It was always via small arms, we would post up in our vehicles and surround the place. You weren't even allowed to enter and clear the building without permission from the local religious authority. It would honestly not surprise me if the enemy combatants had gone into the compound knowing that no one would touch them. Then you get poorly trained, ambivalent to rules locals and I can see them calling in the air strike.
To top it all off anyways, the fighting had been heavy in the city for a few days, why had the hospital not been evacuated? You don't just stay in a war zone, you evacuate. You cannot help anyone when you get killed because you refused to leave. I am also curious to how the MSF compound was marked. Was the building marked with red crosses or crescents? That is the international symbol of don't fire at me I am medical personnel. I also want to know who they called to stop the bombing? Did they call the coalition headquarters in the capital? I hope that isn't who they called, that would be the slowest way to get that stopped. I can see it now, some doctor/nurse whoever screaming in broken English to call off the attack. I can see the befuddled look on the privates (yes, yes it is the privates tasked with answering the phone) face. Umm what attack, where, who are you, slow down I dont understand, you called the front desk I dont even know where to take this, etc, etc. Hell to top it all off how would the private even know that the person calling is who he says he is? How do I know you aren't an enemy combatant trying to get the bombing called off?
Frankly as far as I am concerned they should have been evacuated, they should of had a working relationship with the local coalition troops, and after the bombing started they should have hightailed it out of there. If you are in a warzone you should not act surprised when you wind up dead.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Friday October 09 2015, @12:28AM
"It is drilled into you starting in basic and continuing throughout your career: You do not fire on places of worship. You do not fire on schools. You do not fire on Medical personnel or buildings. Hell you do not fire at an enemy once you have passed him. Once you pass him he is a pow."
and yet, you spent the opening of your comment saying how you had NO CLUE where/who you were bombing the shit out of, so how do you square that circle ? ? ?
um, did you happen to think that *maybe* Empire has its iron fist so organized such that private nobody has NO EFFECTIVE means of making their OWN MORAL decisions when it comes to matters of who to kill ? ? ? which you claim the military instructs you to to consider humanitarian factors, war krimes law, etc; and i am highly skeptical that 'training' amounts to 1/1000th of the training to kill instinctively and without hesitation under orders from a superior officer (sic)...
again, NO INDIVIDUAL 'moral' decision welcomed or tolerated under those circumstances, which is ALL circumstances...
tell me ONE TIME in the his story of the us military a soldier has been rewarded for refusing orders to kill people he thought not valid targets ? ? ?
ONCE...
AND, if you find that one -or so- times (highly skeptical again), tell me what that paucity reflects...
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Friday October 09 2015, @12:25PM
This is of course why those who are giving the orders are 1000 times as responsible as those who are drilled into obeying orders. Big heads should roll. The guys on the ground probably feel pretty shitty already about their involvement. Ever seen the suicide rates for vet's?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @04:37AM
Your credibility is almost zero. American? Signed up to fight the War on Terra? So you know just as much about the International Law of Armed Conflict as your superiors allowed you to. Thanks for the info on the operational points, that may help the discussion. But then you say:
after all they are not a signatory to it.
Doesn't matter, if enough nations sign on to conventions, they become "customary" law, and even not signatories can be held to it an punished for violations of it. And even in a case where one side in a conflict violated the laws of war, this does not in any way authorize the other side to respond in kind. Retaliation is a war crime. Flat out. No mitigating factors. Yes, in combat, as JEBush says, stuff happens. But if it happens on purpose, like targeting the wounded and medics, it is a war crime. And even if those responsible return to a nice cushy federal job and a military pension and are never prosecuted, they are still war criminals.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @08:02AM
The US has a stated policy of not handing over American citizens to the international court on war crimes.
Tell me, if a US state suddenly made a stated policy of not prosecuting bank robbers, how do you think people with less than perfect morals would feel about all that free money just sitting around in banks?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 09 2015, @08:59AM
It doesn't matter whether the other party has signed up to the convention - the US has. You are obliged therefore to follow it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday October 09 2015, @09:05AM
Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Forces Committee on Tuesday, General John Campbell admitted for the first time that US Special Forces on the ground called in a strike from an AC-130 gunship, killing 12 medical staff and 10 patients on Saturday. [vice.com]
It wasn't just an 'allied unit' - it was a US unit that called in the strike. The US has signed up to the Geneva Convention, and are obliged to comply with it. This does look like a war crime, but an independent investigation is needed to get at the truth and not the spin being put on it by the Pentagon.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 09 2015, @01:27PM
Yeah, good luck with prosecuting anyone in America for war crimes. Dick Cheney should be rotting in a cell somewhere, but nope, free as a bird. A good chunk of Washington DC should be sitting in cells for Guantanamo alone, but nope, nada. CIA torture sites? Nope.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:23PM
Are you suggesting that we should stop carrying about laws because some criminals get away? Because that would be absurd.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 09 2015, @01:14PM
I wouldn't say it's the direction SN is heading. The vast majority of the article submissions are scientific/technological, with a smattering of lifehacking and political topics. Even most of the political topics are related to technology and science policy (such as net neutrality, government surveillance, telecommunications monopolies, etc). There were a handful of pure political submissions today so it's probably why it felt like a "direction," but that sort of thing is not typical. That, too, is probably driven in large part by a current Presidential campaign season in the US.
That said, I don't mind the occasional pure political discussion because it's the only place I know of where you get people of all stripes chiming in. Every other place I frequent (Drudge, RedState, DailyKos, etc) are echo chambers and there nobody is allowed to express opinions that are outside their particular memespheres. You do get the ideological catchphrases hatched elsewhere and repeated here, but they nearly always draw robust counterargument that withers the weakest parts of their theses. Generally the folks that start out spouting ideological trollish comments return with re-cast, stronger positions because they must. That is as it should be; It is how the agora [wikipedia.org] is supposed to work.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:29PM
So the word is that there were and generally are Taliban enemy combatants in Doctors Without Borders hospitals. They take everybody. The local afghan police/defense forces take umbrage with that. Those same Afghan police/defense forcess called in that they were being attacked by machine gun fire specifically coming from that building and that is still their official position.
I posit a hypothetical that is not dependent on the previous stated knowledge, but just chose to get that out of the way so it does not need to be repeated. The hypothetical goes as follows:
Doctors Without Borders repeatedly claims that they communicated their coordinates to US forces with an expectation that doing so would make them immune to attack. Was there any authentication part of that process and if so what was it? If there really is a way to communicate coordinates to avoid being attacked, wouldn't every enemy try to do it as much as possible?
Even if there is an excellent, foolproof authentication mechanism between Doctors Without Borders and the US miltary, it would not be difficult or out of character for the Taliban to coerce through force, torture, threat of violence, or simply murdering children one by one in front of doctors, to get the Doctors Without Borders staff from calling in whatever coordinates the Taliban wants.
And even if that was completely impossible through the magic of Allah himself, there still is the problem of battlefield dynamics changing a once friendly grid square into an enemy base.
Really there is not good reason to have a "Coordinates off limits for attack" field in a military database.
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:49PM
I have no idea how the verification system actually works. For all we know MSF might just post the GPS coords on their Twitter account and think they're safe. But if I was responsible for creating such a system the direction of verification would flow the opposite direction. MSF tells us where their hospital is, and then we send someone from the Army/USAF to verify and conduct reconnaissance on the building. It could probably be done by drone these days, but we also have Forward Air Controllers who specialize in doing that. They're probably already there in Afghanistan.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by BK on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:05PM
It sounds a lot like that is what was used here. This wasn't a missile from a ship 200 miles away. If either force has combatants in the compound or in the building or on the roof, then the place becomes a target. It isn't nice, but that's how things work in active combat zones.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:44PM
Some google terms to search are "Land Warrior" and "PM WIN-T" The wiki links are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Warrior [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_WIN-T [wikipedia.org]
In the 70s computerized consumer billing ran public utilities and stuff thru their little "THE COMPUTER IS ALWAYS RIGHT" moment. This is likely an early computerized military analogy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:53PM
> Really there is not good reason to have a "Coordinates off limits for attack" field in a military database.
Indeed. Forward Operating Bases should always be on the targeting list. You know, just in case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:00PM
They are. It's called "Danger close".
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:22PM
The pilot in the air can't really tell what the building on the ground is used for. The Afghan army called in airstrikes in the middle of the night (which it admits it did, because they were taking fire from the hospital). The hospital had no roof markings. Early reports say Nato forces were taking fire, but that isn't the case, it was Afghan army.
The doctors deny that there was anyone firing from the hospital grounds:
http://www.gulf-times.com/afghanistan/219/details/457460/medical-aid-group-denies-taliban-were-firing-from-afghan-hospital-hit-by-air-strike [gulf-times.com]
The Afghan army seems to have a grudge against this hospital because the above link states:
"Earlier this year, an Afghan special forces raid in search of a suspected al Qaeda operative prompted the hospital to temporarily close to new patients after the soldiers were accused of behaving violently towards staff."
Seems odd a soldier would mistreat hospital workers unless they thought there was some collusion going on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:43PM
That does not follow. Why would an accusation of soldiers inspecting a hospital behaving violently necessitate no more wounded could enter the hospital for a period of time? That just sounds like vindictiveness on the hospital's part. "Be mean to us and we will let your people die."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:07PM
Er, no. Hospitals are supposed to be safe for patients. When the army feels like it can raid a hospital at will looking for enemies then the hospital is no longer safe for patients. They can't easily move all of their current patients but they can stop taking in new ones.
This whole thread is full of war pigs. I don't know if you are just ignorant or are actual apologists. But fuck, get a clue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @10:33PM
lol, i'm sure when someone commits a murder they flee to a hospital because they are safe there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:25AM
I'm all for saving lives, but when you are fighting a group that beheads children to catchy music and puts it online for the world to see, I find it acceptable to walk into hospitals where they are being treated and shoot the bastards.
They murder innocent civilians for fun. They don't deserve human rights because they opted to give up their humanity. Watch some of their own promotional videos and get a clue. There is no honor in bandaging up these adversaries.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by tathra on Friday October 09 2015, @03:03AM
they don't have to play by the rules of war, they're not geneva convention signatories like we are. we shouldn't sink to their level, and not just because we're bound by international law, but because if we do sink to their level then we're not better than they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @09:49AM
We put people in prison for life all the time. Why is eliminating the treat to civilians "stooping to their level"?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @08:16AM
You are writing their propaganda for them.
"When you are fighting a group find it acceptable to walk into hospitals where they are being treated and shoot the patients, we find it acceptable to behead their children and fly planes into their buildings".
And that's why, when fighting evil, you must NEVER sink to their level. A fight against evil will always be unfair, because good has rules, evil does not. Drop the rules, and it becomes evil against evil, and when evil fights against evil, evil always wins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @09:51AM
Shooting an enemy combatant is not the same as beheading children or literally lighting people on fire just to watch them burn. Why are there so many terrorist apologists here?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:08PM
If standing up for international law and vilifying war criminals makes one a "terror apologist", then you're damn right I'm a "terror apologist".
(Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Friday October 09 2015, @09:15AM
But killing the doctors and nurses too is not simply 'killing the bastards' - it is killing everybody. And if the doctors were treating Taliban casualties them remember that their oath requires them to do just that. They are sworn to treat all people whom they are able to treat without prejudice. That is why they are considered non-combattants - they do not support any particular side in a conflict. US military medics have the same obligation when it is safe for them to do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:31AM
The only apologist I see is you, the one that is apologizing for ISIS and their need for a safe haven. Where are the safe havens they give the kurds and the turks?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:05AM
Safe havens during war exist for everyone. [crimesofwar.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @09:56AM
Tell that to the tens of thousands of innocent, unarmed, civilians being slaughtered by the same people being protected by these safe havens.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Friday October 09 2015, @08:19AM
No, You are being an apologist by lowering yourself to their level. Are you just trolling or really that stupid?
A civilisation is judged by how it reacts when things get though, not by what it preaches when all is well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @09:54AM
You have no idea what those words mean.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:06PM
You are whitewashing. Please remove yourself from the premises...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:08AM
Really there is not good reason to have a "Coordinates off limits for attack" field in a military database.
Yes there are, not limited to the following:
- Civilians may be in the area
- The area might cause political or cultural fallout if touched
- Red Cross or other friendlies may be in the area
Marking off-limit targets is standard for any operation, especially in an urban area.
There is no excuse for CAS to just run down a target without visual coordination from a ground unit or the commanding unit.
there still is the problem of battlefield dynamics changing a once friendly grid square into an enemy base.
This is what the intelligence branch and recon is for.
Just because your enemies are uncivil doesn't mean you get to be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:28AM
Wow you completely ignored my first few sentences that refute everything you have to say. The mind boggles as to how you got up modded. There were eyes on the ground. They were the ones that called it in. The hospital says they were wrong. Those are the facts.
What I want to discuss is the absurdity of having a coordinates-based zone where no attacks can be taken place. You can bet your ass every enemy will hide out in that box. Its pathetic to even think that you can win a war or even protect your own people if you have official off-limits areas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:10AM
Take your complaints to the UN [beyondintractability.org].
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 09 2015, @09:20AM
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=9945&cid=247315 [soylentnews.org]
The Pentagon has admitted that US Special Forces called the raid in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @10:01AM
You cited yourself which cites a vice article which has a clickbait headline and inside says:
Either you didn't read it or are a liar or both. What credibility do you have?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 09 2015, @11:27AM
The attack was requested by the Afghan forces but actually called by US SF - they are responsible for ensuring that the GC is complied with. If they do not know it is a hospital, they should not be calling in a strike. The US had been provided with the information that they needed by MSF. You cannot absolve yourself from the obligations of the GC simply by saying someone else asked you to do something.
I did read it. I am not a liar. But, unlike yourself, I understand the GC am also very aware of the its requirements and was, for a short time in my career, actually responsible for teaching it to others. My credibility is there. Dear AC - what is yours?
Taken from the statement of General Campbell. given under oath, from the article I had linked to.
Now, I suggest AC that you read that article again, and this time try to understand what it says.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:26PM
Like with the shelling of the reporter's HQ in Iraq [wikipedia.org] and the accused war criminals wanted by the European Court of Human Rights but sheltered from justice by the US government.
(Score: 2) by BK on Thursday October 08 2015, @11:08PM
Yep, some guy in a tank thought he was shooting at a forward Artillery Observer. The general consensus is that this is legit.
According to wikipedia:
I guess that makes the Spanish Judge a bit like a climate change denier? There's a consensus after all.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @01:48AM
CPJ has learned that Pentagon officials, as well as commanders on the ground in Baghdad, knew that the Palestine Hotel was full of international journalists and were intent on not hitting it.
Just the weather. As happened now with MSF. Nothingh to see. Move on. All fair and legit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @08:22AM
If simply saying you thought so makes one avoid court, from now on every criminal will say they thought they were shooting a rapist, not a police officer.
In a system of justice, you are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but you do not get to claim innocence when the reason is that you keep avoiding showing up in court.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:12PM
Unless you're a cop, then the courts will agree that your plea of ignorance of the law, the constitution, and the identity of the person you murdered in cold blood as an innocent is valid, but that's for another story.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:30PM
Very odd wording. The clear implication in that sentence is there was a decision to knowingly bomb the hospital.
I suspect that was the AC's intent.
But that is NOT what the general said. Click it and listen.
He said the decision was to provide air support to the Afghan army was a US decision.
Afghan Army were the the ones designating the targets. The pilot could not have known what the target was.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by n1 on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:55PM
From The Guardian [theguardian.com]:
I'd be quite concerned if the US just takes out any target the Afghans or another coalition partner points them in the direction of, which is clearly not what happens if that statement is accurate.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:58PM
Yea we should always try to avoid these sort of incidents and the record demonstrates we do a pretty darned good job of avoiding these sort of clusterfscks. But they are going to happen. When you are operating in a war zone you kinda have to accept that war might happen. The military will eventually sort out what went wrong, if anything[1], and learn from it. That is what we do. And we don't need some international gang of misfits in the way to do it.
[1] Remember we aren't dealing with civilized enemies who respect the Rules of War here, we are dealing with people who routinely operate out of hospitals, mosques and civilian areas with the goal of being targeted and then using the dead as propaganda weapons. And the 'International Community' knows this and lends enthusiastic support because they share common goals.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @10:24PM
That is what we do. And we don't need some international gang of misfits in the way to do it.
A. Hitler, 1939
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @10:09AM
Be careful with that. The western world is having an aneurysm about killing a handful of civilians. The other side is waging genocide on multiple fronts with multiple armies. When we were fighting off Hitler and a target needed to be taken out, we would send 250 bombers and turn the whole area into a moonscape, kill hundreds of civilians to hit one building, and call it the cost of war.
We created smart munitions to stop that from being necessary. The fact that we are having a discussion about this shows the massive progress we have made. Still, nothing is perfect and if we activity try for perfection then we would simply be forced to let ISIS run over whatever they want while they use their usual tactics of hiding in civilian areas and using human shields.
Those millions of Syrians are running away from something. I think we should do something to stop that something, even if we aren't perfect.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday October 09 2015, @11:05AM
> When we were fighting off Hitler and a target needed to be taken out, we would send 250 bombers and turn the whole area into a moonscape, kill hundreds of civilians to hit one building, and call it the cost of war.
Yup. And immediately afterwards, that self-same "we" went and wrote & signed the 1949 Geneva Convention in an attempt to prevent that kind of shit from ever happening again. You don't get to claim the WWII generation for your side of the argument. Quite the opposite, in fact.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 09 2015, @12:16PM
no, we're having an aneurysm over the deliberate commission of a war crime - the a direct bombing of a hospital, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions [icrc.org] no matter how you look at it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Friday October 09 2015, @01:58AM
If anything? If anything?!? What went wrong is quite clear and has already been admitted, we bombed a hospital full of doctors and non-combatant patients, doing immeasurable damage to our international reputation and violating the established Rules of War which we have sworn to follow.
It doesn't matter how (un)civilized you think the enemy is. Everyone involved in a conflict always makes that claim anyway, so it's frequently meaningless. But even if it's completely true, it's still meaningless. The only thing that matters in a conflict is how civilized _we_ are. We don't get a free pass to commit war crimes in violation of the Geneva Convention just because our enemy might be violating the Geneva Convention. We have to follow the rules that we have agreed to and accept the consequences of violating those rules or we end up just as lacking in honor as the supposed enemy. And don't give me that crap about, "No war has been officially declared so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply." That's just juvenile sophistry of the highest order.
If it is in fact the enemy's goal to operate out of protected civilian bases for the specific purpose of being targeted so they can use the end results for propaganda, it seems to me that's a perfect observation of exactly why those facilities should never be targeted under any circumstances. Because it doesn't matter if that hospital was chock full of "terrorists" and completely devoid of non-combatants, what matters is that the whole world now knows you just bombed a goddamn hospital. And it was full of civilian doctors this time.
As a former Marine and son of a Marine, and an American-born citizen descended from I don't even know how many generations of Americans, it never ceases to amaze me how the conservative war-hawk mind can't seem to comprehend how stupid, dishonorable and completely counterproductive it is to commit any sort of violations of things like the Geneva Convention, or argue that they are somehow justified under some specific set of circumstances. You're just descending to the level of the opposition forces and playing right into their hands, acting as willing participants in their campaign to show how their enemy has no honor or moral authority. You wrestle with the pig, you get covered in stinky mud to the point where nobody can tell the two of you apart by sight, sound or smell.
(I don't even have the slightest clue what you meant by the last sentence (in either paragraph), unless it was, "The whole world is out to get 'Murica 'cuz we're the Good Guys[TM]!" "International gang of misfits"? I can't even.)
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @10:19AM
That's cute. You think honor exists. Let me guess and say you never actually saw an active warzone. The greenhorns always talk about honor until they see what war looks like for themselves.
It's the job of service members to go out and kill enemy soldiers, innocent of any crimes. Don't talk about juvenile sophistry when you hang the rule of law against murder in favor of your profession. That is what we do. Kill people. That is what the armed forces is. You clearly are naive.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Friday October 09 2015, @02:45PM
nope, the job of service members (i'm assuming you mean infantrymen specifically here), per FM 7-8: [globalsecurity.org]
killing is neither a requirement nor recommended during combat, since killing a person only takes that one person out of combat, but wounding him takes out him, and the 2-3 more guys that will have to take care of him. or at least thats what they taught us at Infantry AIT. and there are legitimate justifications for the use of deadly force, such as self-defense (which a firefight is by definition), but so long as you don't go outside the bounds of your ROE [wikipedia.org] and other laws of war [wikipedia.org] like the geneva conventions [wikipedia.org] there's no problem and you're not a murderer, but if you go outside of the ROE and laws of war, such as murdering innocent civilians or doctors or enemies that have surrendered, then you're the same kind of scum as the nazis.
your gross oversimplification tries to gloss over the complexities involved in warfare in order to push one specific, biased viewpoint. once bullets start flying all that temporarily goes out the window, but once that firefight is over, you're still responsible for all of your actions. "they were shooting at me a minute ago" does not justify murdering or torturing them after they surrendered, or abusing any of their corpses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:13AM
Thats the best justification you have for committing war crimes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @10:13AM
What justification do you have for the rule of unenforcable law being relevant in war?
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday October 09 2015, @12:14PM
Looking at your posting history in this thread, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that you have well and truly lost your argument and are now firing off broadsides at anyone else who cares to post.
If you don't like the law that your country has signed up to, then you ought to be working at getting that law changed or having your country withdraw from it. You don't get to pick and chose which laws you comply with and which you don't based on recent events which just happen to not be in your favour. This is partly what makes the 'civilised' world civilised. We aspire to do decent things and to treat others humanely and with decency - yes, even during war to the degree that it is possible under such conditions. Your enemy may not have your ideals and values, that doesn't mean you discard them to lower yourself to his level. You fight to promote them, and to bring the same ideals and values to others so that they can enjoy the freedom that you yourself do. If you cannot see that, then you are no better than the enemy you are criticising.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:20PM
Because nobody is ever tried for war crimes [wikipedia.org] right?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @10:18PM
The Intercept [theintercept.com], noting that the U.S. has offered several distinct explanations for why this hospital was bombed, quotes a New York Times story [archive.is] as saying
I speculate that, having lost Kunduz this 28 September [bbc.com] to the Taliban, someone among the Afghan Army and/or Americans noticed that the hospital there had become an asset to the enemy, then that the sort of thinking evident in the "Collateral Murder video [wikileaks.org] prevailed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 09 2015, @12:19AM
That video is bullshit - and worse, people who accept the title are unqualified to judge what they've seen in the video.
I've reserved judgement on the hospital bombing, because I've not seen enough evidence to sort it out. It looks bad. I am hoping that my government did not intentionally bomb a hospital, but I just haven't decided yet.
I have viewed that video, and I am qualified to state that there is no war crime documented in that video. Those reporters were embedded in an enemy unit. Except for the reporter and his driver, all those men were armed. The chopper crew believed the reporter was an armed combatant. Unfortunately, the camera had a vague resemblance to a rocket launcher.
People who believe that video to be evidence of a war crime are foolishly accepting an agenda.
Since the first reporter went out in the field with a combat unit, it has been accepted by one and all that the reporter lives in danger. There was nothing different with these two Reuters reporters. They knew the risks, and they accepted those risks.
The title should have been "Embedded reporters killed along with combatant unit during attack on allied forces."
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 09 2015, @01:08AM
I have viewed that video, and I am qualified to state that there is no war crime documented in that video
Kinda makes you complicit in the cover-up then, doesn't it?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 09 2015, @01:30AM
So, you've swallowed that bit of propaganda, hook, line, and sinker.
The cover up that should be addressed, is "Why in the hell were we in Iraq to start with?" But, that's a political issue, rather than military.
Of all the exposes of crap that happened in Iraq, Abu Ghraib is the one that floored me. That was totally unjustified. This "Collateral Murder" is bullshit. Need a parallel? Well - lots of people are looking at images from the moon, from Mars, and from other places in space. Clueless people "see" all kinds of strange crap. Rats, Martians, you name it. Unqualified people looking at stuff they don't understand imagine that they see something. This video is pretty much the same thing.
I posted something of a walk through of the video in a previous discussion. I should just find it, and copy/paste it here, but I'm running short on time.
Bottom line: if a group of people shoots at a group of soldiers, they can expect some kind of retaliation. The soldiers on the ground pulled back from the people in the video, and called in a helicopter. The helicopter destroyed the unit that had fired at our soldiers. It is hardly newsworthy. But, most of you who have accepted the propaganda have a hard time understanding that it was an insurgent unit, and that they had been shooting at soldiers only minutes before the video was recorded.
Complicit? If defending your own unit from a hostile militant unit is a crime, then yes, I'm complicit.
Tell me - did you listen carefully to the audio in the video? Try that, and if you need help understanding the terms, if you need help understanding what all the chatter means, then post back. If you make an obvious effort, I'll try to help. On the other hand, if you make no effort, that is an admission that you don't care about qualifications.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 09 2015, @02:05AM
You know who else is qualified to state that there is some war crime documented in that video? Chelsea Manning!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 09 2015, @02:21AM
Uhhhh - no. BRADLEY Manning was third echelon support. He didn't carry a weapon out on operations. I'm sure you know my opinion of Manning - subhuman twit. Should have been stood up in front of a wall, without benefit of a blindfold.
Had Manning exposed Abu Ghraib, I might have something good to say about him. Maybe.
Besides which - Manning didn't edit that video. He gave the video to Wikileaks, and Assange edited that video, and added commentary.
I respect Assange and Wikileaks, but I 100% disagree with what he did to that video. Journalists are supposed to report the news, not make the news. Journalists aren't supposed to create propaganda with the news. While Assange has remained mostly true to who he is, and what he is, he did cross a line with that particular video. His actions in that instance detract from the respect that he deserved.
You will never make any points by citing Manning. Better to cite Adolph Hitler, at least he was an intelligent man before he went batfuck crazy.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 09 2015, @02:45AM
You know who else is qualified to state that there is no war crime documented in that video? Chelsea Hitler!
(Keep going, Runaway! You're on a roll! You may be gaining valuable points! Or you are already crazy in some way that involves die Fledermaus.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @09:40AM
If you want to convince people that there is no war crime, you need to avoid showing that you're really a right wing Christian hating everyone who is not an old testament bible thumper.
When you can't keep things separate, you might as well argue that no war crime happened because Muslims or LGBT people aren't real people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 09 2015, @01:55PM
Well - anonymous cowards aren't real people, so we can torture you all we want.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @10:25PM
Sit in the pen with pigs, you may get some mud on you.
Joking aside, its the risk everyone takes when you are near a war zone, be it doing something 'good', or 'evil'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @11:47PM
It is in a war zone and they already knew the risks involved. Tragic, yes. Criminal investigation or war crimes, no.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:30AM
Try again [icrc.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @10:27AM
DWB said they treat military of all sides, therefore it is a valid military target according to your link. Interesting. The DWB hospital made itself a valid target.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:24PM
That is literally the entire point for the Geneva Conventions making medical personnel off limits. Treating "both sides" does not make them a valid target, it makes anyone who attacks them war criminals.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday October 09 2015, @01:52PM
ICRC are scum, just so you know.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:13AM
Problem:
Bleeding heart leftists are aiding and abetting the enemy.
Solution:
Send a guerrilla unit to deliver small arms fire from their location (or merely claim this is the case).
Outcome:
Dead bleeding heard leftists send a clear message to others. Also, next time don't openly oppose our international trade treaties.
My thoughts:
If you can't accept the risk, then don't put yourself in harms way. There are plenty of destitute and dying in the civilized world that need your help more than enemy combatants do, traitors.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday October 09 2015, @01:20AM
Traitors? I am constantly amazed at two things: the stupidity of the right, and their willingness to openly display the same.
Bleeding heart leftists are aiding and abetting the enemy.
You mean "doctors", yes? People with expertise, skill and training (we call that "education") who have taken an oath to succour humanity without regard to borders, and all you can see is the black and white at the level of a Bush. Hmm.
So answer me this:
What is the actual purpose of the House Special Committee on Benghazi?
Where there ever any WMDs in Iraq?
Was this an intentional attack on a protected entity in blatant violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict?
Did you order the Code Red??
Yes, traitors. But when you military starts doing stuff like this, because of bleeding hearts, you have to wonder who really is being betrayed. And who is making the treason public and explicit. Thank you for your thoughts.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:24AM
Traitors? I am constantly amazed at two things: the stupidity of the right, and their willingness to openly display the same.
You assume I'm a right wing zealot. You're wrong. I'm independent. A tool using creature. I vote for those who advance things that benefit me and mine, in accordance with the grand evolutionary plan that has dictated our existence since before sentience came along and screwed the pooch.
You mean "doctors", yes? People with expertise, skill and training (we call that "education") who have taken an oath to succour humanity without regard to borders, and all you can see is the black and white at the level of a Bush. Hmm.
No, I don't see black and white. I see the nuance which you chose to ignore: Idiots who play at politics while also pretending to be apolitical medics.
The fact of the matter is: Those who aid and abet the enemy are traitors or enemies. One may wish to grant them some form of protection for humanitarian reasons, but then you must also realize that the city was falling to the enemy. They thus serve to benefit mostly the enemies. The cold hard fact is that they also entered the political arena, and this makes them fair game regardless of your myopic and sophomoric view of politics. When you oppose a force politically, and you enter into the theater of war, you have only yourself to blame if you find yourself under physical attack. Of course the bleeding heart liberal will have you believe otherwise, for they have a far more black and white view of "good" and "evil" yet project such upon others.
What is _blah blah blah_ begging for justification for warmongering. etc. nonsensical rubbish.
The realities of politics don't fit your binary view. If you ask theses questions it means the complexities of global maneuvers escape you. Let's not mince words. The left is every bit as warmongering as the right, fool. It's an economic warfare game we play. The petro-dollar must be upheld lest the US economy fail. Hey, I don't like the truth anymore than the next fucker but at least I'm not an ignorant tool pretending that things are so simple minded as "humanitarian == good".
Yes, traitors. But when you military starts doing stuff like this, because of bleeding hearts, you have to wonder who really is being betrayed
The game is far more complex than you think. It's a globalist game we play. The ultimate end result is to create an elite innovator class and a dumbed down and compliant worker class. I happen to be in the former, and urge others to join in if they're capable. The losers will continue to lose. Them's the breaks kids. Like it or not, I'm not being betrayed even when my government does shit to me I don't like (and I assure you I've been through a fuck load more than you ignorant tools even realize exists). Ultimately, there are hard truths about the world that extreme liberals refuse to face. At least the right has some degree of selfishness -- without which humanity would not exist. I deem any who call this trait a vice rather than virtue a fool.
Subterfuge, calculated risk, and political pandering (the latter of which you're doing) are all part of the game. You idealists pretend the game doesn't exist and whine about reality like simpletons. Level up before you're dealt with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:28AM
You assume I'm a right wing zealot. You're wrong. I'm independent.
No, he's right, and you just proved it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:35AM
You've obviously never heard of the Geneva Conventions. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @05:02AM
The cold hard fact is that they also entered the political arena, and this makes them fair game regardless of your myopic and sophomoric view of politics.
TARGET ACQUIRED:::
Anonymous Coward, SoylentNews
IP Addr: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
Geospatial Coordinates: XXEXXX'XX.XX
Missle Armed. Proceed?
Commander: WTF, this GPS reading puts this target in the middle of a hospital! A mental hospital, but still a protected hospital.
Corporal: You're correct sir, but he did say that anyone who enters the political arena is a legitimate target, so let us not be myopic or morans here.
Commander: Perhaps, but still, isn't a a violation of the Geneva convention, the Hague conventions, and the gentleman's agreement going back forever?
Corporal: No, sir. 9-11 changed everything, and now the fact that he thinks that he can attack our wounded means we can attack him, even though he is mentally wounded and no actual threat to our Glorious Jihad and whatnot.
Commander: Alright, Corporal. Fire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @10:34AM
Those only count for what the hospital was doing with a written agreement. It is right there in the conventions. The hospital even admits that they merely told the US armed forces instead of getting a written agreement.
It doesn't matter anyway. People on the ground said they were taking fire from the building. Once one bullet was sent it was no longer a civilian area. A medic that fires back is a valid military target according to the Geneva Conventions. Always has been that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:32PM
Yes, when a single medic fires back that one medic loses their GC protections, but a single person firing from a hospital does not make the entire fucking hospital a valid target, only the people who were firing are valid targets. "Somebody shot at us from that hospital!" does not allow you to destroy the entire fucking hospital; raid it looking for the individual, sure, but killing everyone in there - doctors, patients (no matter which "side"), and all - is still a war crime.
(Score: 3, Funny) by cubancigar11 on Friday October 09 2015, @01:20PM
Reading through the comments has been an eye opener for me. I am filled with the amount of disgust that I have never felt on this website ever/other website. Not even when someone told that he discriminates against Indians when looking for candidates for a job and everyone said that it is not racist. I feel ashamed to be part of this community.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday October 09 2015, @01:53PM
You didn't give us much to go on. What, exactly, made you disgusted?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:54PM
Its mostly just that one AC. I'd like to say he's trolling but he's saying what all the other ring-wing loonies on the site are thinking.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday October 10 2015, @12:44AM
I don't think you should feel ashamed.
Not to be unpleasant and hopefully not misunderstood either but to be thoughtprovoking and as an example: I think the Kunduz bombing is a war crime —we probably agree on that— (a new My Lai was my gut reaction) but I'm also far out somewhere on the (“alternative”) right (i.e. I consider nazis to be lefties, or more precisely a kind of socialists) and I dislike islam a lot —and we probably don't agree at all in any way about those things, maybe (impossible to tell really but anyway let's assume for the sake of the example).
The point would be that we're not the kind of community where everyone agrees, we're the kind of community where everyone can disagree or agree depending on the specific topic or detail (and we all sure do! :D ) and then in addition everyone can change their mind too, as often as anyone sees fit to. Maybe we can also realize that such is the case and accept the disagreements, see the value in it and possibly (independently) make, derive, or get something better from it.
There aren't many places like that left, not just on the internet but anywhere.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))