General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes [View all]AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I will post this one more time. The van full of civilians became a legitimate target the SECOND it rushed into the free fire zone that was made a LEGAL free fire zone by people in civilian clothes carrying weapons. AK-47's and RPG's are weapons that will get you killed in that part of Baghdad on that day if you are carrying them and are not part of the US military or Iraqi police and Iraqi military. It doesn't freaking matter if the civilians in the van were transporting 101 Dalmatians, they became LEGAL targets when the chose to enter the free fire zone near Rustimayiah that day. I have been in Iraq on several tours and saw more than a handful of incidents like that. The ENTIRE FREAKING REASON the Pilot asks for PERMISSION is because the Overall Commander is conferring with his JAG officer (Laws of War LAWYER) to make sure that the target in question is a legit target. That video feed is also playing in the TOC while the helicopter is circling asking for permission to fire. The fucking JAG officer is the one that says it is legal or illegal to fire. Guess why they didn't shoot the unarmed guy crawling around? BECAUSE that is an ACTUAL WAR CRIME. The JAG officer would have had them arrested when they landed, had they done that. What they did was ask for permission to shoot the van that was removing wounded insurgents. The JAG officer, determined the van was a LEGAL TARGET and gave the commander permission to shoot. The commander then gave the Apache Crew the authorization to fire. IT WAS AS LEGAL AS BUYING A BEER ON YOUR 21st birthday............THERE WAS NO WAR CRIME FROM THAT VIDEO......