See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq war logs: Apache crew killed insurgents who tried to surrender
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201 ... gs-apache-insurgents-surrender
Published: Oct 23, 2010
Author: David Leigh
Post Date: 2010-10-23 17:52:33 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 246
Comments: 21
US military legal adviser told helicopter crew that Iraqi men were valid targets as they could not surrender to aircraft. A US gunship crew was cleared to attack two insurgents on the ground even though the pilots had reported that the men were trying to surrender, the leaked Iraq war logs reveal. The Apache helicopter pilots killed both Iraqi men after being advised by a US military lawyer that they could not surrender to an aircraft and therefore remained valid targets. A leading military law expert consulted by the Guardian has questioned this legal advice. The Guardian can also reveal that the helicopter involved in the incident in 2007 had the same call sign – Crazyhorse 18 – as the Apache whose crew later mistakenly killed two Reuters journalists and injured two children in a notorious shooting in urban Baghdad. The killings drew worldwide condemnation in April this year when WikiLeaks obtained video footage taken from the helicopter's gun camera and released it on the internet. It has not been possible to establish whether the same personnel were involved in both attacks. According to the account of the earlier incident in the leaked logs, the insurgents had jumped out of their truck after it came under fire from the Apache. "They came out wanting to surrender," Crazyhorse 18 signalled. Clearance to kill came back from an unnamed lawyer at the nearby Taji airbase. "Lawyer states they can not surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets," the log entry says. After receiving the lawyer's advice, the pilots reported that the men had by now got back into their truck and were attempting to drive on. The gunship made two attempts to kill the fleeing men, launching a Hellfire missile at the truck. At first the fresh attack failed. "Individuals have run into another shack," the crew signalled. As the Apache hovered high in the sky, a few miles north of Baghdad, the pilots viewed a zoomed-in image of the fleeing pair on their video screen. The crew then received a further specific top-level kill instruction from brigade HQ and made another strafing run, firing bursts from long distance at 300 rounds a minute from the Apache's 30mm cannon. This time, the gunner succeeded in killing both men. At 1.03pm on 22 February, just 24 minutes after receiving legal clearance, the crew filed a log entry: "Crazyhorse 18 reports engaged and destroyed shack with 2X AIF [anti-Iraq forces]. Battle damage assessment is shack/dump truck destroyed." Crazyhorse 18 was part of the US army's 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, normally based at Fort Hood, Texas. Five months after this incident, on 12 July 2007, the crew of an Apache with the same call sign mistakenly killed 22-year-old Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, after opening fire on a group of eight men they believed to be insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and AK47 rifles in a Baghdad suburb. Two children were badly injured and their father killed when the Apache crew fired armour-piercing shells at a van which arrived on the scene. The account of the February incident recorded in the classified log suggests the Crazyhorse 18 crew were not trigger-happy, but sought immediate advice from their superiors at all stages of the attack. Under the 1907 Hague regulations, it is forbidden "to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion". Britain's own official Ministry of Defence publication, the Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, says there are practical difficulties around surrenders to aircraft, but adds: "With the advent of close-support and ground-attack helicopter units, the surrender of ground troops … has become a more practical proposition." One of Britain's foremost experts on the subject, Professor Sir Adam Roberts, cast doubt on the legal advice given to the Crazyhorse 18 crew. "Surrender is not always a simple matter," Roberts, emeritus professor of international relations at Oxford University and joint editor of Documents on the Laws of War, told the Guardian. But the reasoning given by the US military lawyer was "dogmatic and wrong". "The issue is not that ground forces simply cannot surrender to aircraft," he said. "The issue is that ground forces in such circumstances need to surrender in ways that are clear and unequivocal." However, he added: "If the insurgents did indeed get back into the truck and drove off in the same direction as previously, then they probably acted unwisely, in a way that called into question their act of surrender … The US airmen might legitimately reckon that the truck contained weapons and that the men could be intending to rejoin the fight sooner or later." The detailed account of events on that February morning begins with a common occurrence: insurgents near the huge Taji airbase start lobbing rockets and mortar shells, in the hope of killing Americans. US troops return the shelling, and Crazyhorse 18 is dispatched on a mission to see whether the retaliation has had any effect. At 11.34am, three minutes after takeoff, the crew spot the insurgents fleeing their launch site with a mortar and tripod on the back of a Bongo – a light truck manufactured by Kia. The crew confirm a "positive identification" of the enemy. But it is 13 minutes before the pilots are officially "cleared to engage" with automatic cannonfire by their headquarters. The Apache opens fire, and two Iraqis fling themselves out of the Bongo as the heavy shells blast the truck and cause its stock of mortar ammunition to "cook off". The enemy gunners try to make their escape in a dumper truck, driving northwards. At 12.33pm, the Apache reports that it has fired on the truck, "and then they came out wanting to surrender". Two minutes later, "Crazyhorse 18 reports they got back into truck and are heading north". Four minutes after that: "Crazyhorse 18 cleared to engage dumptruck. 1/227 [1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment] lawyer states they cannot surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets." The two Iraqis try to take refuge in a shack. After a 13-minute delay, another instruction appears to come from a remarkably high level: the office of the commander [IH6] of the Ironhorse brigade at Camp Taji. The signal reads: "IH6 approves Crazyhorse 18 to engage shack." After the killing, the helicopter pilots summarise what for them and their superiors has apparently been a successful chase: "Ix engagement with 30mm. 2x AIF killed in action. 1x mortar system destroyed. 1x Bongo truck destroyed with many secondary explosions. 1x dumptruck destroyed. 1x shack destroyed." At 1.25pm, their gunship heads home to Taji to refuel and reload with ammunition.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse (#0)
Lets complement your story with the following: Wikileaks: Iraq war logs 'reveal truth about conflict' Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: "These documents are of immense importance" The founder of whistleblowing website Wikileaks has defended the release of almost 400,000 classified US documents about the war in Iraq. Julian Assange said the "intimate details" of the conflict were made public in an effort to reveal the truth about the conflict. The "war logs" suggest evidence of torture was ignored, and detail the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Iraq's PM said the release amounted to political interference in his country. Continue reading the main story Wikileaks War Files A statement from Nouri al-Maliki's office accused Wikileaks of trying to sabotage his bid to form a new government by stoking up anger "against national parties and leaders, especially against the prime minister". Mr Maliki, a Shia, is struggling to keep his job after inconclusive general elections in March. His Sunni opponents say the Wikileaks documents highlight the need to establish a power-sharing government, rather than one in which all the power was in Mr Maliki's hands. Casualty of war? The US and UK have condemned the leak, the largest in US military history, with both US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the UK's Ministry of Defence suggesting the disclosures put lives at risk. A Pentagon spokesman dismissed the documents as raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events. He called their release a "tragedy" which aided enemies of the West. Meanwhile, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen - the top US military official - criticised the disclosure via the social networking site “Start Quote Courts... will bring to justice those who are involved in violations against any Iraqi” End Quote Jawad Al-Bolani Iraqi interior minister "Another irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by Wikileaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information," he wrote. Speaking at a news conference in London, though, Mr Assange defended the release of the documents, saying there were no reports of anyone coming to harm following the release of 90,000 documents on the war in Afghanistan earlier this year. He said the documents had been edited to remove any information that could harm individuals, adding that the snapshots of everyday events offered a glimpse at the "human scale" of the conflict. The deaths of one or two individuals made up the "overwhelming number" of people killed in Iraq, Mr Assange said. The new documents and new deaths contained within them showed the range and frequency of the "small, relentless tragedies of this war" added Prof John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count, which worked with Wikileaks to analyse the material. The logs showed there were more than 109,000 violent deaths between 2004 and the end of 2009. They included 66,081 civilians, 23,984 people classed as "enemy", 15,196 members of the Iraqi security forces, and 3,771 coalition troops. The figures appear to contradict earlier claims that the US did not keep records of civilians killed. Iraq Body Count, which collates civilian deaths using cross-checked media reports and other figures such as morgue records, said that based on an analysis of a sample of 860 logs, it estimated that around 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths would be identified. 'Nothing new' The 391,831 US army Sigacts (Significant Actions) reports published by Wikileaks on Friday describe the apparent torture of Iraqi detainees by the Iraqi authorities, sometimes using electrocution, electric drills and in some cases even executing detainees, says the BBC's Adam Brookes. The US military knew of the abuses, the documents suggest, but reports were sent up the chain of command marked "no further investigation", our correspondent adds. Under a "frago" - or fragmentary order, which changes an existing order - discovery by US staff of "Iraqi on Iraqi abuse" required no further investigation. The documents number in the hundreds of thousands. They take the form of reports written by soldiers after vicious firefights with insurgents, or after a roadside bomb has gone off, or the bodies of a family have been found murdered in an abandoned factory. Their language is military - hard and attenuated. We found, with relative ease, reports of horrible abuse committed by Iraqi security forces on detainees - beatings, electrocution, the use of an electric drill on a man's legs. The Americans were aware the abuse had taken place. On some, not all, of these reports was marked "no further investigation", suggesting that American forces took no action on learning of the abuse. The true lessons contained in these documents will take months or years to emerge. But an early question they pose is: why do Iraqi security forces appear to be continuing practices that might have died with the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime? And what has the United States done to end them? Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad Al-Bolani said the Baghdad government would "follow up" reports of human rights violations by Iraq's security forces. "Regardless how long the investigations will take there are courts and legal procedures that will bring to justice those who are involved in violations against any Iraqi." One of the Wikileaks documents shows the US military was given a video apparently showing Iraqi Army (IA) officers executing a prisoner in the northern town of Talafar. "The footage shows the IA soldiers moving the detainee into the street, pushing him to the ground, punching him and shooting him," states the log, which also names at least one of the perpetrators. In another case, US soldiers suspected army officers of cutting off a detainee's fingers and burning him with acid. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that if abuse by the Iraqi security forces was witnessed, or reports of it were received, US military personnel were instructed to inform their commanders. The documents also reveal many previously unreported instances in which US forces killed civilians at checkpoints and during operations In one incident in July 2007, as many as 26 Iraqis were killed by a helicopter, about half of them civilians, according to the log. Another record shows an Apache helicopter gunship fired on two men believed to have fired mortars at a military base in Baghdad in February 2007, even though they were attempting to surrender. The crew asked a lawyer whether they could accept the surrender, but were told they could not, "and are still valid targets". So they shot them. Iraq Body Count estimates the logs will reveal more than 15,000 previously unreported civilian deaths A helicopter using the same callsign - Crazyhorse 18 - was also involved in another incident that July, in which two journalists were killed and two children wounded. It is not possible to establish whether the helicopter crew was the same in both incidents. There are also new indications of Iran's involvement in Iraq, with reports of insurgents being trained and using weapons provided by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). Wikileaks has been asked to remove the documents from the web and return them to the Department of Defense, and Mr Assange said that media organisations in the US and elsewhere were coming under pressure from the Obama administration not to report on or publish them. The investigation into July's Afghan leak has focused on Bradley Manning, a US army intelligence analyst who is in custody and has been charged with providing Wikileaks with a video of the July 2007 attack by a helicopter with the callsign Crazyhorse 18. The release of the documents comes as the US military prepares to withdraw its 50,000 remaining troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. Violence in the country has declined sharply over the past two years, but near-daily bombings and shootings continue. "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
1. Why invoke various rules of warfare, when the enemy does not abide by those rules? 2. Why should anyone take an offer of surrender seriously from these people, given how many times in the past false surrenders have been used as pretexts for attack? 3. Do you honestly not see the threat radical Islam presents to western civilization?
Hi freeedom, that megaphone toolbar is working great.
"Fear of death is form of stasis horrors. The dead weight of time." - William S Burroughs
I disapproved of the Iraq war, the false pretexts used to lure us into it. However, it is the job of the American military to create a healthy fear of themselves to any who would take up arms against us once our military is deployed and operating in a war zone. There have been some prosecutable incidents and the military courts need to function. But our soldiers are not presumed criminal either. War is not as neat and tidy as civil law. The larger question is how and why we got into these messes and why we should keep throwing money into these holes. Also why Congress and the public got stampeded into such dubious military adventures.
This shit is way too sick for words. God help us.
You know the answers to your most relevant questions.
1. Why invoke various rules of warfare, when the enemy does not abide by those rules? Good point. 2. Why should anyone take an offer of surrender seriously from these people, given how many times in the past false surrenders have been used as pretexts for attack? Good point. I don't think they would have stooped to acid, but the Texas Rangers were not nice men, having had to fight the Comanche and Mexican. When US regulars arrived on the scene, they were shocked at the Rangers' ferocity. There was a race to catch Santa Anna. The Rangers almost got him first, and they would have just killed him outright. After Santa Anna was caught, the Rangers wanted to kill him anyway, never mind what the US government in Washington wanted. They were going to kill him when he was released, but they were talked out of it. Their commanders told them it would be a stain on Texas. They swallowed the bitter pill, for the greater good of Texas. And after that, they were no more. They were out of a job. 3. Do you honestly not see the threat radical Islam presents to western civilization? There's problems, and then there's problems.
Space: The final frontier of egalitarianism; darkie has no sense of wonder.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Thats how we lost in Korea, the Chinese knew we were not going to be allowed across the Yalu. Without that knowledge, the Chinese commander said he would have NEVER been in Korea. IN Vietnam, same thing, the White house picked the targets and how it would be done.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
No. Semantics. We were told what the rules were, a few ignored.
According to the boys at Wikipedia, we don't, and I can't say I would abide by rules of any kind if someone were trying to kill me or those I love.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Rules of warfare, rules of engagement are all BS when it is your life at stake. Providing sanctuary for the enemy is unconscionable, telling me they have to fire on me first is totally unacceptable. It was a shocker to a few gook pilots when Americans chased their asses across the Yalu. More of a shock when Americans strafed Russian airfields. We apologized but they got the message.
Having sex with the enemy women is one of the perks of war. I've always been afraid of the women raping me. It's happened before.
"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." - Thomas Jefferson
Nonsense. And my cat would shred your pug into tatters.
Damn straight. When it's you v him/them, toss the rule book out the window and terminate the threat by any means available. The Monday morning quarterbacks can weigh in when and if they've had a shot fired at them in anger.
My pug weighs 150 pounds.
"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." - Thomas Jefferson
Rules of warfare and rules of engagement are written by lawyers that have never risked their lives. Example...In WW2 we lined up unarmed Wafen SS and mowed them down with machine guns. Nowhere is that "allowed" in rules of warfare nor rules of engagement. It is practiced and allowed in war by all sides.
Ha... My cat would turn that ruffian cur into a mass of hurt within a minute.
LOLOL!!! Do you honestly not see how funny that claim is? What a maroon.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
3 October 2010 Last updated at 15:28 ET
#2. To: Horse (#0)
#3. To: freeedom, christine (#2)
#4. To: freeedom (#2)
1. Why invoke various rules of warfare, when the enemy does not abide by those rules? 2. Why should anyone take an offer of surrender seriously from these people, given how many times in the past false surrenders have been used as pretexts for attack? 3. Do you honestly not see the threat radical Islam presents to western civilization?
#5. To: TooConservative, 4, all (#4)
#6. To: TooConservative (#4)
#7. To: freeedom (#2)
#8. To: freeedom (#2)
#9. To: ghostdogtxn (#8)
Indeed, why have rules of warfare at all?
#10. To: Cynicom (#9)
#11. To: ghostdogtxn (#10)
that was a unilateral rule of engagement, not a rule of warfare.
#12. To: freeedom, 4 (#2)
Why invoke various rules of warfare, when the enemy does not abide by those rules?
#13. To: Cynicom (#11)
#14. To: Jethro Tull (#12)
and I can't say I would abide by rules of any kind if someone were trying to kill me or those I love.
#15. To: Cynicom (#14)
#16. To: Turtle (#15)
I've always been afraid of the women raping me. It's happened before.
#17. To: Cynicom, 4 (#14)
Rules of warfare, rules of engagement are all BS when it is your life at stake.
#18. To: Cynicom (#16)
And my cat would shred your pug into tatters.
#19. To: Jethro Tull (#17)
#20. To: Turtle (#18)
(Edited)
#21. To: freeedom (#2)
Do you honestly not see the threat radical Islam presents to western civilization?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest