US 'death squad' operating in Afghanistan

[MobBoss]

No, I didn't. But was really my problem, as the wiki article confirms at least one of those guys did have an AK-47. But does simply having one mean automatic death sentence in Baghdad?

Well, consider this. The area in question was where US convoys had been attacked several times during the past few days - thats why the helicopters were there looking for armed insurgents in the area. Secondly, it wasnt the fact that weapons were present that set the helicopter crews off - it was the fact that the group was seen to be 'engaging' the helicopters, presumably to fire upon them, when the reporter with the boom camera edged up to the corner of the building and pointed his boom camera at the helicopter - which to the crew looked like an insurgent aiming an RPG at them.

Now then, this begs the question if the crew determined that the group was aiming an RPG at them, were they correct in engaging that target? The answer is an absolute yes. In fact, the crew follows procedure, reports what they see back to their higher command and request permission to engage the 'enemy' and receive said permission.

I dont know about you, but in a warzone, you generally dont live long if you see the other guy pointing a weapon at you and then still wait for them to fire it.

No, I thought about it, but that does not seem to add up. At 1:33 they are close enough to "take aim with an RPG" and 30 seconds later they suddenly act as if the copter wasn't there. I don't think the copter moved much further in that time; the people are of same size on the video and I didn't notice the camera being zoomed in.

Only the 1 reporter was aiming at the helicopter, the rest were presumably covering the flanks. What you see is that they arent paying attention to the heli - what I see is they have identified one heli and are looking for other additional threats.

Sure, I admitted that my assessment of the situation is likely impacted by the fact that I'm a stupid-ass civilian who might not know an insurgent before I get shot down from the sky (no sarcasm). Still, that means most people not trained to be an armed flight patrol likely see it as I do (that would include Manning, I believe). And if you are right and the soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong that means our best practices aimed at reducing civilian casualties can still fail spectacularly.

Of course they can fail spectacularly. But consider this, how many civilians would be killed if we just carpet bombed the entire area where attacks on our convoys occurred? People tend to not appreciate what we do to prevent civilian casualties because its war and civilians will always get killed regardless; because they fail to realize how much devastation could actually be done at the other end of the spectrum.

Now that is an information I'd consider relevant, if I as a citizen was to vote on continuing this operation.

If you put military operations in the hands of your average voter you would never win a single battle because your average civilian is in no way prepared to take in the carnage that occurs in war.

 

[onedreamer]

Its five out of over a million who have served over there. I dare Switzerland to do better.

For Switzerland it's 0 over 0.

 

[Flying Pig]

No, I didn't. But was really my problem, as the wiki article confirms at least one of those guys did have an AK-47. But does simply having one mean automatic death sentence in Baghdad?

The balance in all patrols (I can only speak from an infantryman's perspective here, but we used to patrol Ulster back when pubs were no-gos to anyone with a short haircut and clean shave) is between not angering the locals (which as well as screwing the mission can mean literally being torn apart by a mob) and protecting your own lives. In Iraq, they don't have the easy rule of shooting anyone armed since the general populace often carries weapons, but they obviously don't want to get caught on the other horn of hte dilemma which is that if you fail to act and he is dangerous then you and your mates may well be killed. It's a gamble: sometimes they'll get it wrong but I'd always stand by anyone who acted like that if they thought they were protecting their comrades.

And if you are right and the soldiers did absolutely nothing wrong that means our best practices aimed at reducing civilian casualties can still fail spectacularly. Now that is an information I'd consider relevant, if I as a citizen was to vote on continuing this operation.

As I said, it's a balance between reducing civilian casualties and military casualties; mostly we get it right. Certainly far more (British, can't speak for US) soldiers are killed for failing to open fire than civilians are killed by itchy trigger-fingers.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Adam Winfield has finally been sentenced after pleading guilty to the killing of an unarmed Afghan civilian in US custody and the use of marijuana. The sentence? 3 years with credit for the 507 days he has already spent in prison and discharge for bad conduct.

WASHINGTON: A member of a rogue US Army unit was sentenced to three years’ prison Friday after pleading guilty to killing an unarmed Afghan civilian in US custody in May 2010.

Specialist Adam Winfield, 23, of Coral Gables, Fla., had been charged with premeditated murder, aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit murder in several incidents, including the deaths of three Afghan civilians in Kandahar Province.

He pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of involuntary manslaughter in military court, along with one count of illegal use of marijuana, in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers accused in the killings.

His rank was reduced to private and Winfield was stripped of pay and allowances, as well as discharged for bad conduct. The Coral Gables, Florida man will get credit for the approximately 507 days he has already served in prison.

Winfield, who tried to blow the whistle on the murder plot, is among five soldiers accused of killing the civilians for sport and then planting evidence on the bodies to make it seem as though the victims had attacked the soldiers first.

Another soldier in the unit, Private Jeremy Morlock of Wasilla, Alaska, was sentenced in March to 24 years in prison. Seven other service members have been charged with covering up the killings.

Winfield’s defense attorney, Eric Montalvo, said the killings and widespread hash use in the field showed the unit lacked leadership.

Under questioning by the judge, Colonel David Conn, Winfield admitted he had been aware he was committing a crime and that he failed to prevent it.

“I had means to prevent this from happening, sir. I had a number of options to choose from that day, sir, to take the action necessary,” Winfield said. “I failed because I was afraid, sir.” He explained he feared retribution from his superior, Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, the alleged ringleader of the rogue group of soldiers. Gibbs threatened to kill Winfield if he ever told anyone of the killings, Winfield said.

Morlock testified that Gibbs suggested Winfield could not be trusted to keep quiet about the killings, and that he was a “liability” that needed to be removed.

“He talked to me a couple times about the idea to take Winfield out, take him down to the gym and drop a weight on him,” or stage another kind of accident, Winfield’s platoon mate added.

During a patrol on May 2, 2010, Gibbs pulled an Afghan civilian from his compound. Gibbs asked Winfield and Morlock: “Is this the one?” The implication was clear that the soldiers would kill the civilian, Winfield said. Gibbs threw a grenade at the man, and then Winfield and Morlock fired their weapons at him. Morlock later planted an unexploded grenade near the body.

The platoon commander, Lieutenant Stefan Moye, was in a nearby compound and arrived on the scene when he heard the shots and explosions. Moye testified that he was told the dead man had thrown the grenade at the soldiers first, and that he never had a reason to doubt that story.

I guess it really pays to be the "liability" in cases such as this. But who knows if the truth would have ever come out of Winfield didn't decide to finally testify against them, since their superiors seemed to have bought into the planted evidence stories, even though it is unclear how someone in custody could possibly have gotten 2 grenades in this particular incident.

 

[MobBoss]

in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers accused in the killings.

Key point there.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

If all the Americans who murdered Afghanis would go to prison the American jails would fill up quick. When I was in the army I lived next door to the Afghanistan force that was about to go. They where trigger happy and crazy people who where there to shoot people and have fun.

 

[Formaldehyde]

in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers accused in the killings.

Key point there.

Which I actually mentioned:

I guess it really pays to be the "liability" in cases such as this. But who knows if the truth would have ever come out of Winfield didn't decide to finally testify against them, since their superiors seemed to have bought into the planted evidence stories, even though it is unclear how someone in custody could possibly have gotten 2 grenades in this particular incident.

Or was there some other reason for you to mention that in bold and note it was a "key point"?

But even so, do you think it was an acceptable sentence for someone who was charged with multiple premeditated murders?

 

[JollyRoger]

Let's face it - the military is getting a reputation at being weak at prosecuting high profile cases, so they need any crutch they can get. Giving an extremely light sentence in exchange for the crutch of rat-testimony might overcome any other deficiencies that the military prosecution team brings to the table.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What I don't get about that case is why to charge him with "One count of drug use." That seems pretty pointless to me if he was already convicted of murder.

 

[Formaldehyde]

He wasn't convicted of murder. He was charged with premeditated murder and other very serious crimes, but he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and illegal use of marijuana instead. (Is there a legal use of marijuana in the military?)

Why did the military tack that on? I guess I could be facetious and suggest that it is actually a far more serious offense than involuntary manslaughter...

 

[MobBoss]

No, there is no legal use of MJ in the military as they run off federal law. Its a court martial offense to use it while in service.