Interesting. THis is exactly why the US refuses to sign the international Court of Justice treaty. While I would rather the administration be tried than the individual soldiers, perhaps it is a step in the right direction.
I'm sorry that the reporter died, it was an unfortunate tragity. But, they were in a war zone, during a battle and were at risk for getting injured or killed from either side. I don't believe it was a deliberate act on the americans part. The tank was 3/4 a mile away in a city, how could anyone know from that distance in that landscape that they were civilians...even reporters (course the civilians (non-reporters) would of been smart enough to stay indoors) not hang out on balcolnies during a firefight. There has been at least one reporter that I can recall that was killed while attached to an american unit. No cry of foul there.
There's a difference between being in a building that houses reporters and has been designated a relatively safe area and being on the front line with soldiers. To be honest, the tracking on tank rounds is pretty amazing from what I understand, especially from 3/4 of a mile away, well within their range. I don't know about you, but I can sure as hell tell what building is what from 3/4 of a mile away. Hell, when I go home to the suburbs, I can still pick out every single high rise in downtown. If they want to say there was firefight, then that's all well and good, but bombs don't randomly end up on balconies.
In the article posted it said that the tank was firing at a suspected enemy spotter on the roof of the very hotel. So, no qualms from me on the tanks accuracy. Wether the gunner of the tank could tell that the people standing on the balconies (i assume pointing things in it's direction cameras and such), were reporters or the oposition had to be impossible from 3/4 a mile away. I've actually had the oportunity to look through Abrams and Bradley periscope/video sights. It's a very narrow field of view and I recall at least the Bradley's (it was a training simulator) being pretty crappy for detail at long range.
I don't know if it's a fair judgement, but I don't treat the Christian Science Monitor with much credibility at all. Friendly fire claims the lives of soldiers as well. In war, **** happens. As long as it wasn't intentional, then they shouldn't be tried. From 3/4 a mile away, I doubt that they would have been able to differentiate a camera from a weapon with any kind of certainty.
If I remember correctly, the building was only used by the media, so I don't believe the whole enemy spotter thing, to be honest. Given that it was used either exclusively or almost exclusively by the media, I think it's a pretty safe bet that anybody standing on the balcony is a member of the news media. And if they weren't able to tell, then in my opinion, they have an obligation to find out.
They were (supposedly) following the correct procedures. They saw a suspicious spotter on the roof. They were convinced enough to call it in to their superior who gave permission to fire. For all they knew, it was an enemy targeting them. I'm just saying, they might have perceived it to be a life or death situation where it was fire or be fired upon. The same kind of messup happens in police situations. Cops think they see a weapon being drawn against them. Many shots later, it turns out it was just a wallet.
Yes, but like a police involved shooting, it should be investigated. War is no excuse for a policy of "shoot first and ask questions later", especially in a city of several million people.
Whoa, whoa. Hang on. They fire at an enemy spotter with a tank grenade?!? Isn't that a bit, well, overkill? Especially if said man is perched on the roof of a civilian-occupied hotel? Yeah, and we all know what damage gunfire can do to an M1A1 Abrams tank from three-quarter miles away... I don't buy the "hey, friendly fire/**** happens in war" or "if they don't want to risk getting killed, they shouldn't be in a war zone" argument. Regardless of their identity, these people were civilians in a civilian structure. It could have been local Iraqi just cowering in their own homes. Are we going to lob tank shells in their midst too because "we thought we saw a pussycat enemy spotter"? If you want to win the hearts and minds of the civilians, and are fighting in a civilian-occupied arena, you simply do not have the option to break out the BFG-9000, just because your enemies do. The price of being the good guys, and all that.
1) Perhaps. but it's the weapon they chose or had available. 2) In a city there are no "civilian" structures, there are just structures. The opposition wasn't being so "clean" as to contain themselves only in "military" structures. 3) An "observer" is most likely a artillary(sp) spotter/observer and is a high value target as they can direct a world of hurt onto the friendlies. All that being said, I believe it should be investigated (and the US Army has) and explained. Urban warfare is an ugly business.
