Friendly fire video from Iraq *link to vid from page*

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Using classification for political purposes FTL

i wouldn't call covering up friendly fire political in any way... who benefits? who loses?

Its just the military trying to protect that dude who made the worst mistake of his life and probably hates himself for it

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Its just the military trying to protect that dude who made the worst mistake of his life and probably hates himself for it

Probably, but governments do tend to restrict information on instinct.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Probably, but governments do tend to restrict information on instinct.

Very true. But its easy to make a conspiracy out of nothing, assuming there is more the gvt isnt telling us. Take: JFK, 9/11, UFOs, Crop Circles, Mutilated Cows, and every other silly CT.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Very true. But its easy to make a conspiracy out of nothing, assuming there is more the gvt isnt telling us. Take: JFK, 9/11, UFOs, Crop Circles, Mutilated Cows, and every other silly CT.

I'm not really claiming conspiracy, I just like transparency. The government is representing me, they shouldn't keep secrets from me

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I'm not really claiming conspiracy, I just like transparency. The government is representing me, they shouldn't keep secrets from me

they need to do in some circumstances

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they need to do in some circumstances

I know, but I still don't like it, and think they really need to justify it it sufficiently

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I thought the family (of the dead) wanted the video released

what they want doesn't apply

I'm sure if it was my kid I'd think differently, but that's the rule, it's always been the rule, it should always be the rule.

Originally Posted by Kytro

The government is representing me, they shouldn't keep secrets from me

yes, they should.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I know, but I still don't like it, and think they really need to justify it it sufficiently

by justifying it, it kinda of removes the secrecy of it.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

by justifying it, it kinda of removes the secrecy of it.

Not really. I don't need to be personally shown it, but I do believe there should be some oversight, such as an independent review panel.

I don't trust the government enough to only keep things secret because they have to.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Not really. I don't need to be personally shown it, but I do believe there should be some oversight, such as an independent review panel.

I don't trust the government enough to only keep things secret because they have to.

lol,, wouldnt the "independant review board" either just do what the military said and be a puppet or out military secrets? You can't have it two ways.

[m-b]

I think the US military felt that putting its pilots into a civilian court was not going to be fair. They had already gone through a military tribunal [pretty much a health and safety issue].

I'm not sure who was responsible for not providing this video to the family. The US says it gave it to the UK DoD and it was their call in making it declassified.

I'm also not sure if the family is being honest as far as not asking for this and if they just have revised their history to negate the fact that everything was done for them. Attempting to place the blame on the UK/US military.

I would like to view the BBC interview from the family [News multiscreen] but it is not working at the moment. not that i think it is being blocked by the cia or anything *cough*.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by m-b

I think the US military felt that putting its pilots into a civilian court was not going to be fair. They had already gone through a military tribunal [pretty much a health and safety issue].

I'm not sure who was responsible for not providing this video to the family. The US says it gave it to the UK DoD and it was their call in making it declassified.

The UK MoD initially told the coroners court that such a video did not even exist

I'm also not sure if the family is being honest as far as not asking for this and if they just have revised their history to negate the fact that everything was done for them. Attempting to place the blame on the UK/US military.

This isnt my perception of their motives, & if its not a military 'cock up' then what is it?
'Fog of war' excuses are valid IMO, ..., but OTOH such accounts give credence to 'civilian deaths' stories & this is why the militarties wish to suppress such stuff.

For war nowadays is to be seen as 'clean' & 'clinical' & 'nice & easy' with clear-cut winners etc, ..., which is a massive lie, used to deflect objections to starting a war.

Telling such lies makes them apparent in the fullness of time, but worse it destroys the credibility of all involved making future choices even harder. Not least coz ones enemies can exploit such failings & perceptions

I think the coronor got it right.
It is to the shame of the militaries that they didnt make the footage available to the court.
It is largely because its attempted supression was sought that it is now so publically available

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

lol,, wouldnt the "independant review board" either just do what the military said and be a puppet or out military secrets? You can't have it two ways.

Why couldn't they review the material and reasoning behind why something was classified to determine if the military was simply keeping it secret for political purposes.

Then they could have it marked to be released and the military could apply to the court to appeal the decision. It does not have to do just what the military says or release secrets impacting national security.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

what they want doesn't apply

I'm sure if it was my kid I'd think differently, but that's the rule, it's always been the rule, it should always be the rule.

I disagree with the rule.

Originally Posted by 7960

yes, they should.

The government is only representing the people, they should be given justification for keeping secrets. I'm not a fan of classification in most cases

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I disagree with the rule.

I don't.

The government is only representing the people, they should be given justification for keeping secrets. I'm not a fan of classification in most cases

One of the people they're representing in the pilot who made the mistake. Other people they're representing are the people who were shot (even if they're not US citizens). I disagree with declassifying this because "most people" want to see it. "Most people" want to know way more about our weapons than we already know (which is too much, if you ask me) but the govt shouldn't be declassifying that, either.

[m-b]

Originally Posted by avsp

The UK MoD initially told the coroners court that such a video did not even exist

This what i am unsure of. Is that true. Did he ask both the Brits and the Yanks. I've heard hypocrisy on this alround.

This isnt my perception of their motives,

I'm probably being unfair. it just seems her bias swings towards a certain direction. It might just be my perception. i did not mean any offence to her.

& if its not a military 'cock up' then what is it?
'Fog of war' excuses are valid IMO, ..., but OTOH such accounts give credence to 'civilian deaths' stories & this is why the militarties wish to suppress such stuff.

Sorry i was talking about the videos release. My dads always telling not to keep

doing disjointed paragraphs.

For war nowadays is to be seen as 'clean' & 'clinical' & 'nice & easy' with clear-cut winners etc, ..., which is a massive lie, used to deflect objections to starting a war.

I don't think anybody buys that or even attempts to suggest it is the case. How on earth can they when they allow embedded reporters and there are a myriad of reporters over there.

Telling such lies makes them apparent in the fullness of time, but worse it destroys the credibility of all involved making future choices even harder. Not least coz ones enemies can exploit such failings & perceptions

Well i'm willing to give everybody the benefit of the doubt apart from the lawyer for the wife. As he is a ass.

I think the coronor got it right.
It is to the shame of the militaries that they didnt make the footage available to the court.
It is largely because its attempted supression was sought that it is now so publically available

Well in my head - i have not had clarity on who did what and why and who did not do what and why. So i can't comment.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

I disagree with declassifying this because "most people" want to see it. "Most people" want to know way more about our weapons than we already know (which is too much, if you ask me) but the govt shouldn't be declassifying that, either.

I don't think it should be declassified because people "want to know" I tihnk it shouldn't remain classified unless it pertains to national security. No other reason should be sufficient for keeping things secret.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by m-b

This what i am unsure of. Is that true. Did he ask both the Brits and the Yanks. I've heard hypocrisy on this alround.

It ap[pears I was wrong. It was the family who claim that the MoD who denied the recording's existance. My apologises & thanks for the 'oversight'

I don't think anybody buys that or even attempts to suggest it is the case. How on earth can they when they allow embedded reporters and there are a myriad of reporters over there.

What other reason can there be. Footage of successfull attacks have frequently been used in offical press conferences. The footage shows the pilots themselves in a fairly favourable light in that they checked with their fire control & obviously were extremely sorry for others before themselves. The fact that they didnt realise the significance of the orange' shows why & how the thing came to pass. Theres no military secrets that werent in the public domain even before ot leaked AFAICT

To me the only reason is that it shows that mistakes are made. Admittedly we already know that blue on blue occurs but the impact of footage is that much greater on the publics memory.

As such the footage serves to discredit all the 'gee-whizzery' footage from stand-off bomb cameras etc showing the incredible accuracy of missiles flying thru windows etc.
Such footage is used to claim that war is now cleaner, ..., & I dare say it is. And thats a good thing.
But its my perception that theres an attempt to portray the military effort as 'morally clean' thru the use of high-tech weaponry, & that this footage undermines the tools used in creating such a message

As for your view that there was an attempt to cast the military as at fault for not releasing the footage, ..., well, it was the military who were reluctant to release the footage wasnt it?

[ballz2wallz]

Isn't friendly fire an unfortunate yet inevitable part of war? Does anybody really expect there to be no friendly fire in any war?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Isn't friendly fire an unfortunate yet inevitable part of war? Does anybody really expect there to be no friendly fire in any war?

I don't it is possible to avoid at this point in time.