Random Iraqi Civilians killed by Contractors?

[lysander]

Interesting article...I guess that most will write this off as just a few bad apples. Bad apples or not...sure makes taking the "moral" highground difficult.

Link to Story

Link to Quicktime

Link to WMV

'Trophy' video exposes private security contractors shooting up Iraqi drivers
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 27/11/2005)

A "trophy" video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis.

Lt Col Tim Spicer is investigating the incident
The video, which first appeared on a website that has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services, contained four separate clips, in which security guards open fire with automatic rifles at civilian cars. All of the shooting incidents apparently took place on "route Irish", a road that links the airport to Baghdad.

The road has acquired the dubious distinction of being the most dangerous in the world because of the number of suicide attacks and ambushes carried out by insurgents against coalition troops. In one four-month period earlier this year it was the scene of 150 attacks.

In one of the videoed attacks, a Mercedes is fired on at a distance of several hundred yards before it crashes in to a civilian taxi. In the last clip, a white civilian car is raked with machine gun fire as it approaches an unidentified security company vehicle. Bullets can be seen hitting the vehicle before it comes to a slow stop.

There are no clues as to the shooter but either a Scottish or Irish accent can be heard in at least one of the clips above Elvis Presley's Mystery Train, the music which accompanies the video.

Last night a spokesman for defence firm Aegis Defence Services - set up in 2002 by Lt Col Tim Spicer, a former Scots Guards officer - confirmed that the company was carrying out an internal investigation to see if any of their employees were involved.

The Foreign Office has also confirmed that it is investigating the contents of the video in conjunction with Aegis, one of the biggest security companies operating in Iraq. The company was recently awarded a £220 million security contract in Iraq by the United States government. Aegis conducts a number of security duties and helped with the collection of ballot papers in the country's recent referendum

Lt Col Spicer, 53, rose to public prominence in 1998 when his private military company Sandlines International was accused of breaking United Nations sanctions by selling arms to Sierra Leone.

The video first appeared on the website www.aegisIraq.co.uk. The website states: "This site does not belong to Aegis Defence Ltd, it belongs to the men on the ground who are the heart and soul of the company." The clips have been removed.

The website also contains a message from Lt Col Spicer, which reads: "I am concerned about media interest in this site and I remind everyone of their contractual obligation not to speak to or assist the media without clearing it with the project management or Aegis London.

"Refrain from posting anything which is detrimental to the company since this could result in the loss or curtailment of our contract with resultant loss for everybody."

Security companies awarded contracts by the US administration in Iraq adopt the same rules for opening fire as the American military. US military vehicles carry a sign warning drivers to keep their distance from the vehicle. The warning which appears in both Arabic and English reads "Danger. Keep back. Authorised to use lethal force." A similar warning is also displayed on the rear of vehicles belonging to Aegis.

Capt Adnan Tawfiq of the Iraqi Interior Ministry which deals with compensation issues, has told the Sunday Telegraph that he has received numerous claims from families who allege that their relatives have been shot by private security contractors travelling in road convoys.

He said: "When the security companies kill people they just drive away and nothing is done. Sometimes we ring the companies concerned and they deny everything. The families don't get any money or compensation. I would say we have had about 50-60 incidents of this kind."

A spokesman for Aegis Defence Services, said: "There is nothing to indicate that these film clips are in any way connected to Aegis."

Last night a spokesman for the Foreign Office said: "Aegis have assured us that there is nothing on the video to suggest that it has anything to do with their company. This is now a matter for the American authorities because Aegis is under contract to the United States."

 

[Waitone]

I'll wait for follow on stories and confirmation. For now I classify it as in internet rumor worthy of no more credibility than a story by Jason Blair of the NYT.

 

[Jeff White]

First off PSD contractors are subject to the control of both the coalition forces and the Iraqi governement. Secondly, there is absolutely no context to those video clips. Many vehicles, including those operated by coalition forces have signs on then in both English and Arabic warning drivers to stay back 150 meters or they will be fired on. Those signs aren't some macho joke, like the Keep Honking, I'm Reloading bumber stickers you see on cars and pickup trucks stateside. They are serious warnings. Drivers who approach closer then that are fired upon by coalition forces. It looked like the firing started when vehicls got too close.

I don't know if those vehicles were so marked, but if they were, that would be a legitimate reason they are fired upon. I doubt that this was just some random shooting like the author of the article maintains.

There is a war going on there.

Jeff

 

[Zak Smith]

I suspect one's driving and defense habits would change when approaching cars developed the habit of blowing up.

 

[Jeff White]

Here's a picture of one of these signs. I will correct my earlier post. The signs warn not to approach closer then 100 meters.

Jeff

 

[lysander]

I'm not vouching for the truth/untruth of the article..nor the videos...

If true: Bad apples argument will be applied.
If false: Status quo.

 

[lysander]

What if you can't read the sign from 100 meters? C'est la vie?

 

[Darth Muffin]

What if you can't read the sign from 100 meters? C'est la vie?

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that everyone can read a sign written in 2" letters at 200 meters (to give you time to react and change your course). I'm not sure I can, especially if it's near dusk.

 

[Jeff White]

lysander asked;

What if you can't read the sign from 100 meters? C'est la vie?

You got it. There is a war on there, and people will take whatever precautions are necessary to safely accomplish the mission. The world is a harsh place and a combat zone is the harshest place you'll find. People die for their mistakes. It has always been that way, and it always will be. You can't attach moral judgements to situations like that. Anytime you have armed people worried about defending themselves in a fluid situation, you'll find innocent people being killed. During the invasion of Sicily, a number of transport aircraft were shot down by anti-aircraft fire from the allied fleet because there was poor coordination and the allied gunners feared the unarmed transports carrying paratroopers were German bombers in the night sky. A passage of lines, where one friendly unit passes through the front lines of another is one of the most dangerous things military units do, and the enemy isn't the biggest danger.

Approaching too close to a convoy on Route Irish is also very dangerous to anyone who might do it. The enemy refuses to wear uniforms or mark their vehicles. So anyone who comes too close has to be assumed to be hostile.

The American people seem to have forgotten that war is a dirty business and people die there. Many of them are innocent people. It's the way things always have been.

Jeff

 

[roo_ster]

Random? Not Really

I detect a pattern that belies the title of "random."

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There is a war going on there.

Where? I am unaware of any declaration of war against Iraq, and our President declared that the mission was accomplished from the deck of an aircraft carrier almost two years ago.

There is no war going on. There is a peace going on.

As for Lt. Col. Spicer:

"Refrain from posting anything which is detrimental to the company since this could result in the loss or curtailment of our contract with resultant loss for everybody."

Translation: "We don't care what you do, just don't publicize it or get caught."

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'm supposed to believe anything that appears in a British "newspaper"? Even MSM has more credibility.

 

[tyme]

Where? I am unaware of any declaration of war against Iraq, and our President declared that the mission was accomplished from the deck of an aircraft carrier almost two years ago.

There is no war going on. There is a peace going on.

If you want to bash Congress for not declaring war and allowing the President to continue after his 90 days are up, do it in another thread. We are at war even though Congress doesn't have the balls to declare it. Or, at least we were at war... right now, the major cities in Iraq are under some strange mix of civil and martial law. Martial law may not be war, but it's similar... just with less sustained violence.

 

[Preacherman]

I've spoken several times with a veteran of 2003-2004 in Iraq, who had experienced this at first hand on numerous occasions. He wanted to talk it over with me because of his own qualms of conscience (the fact that I'm a combat vet too, as well as a pastor, made it easier for him to talk with me). He says he's shot up vehicles like this more than a dozen times, and is sure that he killed or injured the occupants. However, the only "offence" committed by the vehicle was to approach too close, going too fast. As he says, after the first few VBIED's take out your friends, you learn the hard way that if a vehicle's too close and too fast, you've got only a few seconds to stop it, or you might be next. At the time, he didn't worry at all about shooting - but after it was over, and he'd rotated back to the USA, it began to grow on him.

My advice to him was that, guess what? This is war. It's very likely that at least some of those vehicles were up to no good, but equally likely that some of them were being driven on innocent purposes. Unfortunately, in a combat environment, if you take the time to find out which is which, you're likely to be dead before you can make a decision. It sucks, and it's hard to live with afterwards, but at least you're alive to think about it!

(And yes, although I've not had to deal with VBIED's in my combat experience, I've had to make judgement calls about who to shoot, in a heck of a hurry, and I have to live with my potential mistakes too. It's not easy, or fun, or happy, but it's life.)

 

[c_yeager]

Here's a picture of one of these signs. I will correct my earlier post. The signs warn not to approach closer then 100 meters.

Did you notice several occassions where the vehicle in question stoped and reversed in order to fire on other cars? Doesnt sound like they wanted them to stay away, does it?

 

[Lucky]

Umm, you can make the point that there really is no right or wrong morals are just rules set by the convenience of power, or whatever argument there is.

But if anyone ever tries anything remotely like that where I am, they better finish the job the first time, cause I swear I wouldn't let them have a second. If nothing else Iraqi civilians could try to note the make model or possibly tag number of the car, for future criminal charges.

Damn, kind of wish I hadnt downloaded that video. Expected to see people shooting tires or something, not bored crazy pricks saying "oh here comes a good one".

 

[beerslurpy]

Here's a picture of one of these signs. I will correct my earlier post. The signs warn not to approach closer then 100 meters.

Jeff

Thats not very neighborly. I wouldnt even think to look for such a sign from 100 meters away. If someone killed my friends or relatives over such a flimsy pretense, I would probably start shooting people who had them on principle.

 

[Zak Smith]

Thats not very neighborly. I wouldnt even think to look for such a sign from 100 meters away.

Perhaps driving habits and "roadway etiquette" changes when cars start blowing up regularly.

 

[carebear]

On the other hand, once I got word that cars with big signs wired to them shoot at unmarked cars like mine, I'd probably give them a wide berth on principle. I can't believe by now it is a big surprise to the locals.

Kind of like how I reflexively slow down when I see a car parked under an overpass, long before I can tell if it is a cop. It has become common sense.

If these yahoos are shooting for fun they need to be dealt with as murderers.


Oh, and the "mission" that was pronounced "accomplished" on that flight deck was obviously, in context, the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime and standing army. To state otherwise is glib but asinine.

Mission #2 - Operation "What the heck do we do now?" is the one awaiting accomplishment.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Oh, and the "mission" that was pronounced "accomplished" on that flight deck was obviously, in context, the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime and standing army. To state otherwise is glib but asinine.

Mission #2 - Operation "What the heck do we do now?" is the one awaiting accomplishment.

My point precisely. Wars are fought between the armies of two (or more) sovereign nations. The "war" in Iraq is over. Now we are trying to win the peace.

 

[Fred Hampton]

Mission #2 - Operation "What the heck do we do now?" is the one awaiting accomplishment.

And the answer on Question #1: "Why did USA start this Iraqi campaign" still remains hazy.

 

[Khey Locke]

Hmm... I think these are some bad apples...

00:48 into the clip: The White van being shot upon seems to be back quite far enough, yet they're still shooting...

01:06 into the clip: The video camera is now outside the vehicle, maybe on the trunk. This means they stopped, got out of the vehicle, then proceeded to drive on the back.

01:14 into the clip: They stop and immediantly begin firing upon the car behind them.

01:34 into the clip: Despite there not being a car within range, they decide to throw a grenade of some sort.

01:56 into the clip: after noticing a car, they intentionally slow down again and wait, then begin to fire.

02:13 into the clip: After finishing firing on the car, they begin to move, showing there was no real point to stop EXCEPT to fire upon the car.

02:24 into the clip: They do the same thing: slow down, wait for the car, and immediantly fire upon it. Who usually stops on a high way?

Not only that, but the music, which was added later because of the quality and the fluidity (unlike the different screens) doesn't fit it at all. however, we cannot tell if the music was added by those responsible or a party afterward to make it seem more incriminating.

 

[artherd]

Looks to me like the white van took fire when it accelerated and BROKE the exclusion zone respected by the other drivers.

Sorry, you do that you die.

Also, one would think that innocent drivers would, um, you know, STOP THEIR CARS after taking the first few rounds of machinegun fire The ones that KEEP GOING, yeah, I'd dump a full belt into.



When the insurgents start taping 2" lettered signs to the CHILDREN they are wiring with explosives and sending into our camps, I'll have to remenber to complain the letters aren't big enough either.

 

[spacemanspiff]

What if you can't read the sign from 100 meters? C'est la vie?

whiny liberals can never keep up with rules of engagement.

 

[lysander]

spacemanspiff said:

whiny liberals can never keep up with rules of engagement.

Asking a question regarding the validity and effectiveness of a warning sign does not explicitly or implicitly make me a whiny liberal...it just makes me someone who asks questions.

What I would argue is this: Relying on the maxim that "war is tough and people die" as a justification for what appears to be some fairly heinous activity perpetrated by U.S. hired contractors is intellectual sloth.

Making that argument doesn't make me a whiny liberal either...it just makes me someone who is interested in exactly what is being done in my country's name, on my behalf and for "freedom."