Comment: "Who the heck are you, or

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "In order to discern intent (see in situ)

"Who the heck are you, or

"Who the heck are you, or anybody else, that you suppose yourself to be in a position of authority over those Apache pilots, to pass judgement on them?"

I am a judge of the world.

"Or do you not know that the Lord's people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?" - 1 Corinthians 6:2

"These people had illegal weaponry and based on the context of the environment, were suspicious"

Suspicion is not a license or warrant to use deadly force in and of itself.

"It is still not known whether those people were enemy combatants or not"

But despite not knowing deadly force was used.

"But in truth, you can't even say it was a bad call, because you can't 100% without a doubt prove that those people were completely innocent."

I can say with certainty any use of deadly force against civilian persons not acting as enemy combatants or engaged in hostilities is subject to a determination of wrong doing. There is no burden of proof for innocence. Innocence is always presumed. The only thing which can defeat any presumption of innocence is observing an individual perform a wrong action. If suspicion is observed it may warrant certain responses but certainly not a use of deadly force for mere suspicion. If possession of an illegal weapon is observed it may warrant a certain response but certainly not a use of deadly force if not an enemy combatant or while engaged in any hostilities. If an enemy combatant is observed it may warrant certain responses possibly including a use of deadly force depending on their compliance or non-complaince. If an enemy combatant engaged in hostilities is observed any use of deadly force is beyond reproach in accordance with ROE.

So even you admit the only thing observed was suspicious activity possibly involving possession of illegal weaponry by persons not engaged in any hostilities and it is still not known whether the people were enemy combatants but some of them have been proven to be civilian journalists and despite those facts you claim:

"Those who truly were in authority over them, from the lowest-level commander all the way up to the highest-level 4-star or the president, they didn't find any fault. What makes you right and them wrong? What special information do you have that they don't?"

What special information do they have?

"But again, even if their actions were totally innocent. And even if the pilots did make an error.... IF.... that's NOT murder. That's a mistake, a tragic mistake, an accident, not a crime."

The UCMJ does not have any punitive category for war crimes called mistakes. If one is guilty of a war crime under the UCMJ they are charged under one of the punitive codes.

Lol ... mistake. Hey Bradley ... just tell them you made an honest mistake bro.