WikiLeaks posts 'killing' video

[The Minx]

Sorry I'm late guys.

Ok let me put it like this, at hearing about how there were wounded kids in the van they shot up, one of them callously remarked how 'Well that's why you don't bring kids to a fight'. Before they shot the van up, one of the two were clamouring for permission to open fire - when all they were seeing were people rendering aid to the wounded.

They were too eager to engage, I don't deny it. Also, I don't understand their decision to take the kids to the local hospital where the facilities were poorer.

I'll probably get a bit of flak for saying this, but the comment "it's their fault for bringing kids to a battle" didn't sound as callous as you make it out to be. I'm sorry. They thought they were attacking a military target. What could they possibly have said?

And also, it's interesting how from a mile away they could see people carrying rifles and a RPG but can't notice a child in the front passenger seat of the van.

They clearly were too eager to identify them as insurgents. But to play devil's advocate a little more: look at the shorter video at around 4:10 to 4:20 - the guy with the camera is crouching behind the building's wall and pointing it at the helicopter. I'm not a professional military person, but that stance he took looks damn intimidating, especially to someone who is already going by the assumption that he is an insurgent. I didn't spot those children either the first time around, and I'm sitting in a comfy chair and not assuming that I'm about to be fired at.

It doesn't have to. Again, I have to point out the difference between intent and motive. What you are describing is motive - that their targets being innocent was part of their reasoning process to open fire. That's not what the video shows at all.

Intent is 'how' and 'what' where motive is 'why'. Intention is 'we circled the group, identified them as insurgents, opened fire as per our RoE doctrine'. You can't for example say they fired their weapons recklessly or accidentally, because that's not what the video shows.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. It is still correct to say that "they did not knowingly kill innocents". Of course there was intent behind their action, but they are in a war-zone. It is what they are supposed to do once they have identified their target.

[Hadrianvs]

Is it at all clear that none of the men in the group were insurgents? Because that hardly appears to be the case. The group that was moving toward Bravo Company 2-16 Infantry was not unarmed. While it is evident that two men had cameras with big lenses, some of the others were clearly armed. I can make out a couple of automatic rifles at least, though one of them may in fact be an RPG.

I do not contest that the man the pilots identified as having an RPG launcher and getting ready to fire was, in fact, one of the two Routers men taking a picture with a camera. However this misidentification is essentially irrelevant since the decision to engage had already been made and cleared. I rather doubt the crew would have held their fire if they had realized that they were looking at a camera, since the other men were still armed.

The site of the engagement was later secured by Bravo company. They reported finding two cameras with telephoto lenses, two RPG launchers, one spare RPG round, and one automatic rifle. None of the soldiers present recall seeing any indication that there were journalists among the dead. The press badges were recovered by Iraqi Army troops that later took charge of the scene and disposed of the bodies.

The evidence suggests that two members of the press decided to embed themselves with a group of non-uniformed combatants in a war zone. They did this while simultaneously failing to to take measures to prevent their being mis-identified as combatants themselves. Routers issues bright blue flak vests and helmets precisely for that purpose, and yet they were not wearing them.

My conclusion is that the reporters died from their own negligence and the gunship pilots are entirely blameless. If there are any lesson to be drawn from this incident it is that reporters would be well advised to not hang out in the vicinity of targets from which they cannot be distinguished.

[The Minx]

An editor from WikiLeaks comments on why they released the video.

CNN: Link.

[Cpl Kendall]

They were too eager to engage, I don't deny it. Also, I don't understand their decision to take the kids to the local hospital where the facilities were poorer.

I'll probably get a bit of flak for saying this, but the comment "it's their fault for bringing kids to a battle" didn't sound as callous as you make it out to be. I'm sorry. They thought they were attacking a military target. What could they possibly have said?

I'm not going to get too into this, I've already hashed it out on SDN but this is one of things you say to help compartmentalize what you've done. A few years down the road it's going to hit them in the head like a tonne of bricks that they killed a child. Until then it's something you tell yourself so you can keep functioning and protect your buddies.

[The Minx]

I'm not going to get too into this, I've already hashed it out on SDN but this is one of things you say to help compartmentalize what you've done. A few years down the road it's going to hit them in the head like a tonne of bricks that they killed a child. Until then it's something you tell yourself so you can keep functioning and protect your buddies.

I can't imagine what it must be like to have to deal with that kind of thing. :sad:

[frigidmagi]

Wiki-leaks Jumped The Gun

Or Hadri was right, either way you want to put it.

[SirNitram]

Reuters is now rather publically talking about it's inability to get this tape from the normal channels. Here's the saga: Link

[quote]As I noted below, U.S. Central Command is now saying that they may not be able to retrieve the military’s own copy of footage of Army choppers gunning down two Reuters employees in Iraq in 2007 — footage of which was obtained and circulated by WikiLeaks, causing a massive controversy.

But Reuters officials shared new information with me that may contradict this account. Reuters says the Pentagon sent a letter to the news service several years ago claiming that this footage, which Reuters was seeking, was under Centcom’s “cognizance,â€

[Charon]

Wiki-leaks Jumped The Gun

Or Hadri was right, either way you want to put it.

Wow, they were that close to the convoy? I don't know why but I'd thought they'd been a bit further off then that.

Yeah, rocket launchers identified that close to the convoy and no signs that anyone there was a non-combatant? That's not an itchy trigger-finger that's making sure nobody blows up one of your buddies, regardless of actual intentions.

[Hotfoot]

And this is why it's not a great idea to make a judgement before the facts are in.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Thought this may be relevant...

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/iraq-war-vet- ... #more-1763

[quote]Iraq War Vet: “We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Usâ€

[frigidmagi]

Are you claiming the weapons were planted Ben?

[KlavoHunter]

Actually, now that you bring that point up, the only pictures that I've seen that supposedly depict the RPG that was allegedly found on the corpses afterward are completely censored.

[frigidmagi]

Have you not looked at the link I posted? None of those pictures are censored.

[Hotfoot]

More to the point, are not the pictures posted direct snaps from the thermal video feed the chopper pilots were looking at?

The silhouettes there are pretty damning. RPG-7's are not standard issue for reporters or innocent civilians.

[The Cleric]

It's difficult to stick with the Geneva conventions when the other side won't. When you use human shields, fire weapons from housing and churches, and generally act like an insurgent, the retaliation is harsh.

The line about "don't stop if civilians or kids are in front of the convoy" well no shit. If they learn that you can stop a convoy by herding a few kids in front of it, then they'll do that and pick off vehicles with RPG's. Fighting this kind of war is nasty and messy, and the longer it draws out the more difficult it is to maintain composure, and the easier it is to see threats everywhere. Especially when it's not unreasonable to assume those threats are there.

[Hotfoot]

In a civilian mindset, especially in America where we have romantic visions of war in our popular culture. If the bad guys are using innocent people as human shields, well then by god we just kill the bad guys with a few well placed shots and everyone can go home.

The real world doesn't work like that. Most people here, I think, if given the choice of actively killing a child or dying, would save the child. However, there's a lot more to it than that here. You're not just deciding about your own life, but the lives of everyone around you. If you stop, you are killing your own people almost certainly, but if you don't, you're killing civilians.

It's not a decision I'd want anyone to make, and I admit that I'd not want to be in that situation myself. It's messy and it's enough to give anyone nightmares they will take to the grave.

This isn't heartless cruelty, it's the real world, and it's messy.

I made mention of the blue helmet brigade earlier in this thread. I am referring, of course, to the UN Peacekeepers, whose RoE is so strict that they cannot act even under a direct threat to themselves or civilians at times.

As of right now, as far as this current situation is concerned, this is a pretty clear scenario. If a reporter embeds themselves with a unit, they might not be fighting, but they're very much accepting the risks of combat. The coverup, so to speak, was a bad idea, but then so was a news organization putting people in with a group of insurgents. Did they know specifically what their reporters were up to? They damn well should have, especially if they're demanding accountability from anyone else.

[frigidmagi]

To be fair Hotfoot, the reporters had left behind equipment (read marked flaks and helmets) that would have IDed them as press.

[Hotfoot]

You know what, even if they had the equipment, would it have mattered the second the people they were with opened fire? I'll point out that you don't need RPG-7s to protect reporters.

[KlavoHunter]

Have you not looked at the link I posted? None of those pictures are censored.

I was not referring to grainy black-and-white gun cam footage, I was referring to pictures taken AFTERWARDS, of the CORPSES, that would then show the RPG that the gun cam supposedly sees.

[frigidmagi]

You'd have a point there expect the gun camera footage shows us evidence of arms. No reason to assume that weapons were planted.

[Hotfoot]

Have you not looked at the link I posted? None of those pictures are censored.

I was not referring to grainy black-and-white gun cam footage, I was referring to pictures taken AFTERWARDS, of the CORPSES, that would then show the RPG that the gun cam supposedly sees.

I would really like to know how the footage showing clear silhouettes of guns and rocket launchers is evidence of weapons being planted after the fact.

In fact, if you can find something that matches the silhouette of an RPG-7 at all that is actually a legitimate non-military item, I'd be willing to give this conspiracy theory an ounce of credibility.