US military WikiLeaks video release

elucidator—how about this assumption (backed up by background statements provided by the soldiers and others): The soldiers, at this point in the war, frequently see vehicles coming into battle zones to pick up bodies and weapons before coalition forces can reach them. In fact, they’ve had reports that very day that an SUV has been going around dropping off insurgents and picking them back up all morning.

Therefore, they can safely assume that this vehicle’s operators are coming onto the scene to pick up bodies.

And hey—what do you know? They did pick up bodies. How do you explain that? Are the helicopter crewmen psychic? No. It’s just the same kind of thing they see every day. Only this time, it wasn’t more insurgents, it was an unfortunate good samaritan.

There’s no massive conspiracy or ill intent in the helicopter crew saying that the van was coming up to possibly pick up bodies. It was just a good guess.

ETA: Would this exact wording satisfy you?

7:29: Yeah Bushmaster, we have a van that’s approaching—we don’t know its purpose, but based on our experience, we predict it will soon be picking up bodies.

The crew spoke in the present tense rather than the future. Sorry. They had a few things to occupy their minds.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

To be clear, in my experience Der makes a lot of unsubstantiated and sloppy claims IME – and I will on occasion take him task for this. But to say that he makes shit up is an overstep and requires stronger support. (Yeah yeah, this is a dicey subject with us.) If you had said something like "You got nothin’ ", I wouldn’t have objected and I even would have agreed, pending presentation of additional evidence.

On the substance, there is evidence that marines in Fallujah did indeed blockade a hospital and place a gunman on its property, in conflict with the Geneva conventions. But frankly I don’t want to wade too far into this issue: there is some evidence that armed insurgents were using hospitals and mosques as cover, which complicates the legal issues.

The War Blog at the New York Times canvases various military blogs on the wikileaks tape. Recommended.

What he said was in the present tense, the van is approaching and picking up bodies. Perhaps the van was approaching, being in motion as it was, but it damn sure wasn’t revealing any intent by that motion. OK, you suggest that he assumed something, but what he reported was not the fact of the moment.

And it stops not to pick up a body, and not a weapon (there being none visible in the immediate area) but a wounded man May we fairly assume that was their intent, since that is what they set about doing! Wouldn’t a reasonable man re-check his assumptions if their behavior doesn’t match?

xtisme, it would be a kindness to state that your argument is merely muddled. Your debate style is more akin to a Great White’s feeding frenzy. Take a breath, man.

Quit the sophistry. What evidence would you like me to provide? Sworn affidavits from all involved that they perjured themselves? You’re that partisan that you’ve painted yourself into the absurd position of disbelieving what any fool can see clearly with their own eyes in favour of some bullshit investigation. xtisme, one day you’ll realise you can still be a conservative yet not be perennially on the wrong side of every debate.

This statement comes from the sworn testimony of the gunner during one of the military investigations. As you’ve claimed to have read the transcript, you’re no doubt aware of this fact. The same statement where he claims to have witnessed imaginary rooftop teams. How anybody can believe that an investigation where this point goes unchallenged wasn’t a whitewash is beyond me.

Again, your thrashing style of debate forces you into absurdities. The null hypothesis is that these guys were just civilians standing around in a civilian neighbourhood, and you need positive proof that the victims were in fact aggressors before opening up on them with a 30mm cannon.

As has been pointed out multiple times, Iraq is a dangerous place, and I expect it to be fairly normal for men to arm themselves to protect their family and property. As a proponent of American gun rights, I can’t even begin to understand why you don’t grasp this fact. As I asked up thread, in your view, why is possessing a rifle in Iraq a priori justification to blast away at a group of men? Further, how many civilians could have been gunned down before you begin to suspect there’s something not quite right about waging street-to-street warfare from a gunship 2kms away?

As it stands, the video’s probably the best jihadist recruitment tool radical Muslims could possibly have hoped for. Nice one.

What? You’re not disputing the authenticity of the video, apart from when indeed you are disputing the authenticity of the video? The Pentagon privately acknowledges that the video is genuine. The WikiLeaks site has also released in full a complete version of the video. There is no chance that it was doctored. Sorry, none. If there was a chance, the DOD would have been all over it releasing their bullshit propaganda to the conspiring myrmidons in the American press (c.f. Washington Post report on the battle).

Further, you completely missed my point. Mentioning that it comes from the Pentagon is evidence enough that at least one military member, or a group of them, feels strongly enough that what happened was wrong that they risked their own neck releasing the video to the free press.

Yes, you thought you saw weapons. You aren’t sure enough to state outright that you did, but presumably sure enough to open fire with the 30mm cannon. Unbelievable. The burden of proof is on those defending this atrocity to actually prove the victims were aggressors. But, we already know they weren’t: just a group of men stood around pointing out a battle site to two photojournalists.

I don’t know, CRSP. I watched the 40 minute clip and it definitely seems to be cut, to me. This just makes me wonder if anything was edited out before the whistleblower got it, though. It wouldn’t surprise me too much if it had been “prettied up” before presentation. I’m sure if the pilot was screaming “YEEHAR! NASCAR”, that superfluous information would have been omitted.

Why do you bother with this? How many years does it take you to understand the futility of your response?

Capt. Ridley:

There can be no doubt the video has been edited. Wikeleaks acknowledges they edited it.

bannerrefugee:

I would say Capt. Ridley’s efforts are not futile. The audience is wider than just those who participate.

What, specifically do they say? Does that pertain to the full version of the tape, too, or only to the clearly acknowledged abridged version?

In the video, at the time the Apache initially opens fire, they are clearly firing at a group of guys without weapons.

Now, I’m no expert. I’m not even an internet military tough guy. It just seems like a really odd attack posture to surround one guy who might have a weapon with a whole crowd of guys without any weapons at all. Likewise, it doesn’t make much sense to be an unarmed guy standing around a shooter. I know in the few videos I have seen with this kind of thing I’ve not seen this kind of thing when there are actually people firing weapons.

I wonder if our resident urban warfare experts here can opine about how common this “strategy” actually is? xtisme, in your experience, how often do unarmed “insurgents” actually stand around in small groups clustered around a shooter?

Something else that hasn’t been clear in the discussions is that the things that may have been weapons early in the video are not being held at the ready, aimed in any way, and clearly aren’t being fired. The people who have the things which might be weapons are pretty much standing around and don’t appear to be cognizant of any need to do so.

Also odd is the fact that the crew describes the guy who is looking around the corner as having an RPG and then they say that he was “firing.” First, there’s nothing that at all looks like an RPG being fired. Secondly, if anyone had an RPG, they had only one. Nobody is seen with anything that looks like replacement rockets to reload the launcher.

When engaged in warfare it doesn’t typically matter whether the enemy is currently pointing a weapon at you, or, in fact, is even aware of your existence. Whether these individuals were an immediate direct threat to the Apache or to other members of the military doesn’t make a difference in whether it was okay to engage them or not.

Fox News, so take however many grains of salt you require (my bolding for emphasis):

Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video

By Justin Fishel

WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed “whistle-blowing” investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the “indiscriminate slaying” of innocent Iraqis. Two days later, questions linger about just how much of the story WikiLeaks decided to tell.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed “whistle-blowing” investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the “indiscriminate slaying” of innocent Iraqis. Two days later, questions linger about just how much of the story WikiLeaks decided to tell.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., WikiLeaks accused U.S. soldiers of killing 25 civilians, including two Reuters journalists, during a July 12, 2007, attack in New Baghdad. The Web site titled the video “Collateral Murder,” and said the killings represented “another day at the office” for the U.S. Army.

The military has always maintained the attacks near Baghdad were justified, saying investigations conducted after the incident showed 11 people were killed during a “continuation of hostile activity.” The military also admits two misidentified Reuters cameramen were among the dead.

WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.

Video Appears to Show U.S. Forces Firing on Unarmed Suspects in Baghdad

However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.

WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

“It gives you a limited perspective,” said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. “The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events.”

Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs.

**“Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat,” Hanzlik said.

Military officials have also pointed out that the men in the video are the only people visible on those streets. That indicated something was going on and that these individuals still felt they could walk freely, one official told Fox News.

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that “it’s likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons.”**

**Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks became “unsure” about the weapons. He claimed the RPG could have been a camera tripod, so editors decided not to point it out.

“Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I’m not sure that means anything,” Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area."
**
The military has said Army units on the ground were experiencing RPG fire before calling in close air support. And although it could be argued AK-47 rifles are common household items, RPGs are not.

Assange said video evidence of the cameras was much clearer than it was of the weapons and that military statements about the presence of weapons had already been widely distributed. But critics say those watching the video online or on television for the first time may not have had any knowledge of those statements.

“It’s ludicrous to allege that we have taken anything out of context in this video,” Assange told Fox News.

Another point of contention comes later in the video when U.S. Apache helicopters open fire on two men in a van who had arrived at the courtyard to carry away one of the wounded. It was later learned that the wounded man was one of the photographers. WikiLeaks argues that attack violated the Army’s rules of engagement. However, the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules.

According to Assange the assault on the van was the most damning piece of video evidence. “I’m very skeptical that was done under the rules of engagement; and if it was legal, the rules of engagement must be changed,” Assange said.

So far the rules of engagement in Iraq have not changed.

Hanzlik called the death of the Reuters photographers “incredibly unfortunate.” That sad part is, he said, they weren’t wearing any markings or jerseys that would have signaled to U.S. forces they were members of the media.

WikiLeaks has another classified military video in their possession they plan to release in about a month. This time, Assange said, the public will see what happened during the controversial May 2009 NATO airstrike in Farah province, where Afghan officials say at least 150 civilians were killed.

Come back and talk to me when you’ve been hounded nearly as much as I have been in this thread, then we’ll discuss it.

And you want me to accept your non-expert, subjective and highly speculative bullshit analysis of the film, and when I call you on said bullshit, you come up with the above. Some day, you might realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is a ‘conservative’…they jut disagree with you. I won’t get into the hope that someday, you might be on the right side of a debate, since sadly, this is not the case in this one. But hope springs eternal, ehe?

I read through some of his testimony in the GQ thread (I note that you haven’t actually produced it here, as requested). What I got out of it was that it was similar to a lot of eye witness testimony that I’ve seen in the past…that is, it was confused, confusing, inconsistent and even wrong. That’s to be expected in any traumatic event involving humans, and it’s a pretty well known effect…unless, of course we are on the Straightdope and we are talking about US soldiers. Then, it’s well known that they taking this well known effect into account amounts to a ‘whitewash’ of the investigation (especially if the results of said investigation run contrary to the popular preconceptions of the boards majority…otherwise there are corollaries that can be used to reverse this position), and having a soldier do so is obvious lying, soldiers being known for their perfect memory.

Yes, I get that you believe that the investigation was a whitewash, that the soldier was making it all up so he could play Rambo and blow away a group of guys he clearly knew were unarmed, and that he was just rarin’ to shoot up the peaceful van because he always hated vans from his childhood. I get it. But just like you think that my own assessment is biased because you are laboring under the delusion I’m a ‘conservative’ and a military/US apologist, I think YOUR perceptions of this whole event are strongly biased by your own worldview and preconceptions. Just as I think I see weapons, you think you see deception. The only difference is that I can see how the video IS ambiguous and that any conclusions are going to be purely subjective and based on what the person viewing brings with them, baggage wise, when viewing it.

Dude, and, as you said, I’ll put this gently…if you make a claim then you have to back it up. That’s not my ‘thrashing style of debate’, it’s the way this board works. We are talking about a neighborhood where there had been a series of gun fights reported throughout the day. That’s why the helicopter was there in the first place. So, no…the ‘null hypothesis’ is not reasonably that ‘these guys were just civilians standing around in a civilian neighborhood’…not in the middle of a freaking battle! One or two guys running from one house to another? Yeah, I could buy that. But a large group of men, all obviously together just strolling down the street when fighting has been going on all day in the area? :dubious: So, extraordinary claims (such as yours) requires extraordinary proof. Or even SOME proof. Or ANY proof. Hell, at the point I wrote that, I’d have been satisfied if any of you had provided ANYTHING, save more out of your ass and highly speculative opinions based on your lack of understanding of the military AND of human psychology. That’s why I was asking for cites…you and others were claiming that the evidence was ‘clear’ and ‘obvious’ and without doubt. I’m sorry that you can’t find said evidence to back up your distorted view of this event…really. And I’m sorry that by asking you to, it has set you off.

Go back and re-read what you quoted from me…this time with an eye to comprehending what I actually wrote. In a nut shell, I’m not disputing the authenticity of the video. It’s fairly clear, though, that the video has been modified. You can see several places where the time jumps, even in the full version. That could be where the camera was turned off, or it could be edits by the military or by WikiLeaks. And they have obviously edited the video to add in subtitles, other text and pointers.

So…your assertion that there is ‘no chance it was doctored’ is, simply put, wrong. The only thing in question is to what extent it was doctored (i.e. did they just add some text and subtitles and pointers or did they do more?). As I noted earlier, though, I DON’T think that the film was doctored in any way to substantially change the events. If you go back, as I suggested earlier, and read the comment you quoted for clarity, however, you will note that I’m talking about the nature of the video itself, and I’m saying that the film is ambiguous, that it doesn’t really have any context with it, and that it’s only from the gunners perspective. None of this has anything to do with WikiLeaks doctoring it…it has to do with the chaos that comes with human activities, especially in war.

If I’m in my helicopter gunship and see a group of guys in Rio Rancho walking down the street with what appears to be weapons, then I think that some additional checking is in order to ensure that, in fact, these guys are armed. If I’m in my helicopter flying around the area where US troops have been in contact with hostile forces all day, having been sent out specifically to FIND such a group, and then I see a group of men, all together carrying what looks like weapons and walking towards where the fighting is…well, I’m sorry, but I don’t think it unreasonable to conclude that the group is probably armed and hostile.

The burden of proof is on those claiming that the gunner lied (by demonstrating that there were no weapons…a claim that has yet to be demonstrated at all). It’s on you and the others who are on your side of this thing…extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. It’s not an extraordinary claim that some soldiers in a combat zone mistook a group of men heading towards the fighting as hostiles. Sadly, this is very easy to understand…for those of us not blinded by whatever it is that is blinding people like you to this.

You see, here you go again. We DON’T know this…you just THINK you do. All we really know is that 2 reporters were with a group of guys. Were the guys armed? We don’t know, though I’ve seen reports that say arms were found by the groups units that came into the area just after the helicopter left. We know these guys weren’t just standing around, they were moving in the direction of the fighting though. And what I know is that you make a statement such as above by assertion, with nothing but your shinning rectitude and obviously good heart to back it up (well, that and your eagle eyed assessment of the video). Your assertion, sadly, does not constitute anything remotely resembling ‘proof’ however.

-XT

Okay lets get this straight

It doesn’t matter whether:

  1. The enemy is “pointing a weapon at you.”
  2. Is aware of your existence.
  3. A direct threat to you.
  4. or a threat to other members of the military.

Just nuke em from space, eh? It’s really the only way to be sure.

In this video I’d also add that it doesn’t seem to matter whether:
5. They have/haven’t been positively ID’ed as “the enemy.”
6. They’re gravely injured or otherwise incapacitated
7. If they’re unarmed/diving for safety
8. or any mixture of #s 5, 6, 7

It’s a civilian neighbourhood. The null hypothesis quite clearly is that a group of people standing around are civilians. Where do you think civilians go? Gun battles are routine occurrences in Iraq; civilians don’t just disappear and abandon their homes, businesses and family because you wish they would, or are otherwise inconvenient to American berserkers hovering in the sky kilometres away. You’re fighting in the streets, not on Culloden field. You start shooting the onus is on you to make damned sure you’re shooting at an enemy, otherwise shameful atrocities like Bloody Sunday and this happen.

According the International Humanitarian Law/Law of Armed Conflict/Law of War this is essentially accurate. Just being the enemy means you can be killed. Of course, it presupposes the person you’re killing is in fact the enemy and not a civilian.

Our rules of engagement are stricter than IHL requires because it’s more difficult to identify the enemy. This is why the gunner was waiting for the guy to pick up the weapon. Weapon = enemy = kill from “space” = legal.

In this particular case it’s a matter of how reasonable it was to determine whether these people could have been mistaken as the enemy (or whether some were in fact the enemy. ie, carrying a weapon). I bet if you watched 10 of these videos in a row and 9 out 10 were real enemies, it would be harder to tell these people were reporters carrying cameras and not insurgents carrying weapons.

FoieGrasIsEvil:

Thanks for offering this up again. I linked to it in a previous post but it is good to have it here.
OK, I’m going to take a deep breath and say that of the reports in the MSM that I have watched and read this is one of the more even handed. ( I know, I know it is Fox News).

What concerns me is that there is a single source for the video. Assange says they edited it ( the short 14 min version) and then later offered the longer (39 min version) as presumably unedited. How do we know that?

I can’t believe you just compared this event with Bloody Sunday. They are markedly different.

Your terms are kinda indistinct, XT. For instance, you say they are in a “neighborhood where there had been a series of gun fights reported throughout the day…” How big is a “neighborhood”? Is the helicopter in the neighborhood? The helicopter iis at a considerable distance, a distance such that the helicopter is (apparently) unknown to the “insurgents”. Wouldn’t this be a rather expansive definition of a “neighborhood”? How far away would someone have to be so as not to be in the “neighborhood”?

And why aren’t they keeping close to cover, moving along the edge of the street rather than strolling down the center? Seem rather casual for men who are planning on opening a firefight. Shouldn’t they be skulking carefully along the edge of the street, doorways, that sort of thing? Are we blessed with enemies that are remarkably stupid?

And you opine that they are moving “towards the battle”? Really? What battle? Can you tell us where the battle is relative to the scene we witness? Is it East? If it is, then “moving towards” might be any direction that is not actually West, no?

Not that these points are crucial, but you toss them about as though they were clearly understood and accepted as fact. Are they? And if they are not, what else have you assumed?