WikiLeaks - (the recently returned website that makes available sometimes sensitive material thru FOI) - "exposed" what they called "Collateral Murder" with the release of previously unseen footage on what they call an "indiscriminate" and "unprovoked slaying" of "innocent civilians" in Iraq, 2007.

Video can be viewed here: http://www.collateralmurder.com/

Be warned, the footage is of humans being torn up by a chopper's machine gun fire. The tragic part of it is that Reuters reporters, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh were among the dead. Justifiably there was an outrage from those deaths, and also the deaths of others trying to help the wounded when a van with two children on board was destroyed along with its passengers. See video.

BUT, the use of "indiscriminate" and "unprovoked slaying" of "innocent civilians" turns out to a stretch at best. See this video that contains evidence of at least two being armed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a34IjD69uc

Also, from Collateralmurder.com's OWN transcript of the military radio traffic:

"18:56 Six; this is Four. I got one individual looks like he's got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.
32:33 This is Bushmaster Six. Has that RPG round been extended already or is it still live, over.
32:38 Looks live to me."

This article also covers the major holes in WikiLeaks story.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything

IT SEEMS WikiLeak might be using this footage as a way back 'from the brink' which IMO makes them appear deceitful.

Thoughts?

Just some points to consider before commenting.

1. I believe the attack on the van was unnecessary, but according to the ROE's of that time in that area of Iraq the van was deemed a target due to not being identifiable as an ambulance, nor was it deemed "Protected Collateral Objects" so became a "justifiable" target.

2. My main objective on this thread is regarding WikiLeaks reporting of the incident, not a flame session based on ignorance and bias.

Interesting StG. I have a bit of a soft spot for WikiLeaks and for their goal in presenting or exposing information.

Perhaps it comes from having worked in the Commonwealth PS for too long. A group like WikiLeaks appears as a refreshing change balancing out one extremes with another; that of exposure versus cover-up.

As always, the issue is in the idea of whose TRUTH and how balanced is the reporting. Perhaps the reporting of the incident is not the problem if it elicits a frank response and helps to bring about more accountability and duty of care.

However like any organisation, and Wikileaks is no exception, reports of this nature should always be subject to scrutiny and each of us can come to our own conclusions about the matters presented.

The second link demonstrates that this leaking of the video footage has created a response.

Readers as always will make up their own minds. The fact is in war, there are always casualties and sometimes they are innocent civilians. If there is credible evidence that this was preventable then let it rest at that.

The only thing worrying about WikiLeaks is that they may whip up a frenzy among the conspiracy theorists and help feed that frenzy, but I suspect in that case WL only adds to the frenzy rather than creates it.

I had a soft for them too, but this sets them back to an online conspiracy trash mag for me.

Here's a vid I made this morning debunking them regarding their use of "indiscriminate" and "unprovoked slaying" of "unarmed and innocent civilians".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS8c94BhkaA

ROFL *had a soft SPOT. hehe

The words "innocent civilians" don't appear on the page you linked to. The words "indiscriminate", "unprovoked slaying" refer to gunning down of the Reuters reporters. They are an emotively charged way of describing what happened. But given WikiLeaks sees it self as sort of a news site, and the subject of the killings were news reporters I'll forgive them for that.

I imagine WikiLeaks uncovering a plan by DoD to destroy it by undermining its credibility didn't help either. See "U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, 18 Mar 2008" on http://wikileaks.org

You need to read and view all the material to see the references. They clearly stated no one in that group was armed in the video.

It wasn't indiscriminate and it wasn't unprovoked. There were armed men in that group and there was a battle near by. No one disputes this. Not even Wikileaks.

You need to read the military report from what they were doing to get more of a picture.

@StG: It wasn't indiscriminate and it wasn't unprovoked.

I don't see that, unless you consider carrying a camera to be provocation. The soldiers mistook the camera for a weapon and as a result killed innocent people. It was an understandable mistake made by young men thinking could be killed at any second, but it was also a mistake with terrible consequences.

That I can accept. Wandering around in a war zone is a dangerous business.

What I can't accept is the military of what is supposed an open society trying to suppress the incident entirely; to pretend it didn't happen. I am sure that would not of happened if the news reporters killed were westerners - but they were Iraqis. So that is OK then?

Consider how it would of been treated if the military had come clean when the incident occurred. It would be yet another friendly fire incident, highly regrettable and certainly worthy of an internal investigation, but probably not much in the way of headlines.

Instead we now have news reporters annoyed by another military cover up, and enraged at their work mates been somehow treated as lesser beings. So WikiLeaks is engaged to do what it was set up to do - put the dirty laundry on display. And a web site created to highlight the injustice of it all.

And regardless of how threatened the soldiers felt, it was an injustice of the worse kind to those innocent men that were killed. Surely the least the military could do is acknowledge and apologise for the mistake, so everyone can get on with their lives.

Dear StG,

You say; “BUT, the use of "indiscriminate" and "unprovoked slaying" of "innocent civilians" turns out to a stretch at best. See this video that contains evidence of at least two being armed.”

But there was no footage of them wanting to engage the allied troops.

A quoted from defensetech.org “I agree with Bill Roggio that there is missing footage as no gunships would be cleared hot to shoot anybody carrying a weapon while just cruising around eastern Baghdad. With all of the many different militia hanging out in the city, good and bad, the often out of uniform Iraqi police, thousands of various security guards and just the average citizen carrying around AKs, half that city would have been mowed down.”
http://defensetech.org/2010/04/06/centcom-releases-report-on-apache-gun-camera-video/#axzz0kVg9KM8R

So there is something we are not seeing but going just on what Wikileaks has provided then what happened was wrong. A mistake was certainly made when the pilot thought the cameraman was armed and preparing to shoot. Take that out of the mix and on the face of it the attack certainly could be considered indiscriminate and unprovoked.

Another quote “There was apparently an extremely permissive ROE in effect during the operation because the statement from one of the Apache pilots says that after the attack that can be seen on the gun camera footage, the pilots spotted an individual(s) carrying an AK-47 enter a 3-story building. The pilots asked for and received clearance to fire and blasted the building with three Hellfire missiles, one in each floor, destroying the building. The statement says between 8 and 11 bodies were subsequently removed from the building.”

I have more reading to do.

Don't forget to search the military report regarding them being in the area and having taken fire from small arms and RPG's. The air wing was called in AFTER for air support. They DID correctly identify individuals with weapons. There is no doubt about that.

Yeah, they incorrectly ID'd the reporters. Never said they didn't. What is the reporter not exposing himself to as he crouches at the corner?. It isn't the choppers. IF it was they would've reacted already.

My issue ISN'T with the content of the video. IMO unarmed people WERE killed. It was unnecessary IMO for the van to be taken out, but what I have issue with is how WikiLeaks misrepresented the facts and totally left most facts out even though they are sitting on their website CLEARLY for everyone to see.

Troops found weapons. Fact.
Allied forces in the area. Fact.
Allied forces took fire from small arms and RPG's. Fact.
ROE's were not broken. Fact.

It's tragic the reporters died, but I'm sure they were WELL aware of the dangers of hanging with armed locals.

My issue is with WikiLeaks integrity on this topic.

So, if I understand you correctly, StG

>>My issue is with WikiLeaks integrity on this topic.<<

You are comfortable with the fact they released this previously suppressed footage of action in Baghdad

You are uncomfortable with their editorialising.

So uncomfortable, in fact, that you conclude that

>>this sets them back to an online conspiracy trash mag for me.<<

I would suggest that this is an overreaction.

We do need to be reminded every so often that engagements like this are nasty, and involve real people, some of whom are indeed "collateral damage".

I'm prepared to cut Wikileaks some slack on their purple prose, simply because I think footage like this *should* be seen.

If the item had been released by, say Al Jazeera, or the New York Times, or Libya's Jamahiriya News Agency, would the commentary have been more, or less emotional?

More to the point, would that commentary have enhanced, or diminished, the value of the information itself?

http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378

Having looked at your youtube offering.........

http://contagiousloveexperiment.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/collateral-murder-wikileaks-soldiers-speak/

See what you can do with this..............

Dear StG,

I have had a chance to review the footage and the reports.

My impression is the evidence is strong that this group were not the ones engaging the US soldiers.

They were to the south and not firing their weapons.

It seems the incoming fire was from the East.

“We have not personnel east of our position” 2:17

“They had AK47s and were to our East, so, where we were taking small arms fire. Over.” 15:37

But after the US personnel realised what had occurred there was some 'butt-covering' going on immediately.

“Roger, we are at the location where Crazy Horse engaged the RPG fire break” 17:49
But there was no RPG fire from this location.

“Well it is their fault for bringing their kids into the battle” 18:12
No they brought their kids into a rescue mission of a badly injured man as did the men entering the building hit by a Hellfire missile. Two more missiles followed but before they struck you could see bystanders entering the building to help its occupants.

My other impression was of the helicopter crew hyping up the situation to ensure permission to engage.

“I noticed guys moving to where the bodies were and where the weapons were. That is why I immediately called the ground guys and said we had guys extracting personnel and weapons”

But from the footage they were not collecting weapons but only interested in helping the wounded man. He was a Reuters reporter.

By the number of armoured carriers that attended there were considerable numbers in the area. Do the rules of engagement allow for any Iraqi civilian who is carrying a weapon within 300mts of US forces to be dealt with in this way? Even if they are not seen to fire at them?

And if someone is seen to be carrying a weapon does this tar the rest of those around him as legitimate targets?

Surely this is not the way to conduct an occupation.

Please stop assuming I agree with the actions of the American forces. I have never said I did.

I have a problem with how WikiLeaks brought the video across. They left vital information out of the debate which allows everyone to make up their own mind on the subject.

Well done Csteel for doing your bit to make up your own mind. That's what WikiLeaks should've given everyone the ability to do. I'm absolutely sure you didn't get all your info off just the video. Unfortunately most people have.

How responsible should authorities, in this case the US military, be for journalists who like the (late) Richard Carlton, put themselves in dangerous company doing something really dumb-ass as well? Wouldn't they, or shouldn't they, have been aware of the risks they were taking in a high risk environment, with armed men and flashing a camera that resembled a rocket launcher?

The media likes to present itself as filming 'reality' and they choose the environment (a 'hot' zone where people wisely clear the streets, props (men with guns are handy) and stage film shots to suit. Unfortunately in the case it was the helicopter gun crew who were bluffed not viewers, with a predictable result.

The journos could easily have chosen a different situation and had easily recognisable 'Press' signs and logos displayed. Doubtless the media has directions to do just that but they chose not to comply. The 'other' side shoots journos being silly buggers too.

In a war zone - not talking about the above incident specifically - EVERYONE is a potential threat to your life. Imagine - for example - that wandering around your neighbourhood were ACTUAL threats to your existence. Your decisions will be based totally on self preservation first and foremost, then moral judgement second.

There's footage of a camera crew being blow to s*&t by a tank somewhere around Israel on YouTube. There was outrage. Imagine sitting on top of a hill in a large metal potential target for anti-tank weapons and you see three men hovering behind a bank and looking through a dark, apparently shoulder mounted object. What would you do?. Morally judge, or self preserve, based on the information you have at hand?.

No one deserves to die at work, but you and me make decisions every day that minimise the chances of dying. Not one of those is running around a war zone carrying stuff on our shoulders. Reporters don't deserve it, but they are TOTALLY aware of the risks, and many decisions made by reporters are influenced by financial and professional reward.

Thanks for the linx, Ginx.

This is the sort of information that will eventually force the world to come to grips with the essentially dehumanising effects of what is happening in these "theatres of war".

With luck, we will follow the out-of-Vietnam script.

We slowly come to the realization that the damage we are doing to ourselves is far greater than the damage the "enemy" is able to inflict upon us, and this leads eventually to disengagement.

I'm still puzzled at your attitude towards Wikileaks, StG.

>>They left vital information out of the debate which allows everyone to make up their own mind on the subject<<

What vital information was that?

Dear StG,

I thought Wikileaks had done a pretty fair job. They had posted the longer version of the video, the rules of engagement, various translations of the transcript from the video, a timeline, news articles from the period and quite a few other things.

I felt they might have posted the link to the Military's Central Command site with the statements from the pilots and ground forces but then again with a face page that reads;

“The USG routinely intercepts and monitors communications on this IS for purposes including, but not limited to, penetration testing, COMSEC monitoring, network operations and defense, personnel misconduct (PM), law enforcement (LE), and counterintelligence (CI) investigations.

At any time, the USG may inspect and seize data stored on this IS.

Communications using, or data stored on, this IS are not private, are subject to routine monitoring, inspection, and search, and may be disclosed or used for any USG-authorized purpose.”

Wikileaks may well have had second thoughts.

I certainly did.

Was the action 'indiscriminate'? Most certainly even at a most basic level. Those who did not possess weapons and posed no threat were killed along with the only two who were armed.

Was this an unprovoked slaying? Again I say yes because there was no recorded weapons fire from this quarter and the video showed no intention of those in attendance to do so. Even here Wikileaks is careful because it clearly states what it was referring to the “unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers”. No doubt there.

Ultimately I felt their language was hardly “a stretch at best” like you do but instead pretty accurate. However everyone is entitled to their point of view.

Cont..

Cont..

My last question is asked rather tentatively because I don't want be seen to be 'playing the man' rather than the argument but it has been bugging me.

I noted that also posted via the same youtube account you used to place your earlier response was a clip titled Imma Huntin' Wabbits in which the video game character kills 20 people in a little over a minute and a half.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OHecT3_-O8&feature=channel

I ask it because this was raised by Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange on a MSNBC piece.

“It seems like they are playing video games with peoples lives.”

“So their desire is to kill as many people as possible, to get as higher scores as possible in their endeavour to kill people then brag about it to the rest of the troops.”

He may well have been a little over the top but is it be reasonable for us to wonder if there was some degree of desensitising that has occurred with a generation who have been exposed to this type of gaming? Further would it then inform their responses to combat and especially to wounded individuals (something you felt was unacceptable in this instance with the shooting of the van)?

Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer who was also on the show said “According to the ROE you can engage a person who commits a hostile act or shows hostile intent with minimum force...this was not done here.”

“Now let me be clear here this was a failure partially because of training and discipline I mean when you are using aviation as a primary source of delivery of combat, of fire power, you have to be very precise.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d3SHumK2UY&feature=related

Please note there are multiple repetitions of the footage as yet another media outlet gorges on 'war porn'.

Pericles,

I said it at the start.

Csteele,

I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Here is a little factoid that was new to me. Wikileaks was founded by an Australian.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/international-man-of-mystery-20100409-ryvf.html

It makes me proud.

Excellent link Rstuart.

My heart is beating with more than pride....

A good looking, intelligent maverick... sigh.

Oh, about the topic. In this monopolised 'murdoched' world we need Wikileaks - like any human endeavour it may not always be right but it is a vital part of the mostly controlled media.

Yes, thanks for that rstuart - fascinating indeed.

Dear rstuart,

Although clipped you can still hear the Aussie accent come through when he is interviewed. If you get a chance to read Underground it is worth the effort. I read it when it first came out and the image of them sitting in a blackened van at night with a long lead going to a modem attached to the voice piece of a public telephone is still vivid.

And wasn't WANK such as Aussie word to use.

All that hacking done at dialup speeds ready to drive off at a moments notice if sprung.

I had a relative in the Feds at that time and from memory the officer who allegedly smacked him around while he was in custody was, shall we say, not as highly regarded as some within the force.

Perhaps this is part of his anti-authoritarian streak.

My apologies for my fading memory.

Mendax/Assange was not the one who was kicked in the stomach while handcuffed (allegedly) by the AFP it was Electron.

I know this is side tracking the topic but for those who would like further insight into this very interesting man might like to read this chapter of Underground.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~suelette/underground/justin/chapter_8.html

And if you read the line;

"I have finally become sentient."

And do not laugh out loud then you need a sense of humour transplant.

Thanks for the link, Csteele am about to watch it now.

Did you see the Colbert Report last night?

If not catch the full interview with Julian Assange below:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusives---julian-assange-unedited-interview

Severin,

Thank you for the link, that was an excellent interview.