Posted on 04/05/2010 10:26:36 AM PDT by Praxeologue
After much speculation that it was nothing but a red herring, Wikileaks, which has recently gotten some substantial press coverage on both sides, has finally released a classified video leaked by "a number of military whistleblowers" which depicts "the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff." The Reuters employees in question are Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen. Full video is below, linked from Wikileaks' YouTube site. Full video attached - warning: video is very graphic.
As WikiLeaks further elaborates:
Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.
After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".
Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.
WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.
WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.
I can't find any reference to it here.
bflr
It would be okay if our military was lined up and beheaded.
Gee, at 03:45 into the video, I clearly see one AK-47 and one RPG. If these two ‘reporters’ wish to embed with insergents, they assume responsibility for the consequences.
“If these two ‘reporters’ wish to embed with insergents, they assume responsibility for the consequences.”
Likewise, don’t bring kids to a gunfight. It’s clear from the audio that they were only shooting at people they thought were armed. They would have left the wounded man alone, for example, UNLESS they saw evidence of his trying to use a weapon. The wounding of the 2 kids was unfortunate, but they were INSIDE THE VAN. Those in the helicopter clearly could not see who the van occupants were. Had the children been visible on the street, presumably care might have been taken to avoid them etc.
This is hardly the “smoking gun” that Wikileaks implies.
bump
Well, I’ve seen a lot of war porn, I have to admit that was painful to watch. I saw what looked like an RPG, but thought it was obvious that the photographer was carrying a camera. When the gunner said he saw weapons fired, I saw nothing. As was pointed out already, they were all very casual, which is different from other war porn. I’m interested in what other FReepers think of this video....
Yes, you're correct. Reviewing it again I see the RPG and AK. At 4:16 you can clearly see the photographer kneeling at the building with his camera with a huge lens, which happens to look just like the barrel of an RPG.
To whom, may one ask?
Happens. Occupations are messy things especially if you aren’t trained or prepared for them and it doesn’t help if the population is sectarian and heavily armed. Damn shame.
As for the resistance in showing the video to the public you have to manage your image in a counter insurgency. We are still getting over the rage that people had at us for Abu Gharib you start showing this video on Al Jazeera... forget about it. At least this came out after the Iraqi elections.
When you’re up in the air in a helicopter, it’s hard to tell what’s an RPG and what’s a telephoto lens. And “guy crawling around” might be a threat, right?
Apparently if those guys didn’t want to get shot, they shouldn’t have been walking around on the street in a group.
Yes, the shooters are not very interested in seeing the people on the ground as other people, but as potential threats and targets. They even sort of chuckle when “that guy just drove over a body.” This must be what the ROE are now. It must not make our guys very popular.
I watched the whole video and all I can say is “Welcome to the war, Reuters, what exactly were you expecting?”
Yes. Notice they didn't point out the RPG nor the guy with the AK. The gunner clearly attacked what they thought were insurgents. Also, what many may not realize, is that it's SOP for the insurgents to collect weapons and bodies after a firefight, which is why the gunner once again goes hot on the van. All in all difficult to watch for me, but I say it was a clear example of wrong place at the wrong time, with willing Iraqis standing next to men that are clearly armed. One good part of the video, our soldiers running with the children, who apparently both lived. Only Americans do that..
Bullshit
The kids were hurt because the driver of the van stopped to pick up a wounded terrorist ,I bet this was a deliberate attempt to put those kids in harms way for propaganda purposes or to use as human shields.
WikiLeaks is dissimulating enemy propaganda
“To whom, may one ask?”
Could you be more specific in your question and I’ll answer it. TIA.
check these threads:
Now Dylan Ratigan of PMSNBC is flogging this, along with Salon.com.
"The fact is that WL went to great lengths to say that these two "journalists" were war correspondents for Reuters. What they didn't get around to mentioning was that they were essentially embedded with JAM (Jaish al Mahdi/Mahdi Army). It is well known that these wire service "stringers" were not only intel sources for JAM/AQ, but it looked to me that they were in the process of staging the ambush of the Bradley column that the Apaches were riding shotgun for. They were directly participating in the planning and coordination, for personal/professional gain and notoreity, the impending ambush of US forces on that day and the Apache crew caught them. And they got smoked. Good.
As to the "Good Samaritan" that "happened by", that guy got a cellphone call from whoever was left alive and that asshole chose to roll up on a fresh target with his fucking kids in the car. I guarantee you that if he had let those kids out of that car, that would have ended the engagement right there.
I had a house that was north of Karmah that we knew was full of AQIZ leadership every day on Route Lincoln. But they had taken it over from a family and the family was kept there as hostages knowing that we could not go kinetic on that house while women and children were present.
If you gutless pussies had a clue what the fuck our enemies were capable of you'd understand why those Apaches lit those guys up. It's a fucking war, its not a game. You run with the wrong crowd, you can get caught. You get complacent outside the wire, you get shot."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.