3 ms·

Same assessment here as a former soldier. The first piece is debatable. I clearly saw an RPG and a personal weapon, and to be honest, unless the cameraman was I

Same assessment here as a former soldier. The first piece is debatable. I clearly saw an RPG and a personal weapon, and to be honest, unless the cameraman was ID'd, I would be 50/50 on that. I don't know the tactical situation, but it looks like they were providing aerial cover for a convoy of some sort, since that's who they keep chatting with. This was quite possibly an ambush in it's very early stages. While disturbing (welcome to war) I don't think that the actions of the crew where unbecoming at that point. I did however have an issue with the destruction of the van. There were no weapons visible, it was clear that they were collecting bodies for transport/medical attention. Any perceived or real threat to the convoy was at that time neutralized, and there was no need to fire. Doing so clearly violated the Geneva conventions and the US Army's ROE. Both apache crews should be charged with murder, and the authorizing officer should be charged with some lesser charge for not confirming the intended target.

Alex3917 17y ago
At 4:20 one of them says, "We had a guy shooting" even though clearly no one is shooting at the time. What's up with that?
- Nwallins 17y ago
  > At 4:20 one of them says, "We had a guy shooting" even though _clearly no one is shooting_ at the time. What's up with that? It's not clear that no one is shooting, though. It's only clear that the available and very limited perspective did not capture such activity.
  - Alex3917 17y ago
    Right after this when someone says "Uh, negative" and the other guys ignore him, is that not about the alleged shooting?
    - krschultz 17y ago
      There are seemingly two conversations happening at once, I took the "negative" as referring to location not shooting. Read it as Guy 1 saying "we had a guy shoot, now he's behind the building" and Guy 2 saying "negative, he is not behind the building he was in front of the bradley and I haven't seen him since" rather than Guy 1 saying "We had a guy shoot" and Guy 2 saying "Negative" and you get a completely different picture. 02:15 No hold on. Lets come around. Behind buildings right now from our point of view. ... Okay, we're gonna come around. 02:19 Hotel Two-Six; have eyes on individual with RPG. Getting ready to fire. We won't... 02:23 Yeah, we had a guy shoot---and now he's behind the building. 02:26 God damn it. 02:28 Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad Uh, 'bout, there, one o'clock. 02:34 Haven't seen anything since then.
elblanco 17y ago
Don't forget too that this was right around the high point of violence in Iraq not long after the surge started. It's likely the Apaches and the Bradleys were part of a coordinated clearance operation not a convoy. I definitely saw cameras with telephoto lenses in the video, but I also saw a weapon as well. I'm glad the video was released, but it should have been released raw and without all of the markup and commentary.
- ascuttlefish 17y ago
  Short and long versions have been released. Here's a link to some torrent links listed on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/bmooi/wikileaks_video_just_got_released_its_titled/c0niq1r http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/bmooi/wikileaks_video_j...
subpixel 17y ago
run4yourlives sums up by feelings about this particular incident very well. However, I'm uncomfortable with the way Wikileaks has couched the release of this video (the editing, the title, and the url used to promote it). It's agitprop, and in the long term I think it undermines the ability of leaked documents like this to enter the public discourse and (possibly) effect change. My advice to Wikileaks if they want my continued support is to stick to what you're good at: enabling whistleblowers to anonymously release documents that may serve the public interest. But let Michael Moore handle the filmmaking.
- krschultz 17y ago
  Especially the really slow lead in. 2 minutes of time before you get to the video? A lot of people are just going to click out before they see that, especially with the editorializing. You will turn off a lot of people predisposed to support the US military over all other considerations. If you start right with the video and let the document speak for itself you might reach a wider audience. You also bias the viewers perception by showing the pictures beforehand that clearly tell you they are journalists which is something the pilots did know until after the fact.
- youngian 17y ago
  I made a longer comment down the page about this. In short: Wikileaks is low on money right now, and my guess is that all the hoopla around this presentation is a marketing tactic to get noticed and get donations. I don't like it either, but I expect they will get back on mission if they become financially stable again.
dkarl 17y ago
Why were they so agitated about getting permission to shoot the men who came to pick up the wounded guy? Did they just really, really, really want to make sure that guy died? And who gave them permission? (Really ignorant here, sorry....) Did the person who granted them permission to fire have another source of information about the situation, or was the decision based entirely on the crew's description of the situation? Did it have something to do with them saying the van was "picking up weapons?"
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  I'm going to assume (very much so) that the Apaches are answering to whomever is commanding the ground column. So permission to fire will come from him. They actually ask twice for permission to fire on the van. The first time with some detail about the target and the second without. Did the person who granted them permission to fire have another source of information about the situation, or was the decision based entirely on the crew's description of the situation? The latter. Although being that authority to fire is in the hands of the ground commander, he should have asked what the heck they were firing on. From the sounds of it, I think he was tied up with other things at the time he gave said permission, which doesn't absolve him from his role.

Alex3917 17y ago

At 4:20 one of them says, "We had a guy shooting" even though clearly no one is shooting at the time. What's up with that?

Nwallins 17y ago
> At 4:20 one of them says, "We had a guy shooting" even though _clearly no one is shooting_ at the time. What's up with that? It's not clear that no one is shooting, though. It's only clear that the available and very limited perspective did not capture such activity.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  Right after this when someone says "Uh, negative" and the other guys ignore him, is that not about the alleged shooting?
  - krschultz 17y ago
    There are seemingly two conversations happening at once, I took the "negative" as referring to location not shooting. Read it as Guy 1 saying "we had a guy shoot, now he's behind the building" and Guy 2 saying "negative, he is not behind the building he was in front of the bradley and I haven't seen him since" rather than Guy 1 saying "We had a guy shoot" and Guy 2 saying "Negative" and you get a completely different picture. 02:15 No hold on. Lets come around. Behind buildings right now from our point of view. ... Okay, we're gonna come around. 02:19 Hotel Two-Six; have eyes on individual with RPG. Getting ready to fire. We won't... 02:23 Yeah, we had a guy shoot---and now he's behind the building. 02:26 God damn it. 02:28 Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad Uh, 'bout, there, one o'clock. 02:34 Haven't seen anything since then.

elblanco 17y ago

Don't forget too that this was right around the high point of violence in Iraq not long after the surge started. It's likely the Apaches and the Bradleys were part of a coordinated clearance operation not a convoy. I definitely saw cameras with telephoto lenses in the video, but I also saw a weapon as well. I'm glad the video was released, but it should have been released raw and without all of the markup and commentary.

ascuttlefish 17y ago
Short and long versions have been released. Here's a link to some torrent links listed on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/bmooi/wikileaks_video_just_got_released_its_titled/c0niq1r http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/bmooi/wikileaks_video_j...

subpixel 17y ago

run4yourlives sums up by feelings about this particular incident very well. However, I'm uncomfortable with the way Wikileaks has couched the release of this video (the editing, the title, and the url used to promote it). It's agitprop, and in the long term I think it undermines the ability of leaked documents like this to enter the public discourse and (possibly) effect change. My advice to Wikileaks if they want my continued support is to stick to what you're good at: enabling whistleblowers to anonymously release documents that may serve the public interest. But let Michael Moore handle the filmmaking.

krschultz 17y ago
Especially the really slow lead in. 2 minutes of time before you get to the video? A lot of people are just going to click out before they see that, especially with the editorializing. You will turn off a lot of people predisposed to support the US military over all other considerations. If you start right with the video and let the document speak for itself you might reach a wider audience. You also bias the viewers perception by showing the pictures beforehand that clearly tell you they are journalists which is something the pilots did know until after the fact.
youngian 17y ago
I made a longer comment down the page about this. In short: Wikileaks is low on money right now, and my guess is that all the hoopla around this presentation is a marketing tactic to get noticed and get donations. I don't like it either, but I expect they will get back on mission if they become financially stable again.

dkarl 17y ago

Why were they so agitated about getting permission to shoot the men who came to pick up the wounded guy? Did they just really, really, really want to make sure that guy died? And who gave them permission? (Really ignorant here, sorry....) Did the person who granted them permission to fire have another source of information about the situation, or was the decision based entirely on the crew's description of the situation? Did it have something to do with them saying the van was "picking up weapons?"

run4yourlives 17y ago
I'm going to assume (very much so) that the Apaches are answering to whomever is commanding the ground column. So permission to fire will come from him. They actually ask twice for permission to fire on the van. The first time with some detail about the target and the second without. Did the person who granted them permission to fire have another source of information about the situation, or was the decision based entirely on the crew's description of the situation? The latter. Although being that authority to fire is in the hands of the ground commander, he should have asked what the heck they were firing on. From the sounds of it, I think he was tied up with other things at the time he gave said permission, which doesn't absolve him from his role.