4 ms·

The US Army released some lightly redacted versions of the reports on its investigations (linked by Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/0

The US Army released some lightly redacted versions of the reports on its investigations (linked by Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/05/wikileaks_gun_camera_footage http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/05/wikil...) http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View=%7b41BA1AAF%2d785A%2d481A%2dA630%2d12470AFCD6FD%7d http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%2... In hindsight there were clearly mistakes made, but it looks like the Army took the incident pretty seriously, and there was no big cover-up. One also gets a bit of a sense from those reports of the broader context in which the events were happening, which the video on its own does not show. I'm not so sure that the histrionics from Wikileaks does anyone much good.

delackner 17y ago
Reading the investigation you linked to (the one labelled "1st" I was surprised to see that they describe as perfectly correct the shooting of the van, despite also describing the van as clearly just picking up wounded. War is very ugly, always, and this is just one of the many aspects of its reality. Some comments have said this sort of stuff wouldn't happen if the crews involved had high quality optics. The van scene clearly would still happen. Also very late in the video, when preparing to fire a missile straight into a building, there is very obviously an unarmed man walking along the sidewalk in front of the building, totally relaxed. The excited gunner is so impatient to blow up the building that he simply fires with his crosshairs practically on top of this person. Again, something that would happen regardless of optics improvements, and a sad message about the level of desensitization soldiers are forced to.

delackner 17y ago

Reading the investigation you linked to (the one labelled "1st" I was surprised to see that they describe as perfectly correct the shooting of the van, despite also describing the van as clearly just picking up wounded. War is very ugly, always, and this is just one of the many aspects of its reality. Some comments have said this sort of stuff wouldn't happen if the crews involved had high quality optics. The van scene clearly would still happen. Also very late in the video, when preparing to fire a missile straight into a building, there is very obviously an unarmed man walking along the sidewalk in front of the building, totally relaxed. The excited gunner is so impatient to blow up the building that he simply fires with his crosshairs practically on top of this person. Again, something that would happen regardless of optics improvements, and a sad message about the level of desensitization soldiers are forced to.