4 ms·

CENTCOM releases documents on Death of Reuters Journalists

19 points by ismarc 17y ago

ismarc 17y ago
I've tried very hard to stay out of the discussions, and someone pointed this out to me. It's a good read (sworn statements and determinations made by investigating officers) to understand the full situation (ie, everything going on outside of the one camera and radio chatter) and the judgement calls made.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Sworn statements are true in the eyes of the person making them, they are not necessarily objective truth. It's like in most other cases like this, if you cover it up you're seriously suggesting you've got something to hide and that will take on momentum by itself. The headlines the world over are roughly translated 'Americans murder innocent civilians'. If they had released this on their own initiative they could have controlled it much better, now it is too late for that. It's interesting how some of the most balanced reporting on this comes from sites like Al Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/04/201045123449200569.html http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/04/201045123...
  - zalew 17y ago
    "It's interesting how some of the most balanced reporting on this comes from sites like Al Jazeera" If you're surprised by that, it means you don't know much about AJ and don't watch it. Currently they have the only decent journalism, along with BBC, which most of their AJ English journalists come from. The rest of popular news channels is TMZ-class compared to them.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      If you're surprised by that, it means you don't know much about AJ and don't watch it. It's hard to believe because the American media feeds us the idea that Arabs are some inferior race out to kill us all. So obviously their media outlets are just publishing propaganda designed to further that cause by taking down the American infidels from the inside. Or something. But of course, it's our news sources that are the real propaganda spewers. "Fair and balanced" indeed.
      - zalew 17y ago
        Yeah, their public image is often mistaken by their geographical origins, not only in the US. Second thing is that they report and discuss complicated topics in a way you don't find on CNN and other media. If someone is used to the mainstream style of news 'at a glance' and with ready made answers, it'll probably be too hard to watch a half-hour documentary or a live discussion between conflict representatives.
    - Maktab 17y ago
      It's worth noting that Al-Jazeera has improved a lot since its early days in 2002/2003. With the launch of their English news service they made a concerted effort to improve their act and become more impartial. They're still prone to inflammatory coverage, especially on their Arabic news service, but as I said it's a huge improvement over what they were before. Unfortunately many people, both pro and anti-war, are still operating on the perceptions shaped by events seven years ago and they haven't noticed how much things have changed.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        You mean the early days of the war. Al Jazeera has been around a lot longer than that, 1996 or 1997 iirc. They gained real notoriety in 2001 because of their covering of 'dancing Palestinians' after the 9/11 attack but they were operational long before that.
        Maktab 17y ago
  - ismarc 17y ago
    I agree completely, especially with regards to the sworn statements. Everyone involved was making decisions based on what they perceived, with the goal being a common consensus of the appropriate action. The investigation had a couple of inconsistencies between reports, but all very minor, and obviously not a "get our story straight" style of massive cover-up people would like to believe. Unfortunately, the time to release the documents to be believed was when Reuter's first filed the FOIA request for the video and documents they were shown. However, on an only mildly related note, I'm disappointed that the video is being so widely distributed with few warnings/protections around the brutality of what is contained.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      > I'm disappointed that the video is being so widely distributed with few warnings/protections around the brutality of what is contained. I think that's because people are totally de-sensitized as to viewing violence. The only difference between this video and some games and a whole pile of movies is that it is real.
    - Uchikoma 17y ago
      Not sure what people expect when watching a video which is titled "Collateral Murder". I at least would espect a video showing the killing of several people.
iskander 17y ago
Those soldiers, even after seeing the video, seem to remain convinced the people in the van were gathering weapons. Weird.
dsplittgerber 17y ago
If you just look at the photos PDF and compare the photos to the actual footage, you see two things. The photos actually provide a very clear shot of the Reuters journalist behind the corner (much better than the video, I thought), though his crouching is interpreted as "demonstrating hostile action". Interesting spin, though the point is moot, as no one could have made that out as clearly as that from the helicopter. More importantly, the labeling is inconsistent. They mislabel the opening shots of the group walking towards the corner as "armed AIF with RPG", at the last shot the same person is an "armed AIF". It's the guy with the AK in hand. Even the pilots recognized him as having 'just' a weapon (i.e. AK-47), not an RPG.

19 points by ismarc 17y ago

I've tried very hard to stay out of the discussions, and someone pointed this out to me. It's a good read (sworn statements and determinations made by investigating officers) to understand the full situation (ie, everything going on outside of the one camera and radio chatter) and the judgement calls made.

jacquesm 17y ago
Sworn statements are true in the eyes of the person making them, they are not necessarily objective truth. It's like in most other cases like this, if you cover it up you're seriously suggesting you've got something to hide and that will take on momentum by itself. The headlines the world over are roughly translated 'Americans murder innocent civilians'. If they had released this on their own initiative they could have controlled it much better, now it is too late for that. It's interesting how some of the most balanced reporting on this comes from sites like Al Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/04/201045123449200569.html http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/04/201045123...
- zalew 17y ago
  "It's interesting how some of the most balanced reporting on this comes from sites like Al Jazeera" If you're surprised by that, it means you don't know much about AJ and don't watch it. Currently they have the only decent journalism, along with BBC, which most of their AJ English journalists come from. The rest of popular news channels is TMZ-class compared to them.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    If you're surprised by that, it means you don't know much about AJ and don't watch it. It's hard to believe because the American media feeds us the idea that Arabs are some inferior race out to kill us all. So obviously their media outlets are just publishing propaganda designed to further that cause by taking down the American infidels from the inside. Or something. But of course, it's our news sources that are the real propaganda spewers. "Fair and balanced" indeed.
    - zalew 17y ago
      Yeah, their public image is often mistaken by their geographical origins, not only in the US. Second thing is that they report and discuss complicated topics in a way you don't find on CNN and other media. If someone is used to the mainstream style of news 'at a glance' and with ready made answers, it'll probably be too hard to watch a half-hour documentary or a live discussion between conflict representatives.
  - Maktab 17y ago
    It's worth noting that Al-Jazeera has improved a lot since its early days in 2002/2003. With the launch of their English news service they made a concerted effort to improve their act and become more impartial. They're still prone to inflammatory coverage, especially on their Arabic news service, but as I said it's a huge improvement over what they were before. Unfortunately many people, both pro and anti-war, are still operating on the perceptions shaped by events seven years ago and they haven't noticed how much things have changed.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      You mean the early days of the war. Al Jazeera has been around a lot longer than that, 1996 or 1997 iirc. They gained real notoriety in 2001 because of their covering of 'dancing Palestinians' after the 9/11 attack but they were operational long before that.
      - Maktab 17y ago
- ismarc 17y ago
  I agree completely, especially with regards to the sworn statements. Everyone involved was making decisions based on what they perceived, with the goal being a common consensus of the appropriate action. The investigation had a couple of inconsistencies between reports, but all very minor, and obviously not a "get our story straight" style of massive cover-up people would like to believe. Unfortunately, the time to release the documents to be believed was when Reuter's first filed the FOIA request for the video and documents they were shown. However, on an only mildly related note, I'm disappointed that the video is being so widely distributed with few warnings/protections around the brutality of what is contained.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > I'm disappointed that the video is being so widely distributed with few warnings/protections around the brutality of what is contained. I think that's because people are totally de-sensitized as to viewing violence. The only difference between this video and some games and a whole pile of movies is that it is real.
  - Uchikoma 17y ago
    Not sure what people expect when watching a video which is titled "Collateral Murder". I at least would espect a video showing the killing of several people.

iskander 17y ago

Those soldiers, even after seeing the video, seem to remain convinced the people in the van were gathering weapons. Weird.

dsplittgerber 17y ago

If you just look at the photos PDF and compare the photos to the actual footage, you see two things. The photos actually provide a very clear shot of the Reuters journalist behind the corner (much better than the video, I thought), though his crouching is interpreted as "demonstrating hostile action". Interesting spin, though the point is moot, as no one could have made that out as clearly as that from the helicopter. More importantly, the labeling is inconsistent. They mislabel the opening shots of the group walking towards the corner as "armed AIF with RPG", at the last shot the same person is an "armed AIF". It's the guy with the AK in hand. Even the pilots recognized him as having 'just' a weapon (i.e. AK-47), not an RPG.