5 ms·
Stating that Wikileaks has not uncovered any meaningful information is quite a stretch. It's true that WaPo and NYT have already covered most of the factual det
by dsplittgerber 17y ago
Stating that Wikileaks has not uncovered any meaningful information is quite a stretch. It's true that WaPo and NYT have already covered most of the factual details of the incident - the WaPo reporter was supposedly embedded with the troups arriving on the scene shortly afterwards.
You're mixing up your timeline. Reuters staff were able to view the material released by US Central Command (military investigation write-up and selected photographs) and also the video itself once, before they were told to file an FOIA request for it, but their FOIA request for the video was rejected multiple times. The relevant question remained whether the shootings were justified under Rules Of Engagement and also whether what the military stated was true.
I think it is similar to reading about how torture is going on and seeing actual photos of it. To accurately assess what exactly went on, a military investigation write-up is quite different from the actual gunship video.
I agree that one may have quarrels with Wikileaks' methods. But please differentiate between their methods and the material they release.
From NYT 07/13/07: “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad."
- To state that about the incident is misleading at best, and a cover-up at worst, don't you think?
- tptacek 17y agoHow is my timeline mixed up? What does the vividness of the footage have to do with anything? What does an NYT article from July '09 have to do with a WaPo article from September '09? I'm sorry if I was unclear. I'm certain there was a US coverup. The US military would cover up a paint spill. What I'm saying is that Wikileaks didn't break the coverup; it's been broken for more than 6 months. Your comment encapsulates my issue with this Wikileaks story. People's justifiable outrage over what the video shows is clearly going to distort their judgement about the news value of the leak.
- dsplittgerber 17y agoYour timeline was mixed up regarding Reuters seeing the video and their FOIA request. The news value is that one is now able to objectively verify what happened in the ultimate vicinity of the incident. And that just doesn't add up with what the military told the press. A WaPo reporter writing about footage without being able to show it is something quite different than footage being available for everyone to see. What I have found on HN is that people's judgement of the video gets distorted by their views about Wikileaks' methods. Their release methods have nothing to do with the validity of their material.
- tptacek 17y agoI think you and I agree about the Reuters / FOIA timeline. The press reports I've read about the incident do not seem uncritical about the military's official story. So, I don't know what we're arguing about.