Wikileaks posts video of military killing of civilians, reporters
In 2007, two Reuters employees (a photographer and his driver) were killed by US Apache helicopters. The military stated that the Reuters men were inadvertantly caught in the crossfire as the Apaches battled a group of armed insurgents that had exchanged gunfire with coalition forces. Reuters filed Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain video from the Apache helicopters showing what actually happened, but were repeatedly rebuffed.
Now Wikileaks has obtained the video from military sources, cracked the decryption, and posted the footage online. (As well as various background material.) And the truth is, to say the least, more nebulous than the military claimed. The helicopters were called to the area due to reports of weapons fire, but the group they attacked was milling around in the street, did not appear armed, and was not firing on anyone. Moreover, it shows that when a van pulled up and began to check and load the bodies of the victims, the helicopters opened fire on them too, even though they were clearly unarmed and clearly attempting to aid the wounded. The military later claimed that the people in the van were "insurgents," even though that is demonstrably untrue and the wounded in the van included two children.
NYT story.
This is especially troubling given the new admission that Special Forces botched a raid in Afghanistan and then tried to cover it up.
What really went on that day in Baghdad? It's hard to know for sure. But the video is extremely troubling; even if the soldiers had an honest (if possibly mistaken) belief that the people in the street were armed, isn't there some responsibility to positively identify them as hostiles before opening fire? If it's really as difficult to distinguish an RPG from a telephoto lens as the military is suggesting, doesn't that mean there is a heightened possibility of mistake, and therefore a heightened duty to ensure that the individuals are actually hostile? If the military is to be believed, anyone walking down the street in a "war zone" (ie anywhere in Iraq) carrying an object is fair game. Moreover, the military blames the Reuters employees for failing to distinguish themselves as press- but what exactly does that mean? They were carrying camera equipment. Were they supposed to be wearing bright orange jumpsuits or carrying billboards that said PRESS? How exactly are journalists supposed to identify themselves to passing aircraft?
Even more troubling is the decision to engage with noncombatants attempting to rescue the wounded. Even if they believed the people they had shot were insurgents, how exactly is it okay to shoot unarmed rescuers? The video itself has a tacit admission that the soldiers know they're not allowed to shoot unarmed wounded men. (As one person attempts to crawl away, soldiers voice their hopes that he'll pick up a weapon so they can shoot him.)
ugh.
Now Wikileaks has obtained the video from military sources, cracked the decryption, and posted the footage online. (As well as various background material.) And the truth is, to say the least, more nebulous than the military claimed. The helicopters were called to the area due to reports of weapons fire, but the group they attacked was milling around in the street, did not appear armed, and was not firing on anyone. Moreover, it shows that when a van pulled up and began to check and load the bodies of the victims, the helicopters opened fire on them too, even though they were clearly unarmed and clearly attempting to aid the wounded. The military later claimed that the people in the van were "insurgents," even though that is demonstrably untrue and the wounded in the van included two children.
NYT story.
This is especially troubling given the new admission that Special Forces botched a raid in Afghanistan and then tried to cover it up.
What really went on that day in Baghdad? It's hard to know for sure. But the video is extremely troubling; even if the soldiers had an honest (if possibly mistaken) belief that the people in the street were armed, isn't there some responsibility to positively identify them as hostiles before opening fire? If it's really as difficult to distinguish an RPG from a telephoto lens as the military is suggesting, doesn't that mean there is a heightened possibility of mistake, and therefore a heightened duty to ensure that the individuals are actually hostile? If the military is to be believed, anyone walking down the street in a "war zone" (ie anywhere in Iraq) carrying an object is fair game. Moreover, the military blames the Reuters employees for failing to distinguish themselves as press- but what exactly does that mean? They were carrying camera equipment. Were they supposed to be wearing bright orange jumpsuits or carrying billboards that said PRESS? How exactly are journalists supposed to identify themselves to passing aircraft?
Even more troubling is the decision to engage with noncombatants attempting to rescue the wounded. Even if they believed the people they had shot were insurgents, how exactly is it okay to shoot unarmed rescuers? The video itself has a tacit admission that the soldiers know they're not allowed to shoot unarmed wounded men. (As one person attempts to crawl away, soldiers voice their hopes that he'll pick up a weapon so they can shoot him.)
ugh.