WikiLeaks' Iraq Killings Video Reaction

A senior military official confirmed to the AP Monday that the video that appears to show the killing of two Reuters employees in Iraq released by WikiLeaks is authentic. As HuffPost's Dan Froomkin reported yesterday, the video shows "a U.S. Army Apache helicopter in Baghdad in 2007 repeatedly opening fire on a group of men that included a Reuters photographer and his driver -- and then on a van that stopped to rescue one of the wounded men."

However the military's official response Monday was that it "working to verify the source of the video, its veracity, and when or where it was recorded." There was no update to this statement Tuesday. The AP's military source was unable to confirm the identity of the Reuters employees allegedly killed in the video.

Julian Assange, one of WikiLeaks founders, explained the group's decision to release the video, and affirmed his belief in its authenticity, during an interview on Al Jazeera Monday.

WATCH:

On Tuesday, the Iraqi Journalists' Union called on their country's government to investigate the killings in light of the video's release.

"I call upon the government to take a firm stance against the criminals who killed the journalists," the head of the union said.

Around the web, there was no shortage of reaction to the release of the video.

The Atlantic's James Fallows suggested that if the video is taken at face value it may be the "most damaging documentation of abuse since the Abu Ghraib prison-torture photo."

One prevailing question was whether the US soldiers involved violated the Rules of Engagement. The New Yorker's Raffi Khatchadourian lays out the various issues at play.

On several occasions, the Apache gunner appears to fire rounds into people after there is evidence that they are have either died or are suffering from debilitating wounds. The Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Combat do not permit combatants to shoot at people who are surrendering or who no longer pose a threat because of their injuries. What about the people in the van who had come to assist the struggling man on the ground? The Geneva Conventions state that protections must be afforded to people who "collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe."

Juan Cole of Informed Comment suggests that the firing on the van could even have been a "war crime."

For more details on what happened during the 2007 incident, The Washington Post published an excerpt of David Finkel's 2007 book "The Good Soldiers," which contains an account of the attack by the author.

As for the men who had tried to help [Reuters employee] Chmagh, were they insurgents or just people trying to help a wounded man?

They would probably never know.

What they did know: the good soldiers were still the good soldiers, and the time had come for dinner.

Finally, the Economist's Democracy in America blog points out what may be one of the most disturbing truths underlying the release of the video: "We have this video because two of the people who were killed were Reuters employees. How many other civilians were killed in similar circumstances whose names we will never know, because they had no powerful Western employers to publicise their deaths and file FOIA requests?"

The WikiLeaks video:

Comments

[Gary Lloyd]

01:58 PM on 04/09/2010

The Terrorists Won that Battle

Some of you people are blissfully unaware of this....

The terrorists accomplished their goal -- to spread terror and destruction!

We failed ours -- to protect and defend Iraqi citizens.

Thus the crucial question is, "What did we do wrong?"

The next question is, "How did we prevent a tragedy like this from happening again?"

In other words, all you people who are saying the pilots did nothing wrong doom them to doing the same thing again ... again, and again.

The terrorists won that battle because the Apache pilots did not follow procedure.

Or maybe you believe we won that battle? If so, I'd love to hear you explain how.

[RAP555]

05:15 PM on 04/09/2010

Just wondering if you have seen the entire video?
I remember My Lai-this is not the same.
There are too many innocents being killed for other reasons, around the globe,
pick a continent? All of it disgusts me. I just wish the real truths and injustices of this world would be revealed.
Instead we spend time with stuff like this...

[EnMasse]

12:54 AM on 04/11/2010

Excuse me. WHO exactly are "the terrorists?"

Seems to me we parrot that word an awful lot, without knowing who we refer to... And it seems that our deliberate, unconcerned and repeated targeting of civilians in densely-populated urban areas demonstrates that we are the biggest terrorists around. That "war" justification doesn't hold water anymore. Not since we realized it is a fake war based on fake assumptions. Why we talk about it in terms of on ongoing legitimate operation is beyond me.

Double standards and ignorance should be the tagline for the good old USofA these days.

[RAP555]

10:55 AM on 04/09/2010

This whole thing has made me so angry.
1. video edited out weapons-original video 39 minutes.
2. questions never asked:
a. why would Reuters put these journalists in harms way
and embed them in the hottest of hot zones? Without notifying anyone?
So who is ultimately responsible?
b. just because someone is carrying a camera doesn't make them
non targets. They were traveling with hostiles and how do you
think all videos have been shot ie Daniel Pearl, with a Polaroid?
3. War sucks, what else is new, so the point of this video is what?
4. Do you not think for one minute that after finding out the nature of what actually took place that these children (our troops) who caused the deaths are not living with the anguish?

The truth - seek out and find malicious intent and punish it-but for God's sake take the time
to find the truth and don't use agendas to inflict your own collateral damage!
You have a legal team-look how long it took to find out information on other friendly fire incidents.
Change the process-all you did was inflame the already impossible situations our troops and all troops have faced over the years!

[stormpetrel]

09:08 AM on 04/09/2010

And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do

[Gary Lloyd]

04:48 PM on 04/09/2010

The whole thing should make you angry ... very angry.

First, because of the lives lost, including the two children crippled for life and now without a father -- a father who lost his life trying to save others.

Second, because the insurgents played us like a bass fiddle.

Third, because the U.S. Military still refuses to admit what the whole world now knows: the people we killed were civilians.

[Gary Lloyd]

03:46 AM on 04/09/2010

Fresh reports indicate the killings shown on the video were just a warm-up for what happened next..

Thirty minutes later the same pilot(s) fired a hellfire missile into a house with three families inside obliterating the three families.

Look, anyone with teenage kids knows what went happened here. Put a teenager in a $300,000 Ferrari the kid is going to race it the second your back is turned.

Put the same kid in a multi-million dollar Apache gunship and he's going to blow shit up the second your back is turned.

Directly below is a description of one of the nifty whizz-bang features included in the Apache Gunship package:

---------------------------------------------->

"...One of the revolutionary features at the introduction of the Apache was its helmet mounted display, the Integrated Helmet and Display Sighting System (IHADSS);[30][31] among other abilities the gunner can slave the helicopter's 30 mm automatic M230 Chain Gun to his helmet, making the gun track head movements to point at where he looks. The M230 can be alternatively fixed to a locked forward firing position, or controlled via the Target Acquisition and Designation System (TADS).[32][33] ..."

[Ban Irakiya]

12:11 AM on 04/09/2010

Soon full video will be available here http://bit.ly/9DNidS

[Gary Lloyd]

04:19 AM on 04/09/2010

Just saw it.

Pretty ghastly.

After they kill all those people at the start of the clip in the square and at the van, they fly around and blow-up a building with a hellfire missile (frame 28:28) because they IDed one man walking into the building with a shouldered rifle.

Mind you, Iraqi civilians are allowed to carry shouldered rifles.

Add to this, a civilian is walking past the building a second or two before they fire the missile and they don't wait until he passes. He's consumed in smoke by the explosion. I doubt if his remains were even identifiable.

I've never seen such abject disregard for human life. It's as if these pilots were playing a video game.

[Gary Lloyd]

06:26 PM on 04/08/2010

FALSE COMBAT INTEL

First, I would like coin a phrase that should be added to everyone's lexicon: "False Combat Intel."

That said, this goes out to the commentators who think they're doing the right thing by saying the Apache pilots did nothing wrong.

At two critical points the Apache pilots fed their remote commanders FALSE COMBAT INTEL. This false intel was calculated to manipulate their remote commanders into giving an ""engage order the commanders would not have done had they been transmitted accurate intel. This manipulation was successful resulting in the horrific mass murder seen in the video.

In other words, this is not an issue of arm-chair generalship. This is not an issue of giving a combat soldier blinded by the "fog of war" the benefit of the doubt. This is not an issue of civilians passing judgement on a combat team whose very lives were hanging in the balance.

This is an issue of a pilot deliberately falsifying combat intel.

I won't speculate on his motives. He'll have time enough to tell us them at his War Crimes Trial.

My only purpose is to make sure the indictment is clearly defined -- that everyone reading this page grasps with crystal clarity how this tragedy occurred: specifically, it was the calculated fabrication of FALSE COMBAT INTEL that caused it.

That is all.

[Hontas Farmer]

07:03 PM on 04/08/2010

In the case of the van shooting at least, everyone agrees with you.

[Gary Lloyd]

07:19 PM on 04/08/2010

"We have five to six individuals with AK-47s" (3:45)

The above was a False Combat Intel transmitted by the pilot. We may forgive his error in thinking the two cameras were AK-47s, but how do we forgive him for saying there were five to six cameras when there were only two?

-------------------------------------------

"He's got an RPG!" (4:08)

An RPG is a Rocket Propelled Grenade Launcher. Here's a picture of one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rpg-7.jpg

How does the pilot mistake one for a camera?

He doesn't.

"Have eyes on an individual with an RPG!" (4:20)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Van Attack:

"Bushmaster, Crazyhorse, we have individuals going to the scene.Looks like possibly picking up bodies and weapons." (2:15)
--------------------------------------

Nowhere in the video do we see the men at the van doing anything but picking up bodies. Moreover, since we know the supposed weapons reported by the pilot were cameras, we can only conclude his purpose in saying the van men were picking up weapons was to once again get the order to "engage" which he immediately got.

[Hontas Farmer]

11:27 PM on 04/07/2010

This video shows damming evidence of a war crime, the attack on the van which was picking up wounded civlilians.

However the first incident was an honest and understandable mistake. Those men were scared, stressed, and feared for their lives. You are quite vulnerable in a helicopter. The Iraqi militaries only successes against our forces were against our helicopter units. Men with RPG's shot down that fabled Black Hawk in Somalia. Those men had allot to fear from ground fire.

The things everyone with a conscious must think are wrong were the second attack on the van, and the refusal of assistance to those small children.

This was not a battle, this was not a slaughter of insurgents. This was a horrible mistake turned criminal by people covering their own backside.

[Gary Lloyd]

02:44 AM on 04/08/2010

The first incident APPEARS to be an "honest and understandable" mistake but when you study the video you hear the pilot giving his commanders completely fabricated intel:

1. "They've got six AK-47s"

2. "They're shooting."

Yes, we've since established the pilot thought the camera equipment were AK-47s and when he reported this, it may have been an "honest and understandable" mistake. But when he reported there were "six AK-47s" this was a DELIBERATE LIE made to gord his commanders into giving him permission to engage.

In other words, he was knowingly reporting false intel that led to the unnecessary deaths of 12 people.

Moreover, this caused his commanders to become accessories in the mass murder when all they were trying to do was protect him from a danger he fabricated.

They didn't know he was lying. They were conned into giving him permission to engage.

Then came the attack on the van. Where is the Apache pilot's "fear for his life" there? Why was that anything but wanton murder?

I don't think any person of integrity can watch this video without being sickened by the raw brutality of the shootings and the craven lawlessness of the cover-up.

This is one of the most despicable examples of outright murder I've ever seen.

[Hontas Farmer]

03:19 AM on 04/08/2010

Here's what really dose not make sense.

If the place they were over was such a hotbed for insurgents why were they so unconcerned for the people directly below them who could have had the range with their weapons (say RPG's and AK's) to hit them? It is said that the Heilo's were 2 km away. (They did not have a clear view. etc.) That means they were circling on a roughly 12km circle. They would need to be going 6 km per minute or or about 376 km/hr. The published top speed (going in a straight line) of the AH-64 is only 305 km/hr. The helicopter had to have been much closer. 1.6 km by my calculations.

The effective range on an RPG 29 is 500m.

While at the same time a 1km radius within this "hot zone", should have seemed full of insurgents who were well within range to hit and kill them. I know there was an other AH-64 around but it wasn't covering them, both were focused on the same target.

So as these men were shooting a van which to all intents looked like it was full of unarmed civs they could have been exposing themselves by the way of their noise, and muzzle flash to actual threats below them. That is not the behavior of soldiers who are on edge and genuinely fearful for their life and limb.

[AContrario]

05:00 AM on 04/08/2010

Fanned.

[PlayTOE]

08:13 AM on 04/08/2010

Error?
If they saw 2 objects, reported 2 weapons and shot 2 people then this might have passed for a tragic error.

This is not what we see.

They saw 2 objects, reported 6 weapons, and shot 12 unarmed persons.
The rescue van with children clearly had no weapons and there were none to "pick up" despite this being reported. In all "rules of engagement" it is unlawful to kill persons involved only in the rescue of wounded.

More, the Reuters news agency wanted a copy of this evidence and was denied. Army investigation into this action found it a 'standard operation' with no irregularities. Sadly, it looks to be just that, standard procedure.

The war in Iraq is over, and the US Army has lost. These are not heroes, but criminals. Those fighting the "war on terrorists" have become terrorists.

[Hontas Farmer]

12:58 PM on 04/08/2010

The first shooting I say was an error because It dosen't sound like those guys where thinking straight at that point.

The second one, had to have taken willing disregard for facts that should have been obvious a kilometer away. Especially the shooting of the van.

I'm not excusing all of it. I am also not going to criminalize what there is reasonable doubt about being an intentional act.

The shoting at the van just smacks of "lets keep up the image that these were really insurgents by killing some Iraqi's". The conspiracy to cover up the first shooting happens with the second shooting. {sarcasm} It's just too bad for them too of the people in the van were children who survived to tell the tale. {/sarcasm}

[JohnnyKong]

09:33 PM on 04/07/2010

Funny how we invade and occupy a country and blame these people for their own murders. We conveniently call them 'insurgents' and so justify murder. Hell, if there were some foreign invaders occupying my home and killing fellow Americans, I'd take up arms too.

[IfIonlyknew]

11:34 PM on 05/04/2010

You are so right.

[Gary Lloyd]

07:47 PM on 04/07/2010

There is absolutely no question this video depicts horrific war crimes by American troops.

The smoking gun are the radio messages transcribed in the video.

The pilot lied to his commanders about what he was witnessing. When he said, "They've got six AK-47s and they're shooting!" he was telling a lie.

The Army's investigation admits "the aircrews erroneously identified the cameras as weapons..." yet amazingly goes on to conclude the aircrew:

1. positively identified the threat...

2. established hostile intent

But how can this be when the only weapon among the murdered men was the shouldered rifle of the Rueter's bodyguard -- a rifle -- not an AK-47! -- that never left his shoulder?

And just as inexplicably -- even though the Army investigators admit the aircrew was in error when it called the cameras AK-47s and RPGs, it somehow concludes:

"Hostile intent was established by armed 'INSURGENTS' peering around the house to monitor the activities of friendly forces."

But again, it's the pilot's lie that started the whole chain of events. Here's his quote again:

"They've got six AK-47s and they're shooting!"

Clearly, this is not a case of merely "erroneously" identifying cameras as weapons; this is a case of a psychopath with a blood-lust to kill people.

Moreover, once he started he seemingly couldn't stop.

He shot up the van, than 30 minutes later sent a hellfire missile into a nearby house killing three families of women and children.

[JohnnyKong]

09:29 PM on 04/07/2010

>this is a case of a psychopath with a blood-lust to kill people.

I couldn't agree more.

What was he saying to his commander when the van came to rescue the wounded photographer?

"Let me shoot! Let me shoot!"

This is absolutely sickening and I hope these gunners own up to their very human flaws publicly and accept the consequences instead of hiding behind military spokespeople.

[DavidinStLouis]

10:10 PM on 04/07/2010

From what I've seen it's pretty 'messed up'.

I hope the TRUTH, whatever it is, gets gotten down to!

[gravity5]

04:39 PM on 04/07/2010

i love how gullible the masses are when it comes to slandering the US military. the pilots were operating within thr ROE, weapons WERE actually on the scene, and the journalists were intermingled with insurgents. Also, notice the secondary explosion after the vehicle was engaged. Possible RPG round. Also, it was released that the ground element was engaged prior to this. in a neighborhood this size, why were these the only local nationals on the street? from my experience, a sure sign of impending attacks is the lack of a civilian presence during the middle of the day. people are so eager to see something wrong with US military operations in iraq that they will beleive anything disparaging. for further information, here's a like to the CENTCOM investigation of the "incident". The journalist were "paling around with terrorist" and got what they deserved. don't sleep with dogs if you don't want fleas.

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={41BA1AAF-785A-481A-A630-12470AFCD6FD}

[guineu]

04:45 PM on 04/07/2010

What video did you watch, and what comments did you read? I'll assume your post here was a mistake.

[gravity5]

05:34 PM on 04/07/2010

same video as you. the only difference is i've served and deployed with an Army aviation unit before, so i know how aerial combat works. i'll assume you didn't read the CENTCOM review in the link i included.

[PrincessZelda]

05:41 PM on 04/07/2010

Ah yes, the report. The foxes investigate the henhouse killings.

[esolesek]

04:11 PM on 04/07/2010

Fortunately a lot of these guys realize what they have done, and take it out on themselves instead of on their communities. A few will, though. A lot of Iraq vets have snapped already and killed civilians back home. As bad as that is, the people we really need to be concerned about are the ones who sent them, and that includes the thinktank jockeys, oil and arms company CEOs and major shareholders. Whoever's got their voice on this tape is cursed for life. This tape is going to redefine country yokel redneck to the whole world. ENJOY SOUTHERN RED STATES OF AMERICA. YOU'VE ENTERED ANOTHER CENTURY WITH THE SAME OLD ROTTEN REPUTATION. THE NAZIS ARE GONE, BUT YOU'RE STILL HERE...

[DavidinStLouis]

10:18 PM on 04/07/2010

Your post is a joke.

[Palemoon]

04:00 PM on 04/07/2010

salty07

"Maintain some objectivity. Isn't this the kind of thing that you object to in Guantanamo? That's pretty much the premise for why established it. As far as the "Glee", you of all people here should know what that is. It's enormously satisfying to finally find the enemy when he picks your people off and runs into some apartment buildings or mosques."

I was being objective.

As far as the glee I mentioned, I watched the video in it's entirety on a foreign language television channel. That way it was presented unfiltered as I was only paying attention to the english language spoken in the video by the crew members. They were the ones who sounded gleeful. They were the ones whooping and cheering as they mowed innocent people down in the street. There was one who went so far as to complain about why they weren't allowed to shoot the rest, after someone initially, and apparently, had called them off the targets. They are gleeful again when they are allowed to resume firing as they mow down the people in the van who are attempting to get some of the wounded to a hospital. In that respect, it was no different than firing on an ambulance.

If you would bother to read the Geneva Conventions, what you saw on that tape was 100% WAR CRIME as our soldiers deliberately targeted and took out civilians who were in the process of tending to the wounded.

[Palemoon]

03:51 PM on 04/07/2010

I don't understand your first paragraph about the reasoning on why we invaded Iraq. Sadam (mispelling intentional) wasn't some fanatic or the reason we invaded Iraq. Sadam was a US/UK installed puppet who was put into power late in 1979 AFTER the revolution in Iran placed the Aya-tollah in power there. Sadam was our counter to Iran. So long as he served that purpose, it was all good. But once Sadam outlived his usefulness to us, and meddled in US oil interests when he meddled in Kuwait, then it was time for Sadam to go. But with the UN snooping around, Bush 41 and Clinton both knew they had no legal basis to do anything. Bush 43 created the so-called legal basis out of thin air and with his own propeganda campaign. And the rest, is history. We are h8ted by the Iraqis because we are a foreign occupier who will not let them live as they wish.

[eab]

03:29 PM on 04/07/2010

The video this time may make a difference in how this is handled, though one doubts it. If the most recent prior revelations of massacres -- Haditha in 2005, and the Bob Kerrey/Thanh Phong massacre uncovered in 2001 (32 years after the fact) -- are any guide, it is more likely that nothing at all will happen this time; critics will be shouted down. The Haditha soldiers were not punished, and have filed multi-million dollar lawsuits against their critics. Bob Kerrey currently earns $1 million a year as President of the New School in New York.

You may find this article interesting:

http://kerreythanhphong.blogspot.com/

[Donatella]

03:09 PM on 04/07/2010

This is entirely within America’s exceptionalist character. We invade Iraq because a small group of fanatics gain control and influence of the government and proceed to promote a masterful propaganda campaign, with a complicit MSM, to justify the war. In the process of invasion and occupation 1 million Iraqs die and millions are displaced.

Now, the U.S., as occupiers, is killing like it’s a video game. Did we really know who the targets were? Clearly not. Just open fire and kill whatever moves, even those who are trying to help the wounded. The justification seems to be that they carried weapons, but first of all it is not clear what they were carrying and second, the U.S. unleased a brutal civil war and most Iraqs have weapons in order to protect themselves.

The question in my mind is “What gives the U.S. the right to kill anyone in Iraq?” We are illegal invaders and have no right to be in the country, let alone assume the role of military overlord. Over the years, our military has proven that they are masters of destruction but quite incompetent when it comes to nation building. Get out of Iraq and accept the consequences.

And the pro-war propagandists and neocons continue to spew the nonsense about Islamofacism and that “They hate us because of our democracy.” An Arab watching the clip won’t care about what form of government the pilot serves under.

[Palemoon]

03:50 PM on 04/07/2010

I don't understand your first paragraph about the reasoning on why we invaded Iraq. Sadam (mispelling intentional) wasn't some fanatic or the reason we invaded Iraq. Sadam was a US/UK installed puppet who was put into power late in 1979 AFTER the revolution in Iran placed the Ayatollah in power there. Sadam was our counter to Iran. So long as he served that purpose, it was all good. But once Sadam outlived his usefulness to us, and meddled in US oil interests when he meddled in Kuwait, then it was time for Sadam to go. But with the UN snooping around, Bush 41 and Clinton both knew they had no legal basis to do anything. Bush 43 created the so-called legal basis out of thin air and with his own propeganda campaign. And the rest, is history. We are h8ted by the Iraqis because we are a foreign occupier who will not let them live as they wish.

[Palemoon]

03:51 PM on 04/07/2010

I don't understand your first paragraph about the reasoning on why we invaded Iraq. Sadam (mispelling intentional) wasn't some fanatic or the reason we invaded Iraq. Sadam was a US/UK installed puppet who was put into power late in 1979 AFTER the revolution in Iran placed the Aya-tollah in power there. Sadam was our counter to Ir-an. So long as he served that purpose, it was all good. But once Sadam outlived his usefulness to us, and meddled in US oil interests when he meddled in Kuwait, then it was time for Sadam to go. But with the UN snooping around, Bush 41 and Clinton both knew they had no legal basis to do anything. Bush 43 created the so-called legal basis out of thin air and with his own propeganda campaign. And the rest, is history. We are h8ted by the Iraqis because we are a foreign occupier who will not let them live as they wish.