Reuters access previously censored footage via WikiLeaks.

Overview:

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

[object width="480" height="385"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0[/video]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8603938.stm


It's already hitting the jihadi forums, not cool. Blue-on-blue and collateral damages are of course inevitable, but having seen the footage a few times now the case seems to be a special sort of failure beyond that which can be glossed over with assurances that the proper protocols were adhered to and those concerned acted in best faith.

What can be done though, with such a time delay between the event and the lid coming off?
 
quite a sobering video. I can only conclude that there was a contact ongoing with the ground callsign and that any gatherings were subsequently suspicious. Certainly, the conversation in between pilots was reinforcing their responsive mindset into offensive option only (a parallel could be drawn to the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo ).

What is harder to understand in an ROE context (from a Brit Yellow Card background) is that carriage or suspected carriage of a weapon is justification for a shoot and that aid to wounded individuals or removal of bodies (presenting no direct threat to callsigns on the ground) is also a green light.
 

Surfer_Smithy

War Hero
Shooting up the Van was pretty grim and i'm not sure they could be identified as picking up any weapons i only saw them going to the wounded plus the little girls in the van which they found later all in all pretty****ed up.

But the incident beforehand you can see where the suspicion came from with the guys poking round the corner and a few of them seemed to be armed. From what i've read the guys that came in at the end to investigate had been in contact from an unknown location. The apache and other helicopter you could hear on the radio came in to providing top cover after they were engaged.
 

Graa

Old-Salt
Doesn't look good does it?

Unfortunately retrospect isn't the most balanced form of 'judge and jury'.
 

dangerousdave

War Hero
should arrse be allowing classified US military video footage on here? :?

No wonder it's classified still. Shocking footage of unjustified cold bloody murder. I bet the pentagon has had a hizzy fit about this going public.

*i wonder how long before the site owners of WikiLeaks are found dead in the woods? :wink:
 

Surfer_Smithy

War Hero
It's being reported on most of the US news networks.
 
dangerousdave said:
should arrse be allowing classified US military video footage on here? :?

No wonder it's classified still. Shocking footage of unjustified cold bloody murder. I bet the pentagon has had a hizzy fit about this going public.

*i wonder how long before the site owners of WikiLeaks are found dead in the woods? :wink:


Had much experience in the front seat of an Apache in a war zone have you? :roll:
 

The_Snail

ADC
RIP
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
dangerousdave said:
should arrse be allowing classified US military video footage on here? :?

No wonder it's classified still. Shocking footage of unjustified cold bloody murder. I bet the pentagon has had a hizzy fit about this going public.

*i wonder how long before the site owners of WikiLeaks are found dead in the woods? :wink:


Had much experience in the front seat of an Apache in a war zone have you? :roll:

Oooh, oooh, I bet know the answer!!!!! Pick me miss, pick me!!!!!
 

dangerousdave

War Hero
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
dangerousdave said:
should arrse be allowing classified US military video footage on here? :?

No wonder it's classified still. Shocking footage of unjustified cold bloody murder. I bet the pentagon has had a hizzy fit about this going public.

*i wonder how long before the site owners of WikiLeaks are found dead in the woods? :wink:


Had much experience in the front seat of an Apache in a war zone have you? :roll:


the 1st part of the video i could see their cameras maybe being mistaken for weapons, but the 2nd part of the video firing on a van with unarmed people and children trying to help the wounded cameramen is not justified in war or not. :roll:
 

The_Snail

ADC
RIP
dangerousdave said:
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
dangerousdave said:
should arrse be allowing classified US military video footage on here? :?

No wonder it's classified still. Shocking footage of unjustified cold bloody murder. I bet the pentagon has had a hizzy fit about this going public.

*i wonder how long before the site owners of WikiLeaks are found dead in the woods? :wink:


Had much experience in the front seat of an Apache in a war zone have you? :roll:


the 1st part of the video i could see their cameras maybe being mistaken for weapons, but the 2nd part of the video firing on a van with unarmed people and children trying to help the wounded cameramen is not justified in war or not. :roll:

That wasn't the answer to the question he asked. Exactly how much experience have you had in the front seat of an Apache?

I personally like them Typhoo Teas, but they make too much noise.
 
dangerousdave said:
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
dangerousdave said:
should arrse be allowing classified US military video footage on here? :?

No wonder it's classified still. Shocking footage of unjustified cold bloody murder. I bet the pentagon has had a hizzy fit about this going public.

*i wonder how long before the site owners of WikiLeaks are found dead in the woods? :wink:


Had much experience in the front seat of an Apache in a war zone have you? :roll:

the 1st part of the video i could see their cameras maybe being mistaken for weapons, but the 2nd part of the video firing on a van with unarmed people and children trying to help the wounded cameramen is not justified in war or not. :roll:


But you're watching a youtube video dave, not making life or death decisions.

What about the times where they've killed insurgents , or helped out infantry call sign in the sh1t, they might have looked similar to this?
 

dangerousdave

War Hero
mark1234 said:
dangerousdave said:
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
dangerousdave said:
should arrse be allowing classified US military video footage on here? :?

No wonder it's classified still. Shocking footage of unjustified cold bloody murder. I bet the pentagon has had a hizzy fit about this going public.

*i wonder how long before the site owners of WikiLeaks are found dead in the woods? :wink:


Had much experience in the front seat of an Apache in a war zone have you? :roll:

the 1st part of the video i could see their cameras maybe being mistaken for weapons, but the 2nd part of the video firing on a van with unarmed people and children trying to help the wounded cameramen is not justified in war or not. :roll:


But you're watching a youtube video dave, not making life or death decisions.

What about the times where they've killed insurgents , or helped out infantry call sign in the sh1t, they might have looked similar to this?

true mate, but in this instance it would appear they made a very bad judgement call. the crew can be heard wishing the injured man would pick up a weapon (suggesting they can't fire), but when some unarmed people roll up in a van, and try and put the injured in the van to take them to hospital, they open fire anyway and kill them too?
 
Is the camera footage downlinked, or is authorisation to fire based on the verbal descriptions?
 
Dave the infantry call sign on the ground has was in contact, taking RPG fire, the van was pointed out at the start of the video to be a possible target and involved somehow.

At least 3 of the individuals killed by my count had Kalashnakovs.
 
So its a bit gung-ho but thats the yanks for you.

From the grainy footage does it look to anyone else like this could easily have been a well armed group of insurgents?

Cmon.......6-8 guys, 2 with AKs, another one with something that could easily be an RPG?

Dont know about the rules of engagement regarding the minivan but it looks like a bad case of mistaken identity.
 

The_Snail

ADC
RIP
Dave, did you answer the question?
 
Who says it's mistaken identity, the BBC?

I've yet to see any proof that these were civilians, the ground call sign was in contact with someone firing RPGs at them.

These guys were armed.

As for the two reuters staff, they could have been meeting with insurgents to get an inside story, or just got too close to the action, they took the risks that comes with being a war correspondent.

I don't think these guys were civilians, I'm willing to be proved wrong.

At least a few of them were definitely armed.
 
Having looked at the footage, I've seen two weapons, an AK and what may be an RPG. When the commentary mentions an RPG, the video is looking at what seems to be someone lying on the ground looking round a corner with a long lens camera (earlier bits of the footage show nobody in this position but the cameraman could have got to this position by then).

Another feature of the footage is that dust from a machine gun strike rises from a position that is in dead ground as far as the camera is concerned - twice, in fact. Also, the commentary about the guy crawling is made when he's out of shot (on the earlier pass, he was lying still). Are there actually two helicopters involved, in which case we're only seeing half of the story and the dialogue is misleading?
 

The_Snail

ADC
RIP
DangerousDave still won't answer the question about the last time he was "Shotgun" in an Apache. Fancy that.
 

Latest Threads

Top