Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Some conclusions on the Wikileaks video by the military

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 12:57 PM
Original message
Some conclusions on the Wikileaks video by the military
According to an investigation by the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade (.pdf) , the aircrew “accurately assessed that the criteria to find and terminate the threat to friendly forces were met in accordance with the law of armed conflict and rules of engagement.” The report concluded that the attack helicopters positively identified the threat, established hostile intent, conducted appropriate collateral damage assessment and received clearance to fire.

What’s more, the military indirectly blamed the reporters for being in the company of “armed insurgents” and making no effort to identify themselves as journalists. An investigating officer with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 2nd Infantry Division, concluded that “the cameramen made no effort to visibly display their status as press (.pdf) or media representatives” and added that “their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the Coalition Ground Forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.” A long telephoto lens, the officer says, could have been mistaken for a rocket-propelled grenade.

It’s also clear, however, that the military quickly figured out that they had inadvertently killed two Reuters employees, and that two children had been seriously wounded in the incident. During “sensitive site exploitation,” members of the ground unit recovered cameras and media cards from the scene, and were able to identify pictures shot by a Reuters employee at a coalition news conference.
......

Other questions remain about the rules of engagement, and the remedial action the military might have taken to prevent such incidents in the future. A section on “recommendations” in the air cavalry investigation is blacked out. And the 2nd BCT’s investigating officer — who reviewed a copy of the gun camera footage — said that the video viewed in real time by the pilots is not the same as that scrutinized later by investigators. “It must be noted that details which are readily apparent when viewed on a large video monitor are not necessarily apparent to the Apache pilots during a live-fire engagement,” the officer writes. “First of all, the pilots are viewing the scene on a much smaller screen than I had for my review. Secondly, a pilot’s primary concern is with flying his helicopter and the safety of his aircraft.”.....

A recommendation was also made for a condolence payment to the families of the two children injured in the attack. According to WikiLeaks, no such payment was ever made.



http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/military-releases-report-on-2007-apache-attack-and-questions-linger/#more-23580
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dalaigh lllama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have some questions I wish they'd answer
1) Where is the video footage from before this incident occurred. IOW, why was the apache helicopter surveilling this particular area? Was there ANY evidence that these men or someone else nearby had fired upon coalition forces?
2) What was the journalists' assignment that day? Can Reuters say what their objective was?
3) What sort of ID could journalists carry that a) couldn't be duplicated by armed insurgents, and b) wouldn't make them a target for anyone objecting to what they were doing?
4) If they were "furtively" photographing coalition forces, why did it take coalition forces on the ground 8 minutes to get to the site?
5) How do they know that the armed men with the journalists were "insurgents"? Is it possible they were an armed escort to the journalists? It's not exactly safe for journalists to wander about on their own without protection, is it? (Understatement of the year, here)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. "According to WikiLeaks, no such payment was ever made."
Oh, now there's a surprise. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Does anyone know what's become of the children? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. they survived - new video
http://www.youtube.com/user/sunshinepress#p/a/u/0/BflAj2txMVQ

Posted by YouTube member "sunshinepress" who is from Wikileaks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-08-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Wow ! Thank You, You should make this a Post on it's own!
If you did this already , I just didn't know.

I am still reeling from the images matched with the video-game boys' voices.

About the attack on the van, is it now
United States Military Standard Operating Procedure

to attack non-combatants who are helping the wounded??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. Then whoever laid down the "law of armed conflict and rules of engagement" ...
should be tried as a war criminal. As should the gunners who followed illegal orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. dupe
Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 06:36 PM by walldude
dupe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:26 PM
Original message
dupe..
Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 06:36 PM by walldude
Double Dupe... yikes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. We have investigated ourselves and determined we have done nothing wrong
And I have watched that video 3 times now and have yet to see any "hostile intent".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC