More damagingly, the video plays with chronology. The short video skips the first 1:25 of the long video. As such, it isn't clear that the Apaches were directed to the area after reports of people with weapons. The short video cuts out the pilots' initial reaction of regret to the news that a child was wounded at 17:19, and omits the ground report that an individual was found on top of an RPG round at 19:18. The short video plays with the chronology of the rescue of the children, weaving between footage separated by as much as five minutes and playing segments out of order to make the events appear seamless. It also utilizes some of the more disturbing radio chatter out of chronological order to increase shock value (15:27 in short vid, jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long).
Changed:
< <
As such, questions exist about the integrity of the "full" video. On multiple occasions, the video fades to black and shifts to a new scene (example--4:42). This creates an impression that the film has been edited. This impression is troublesome given that both videos seem to be incomplete records of the events, omitting a number of intermediate events described in multiple sworn pilot statements.
> >
As such, questions exist about the integrity of the "full" video. On multiple occasions, both videos fade to black and shift to a new scene (example--4:42 long). This creates an impression that the film has been edited. This impression is troublesome given that both videos seem to be incomplete records of the events, omitting a number of intermediate events described in multiple sworn pilot statements.
Conclusion: WikiLeaks showed a willingness to edit the short video in a subjective manner. Neither set of footage completely reflects the pilot statements and the videos seem to contain time lapses. I cannot say that the footage was not altered.
Is the video an accurate reflection of the events?
Changed:
< <
The AR 15-6 investigation brings facts to light which are not clear from the video. The sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered RPG launchers, at least one AK-47, and a wounded individual lying on top of a RPG round. As such, it seems the reporters were in the company of combatants. At the same time, the investigation reveals that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. Additionally, the investigation makes clear that the ground troops were consistently taking RPG and AK fire in that area during the operation, and that the Apaches were flying a Troops In Contact (TIC) air support mission.
> >
The AR 15-6 investigation brings facts to light which are not clear from the video. The sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered RPG launchers, at least one AK-47, and a wounded individual lying on top of a RPG round. If accurate, it seems the reporters were in the company of combatants. At the same time, the investigation reveals that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. Additionally, the investigation makes clear that the ground troops were consistently taking RPG and AK fire in that area during the operation, and that the Apaches were flying a Troops In Contact (TIC) air support mission.
The most damning footage is that of the van's destruction. The investigations, sworn statements, and the video all seem to establish that the pilots knew the people in the van were picking up the wounded, and I did not find a clear vocalization of a threat which the van posed. As such, I would like to better understand the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under. WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. Though they look convincing, I have no way to verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if the requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, would generally include picking up wounded enemy combatants. I would also like to know if there was a proscription against firing at the injured, and if the ROE during TIC missions differed.
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
An Analysis of What I Do and Do Not Know Regarding the July 12, 2007 Apache Controversy
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
Though this may seem an obvious matter at first glance, the issue is not so simple. In short, there exist three separate entities who claim ties to the videos, and their relation is not immediately apparent. WikiLeaks is not hosting either video itself, but provides an embedded link to the shorter, 17 minute long Youtube video. The site stipulates that those who desire further information should visit CollateralMurder. At CollateralMurder, one finds embedded Youtube links to two videos--the short 17 minute version found at WikiLeaks and the longer video, purported to be the full version of what WikiLeaks obtained. I have watched both versions side-by-side, and found the two to be substantially similar (see below for analysis).
Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress." The contact page of CollateralMurder lists a number of emails linked to sunshinepress.org, and includes the phone number for Julian Assange, a founder/spokesperson of Wikileaks. WikiLeaks? also has links with associations to the domain name sunshinepress.org. In further support, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks?originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder? . Further, the original wikileaks video is also hosted by sunshinepress, and sunshinepress.org seems to be a mirror of WikiLeaks.
> >
Changed:
< <
Conclusion: It is possible that the youtube video hosted by sunshinepress and linked from CollateralMurder is not the full video that Wikileaks obtained, despite CollateralMurder's claims. It is also possible that the address wikileaks.org is not the website of Wikileaks, that Reuters was wrong in asserting that Wikileaks hosted its video on CollateralMurder? , and that the embedded video provided on CollateralMurder? is not the correct video. However, I have found no information that would support such conclusions. As such, I am willing to assume that the videos I posted above reflect two similar versions of the video Wikileaks claims to have obtained.
> >
[Short (Edited) Version]
Changed:
< <
Is the video the actual Apache gun camera footage, as WikiLeaks/CollateralMurder claim?
> >
(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)
Deleted:
< <
It needs to be established that the video being displayed is the actual footage of the event. However, some questions exist. The Pentagon has not released an official, attributable statement confirming the validity of the footage. However, Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Britain's Daily Telegraph all claim to have verified the video's authenticity via unnamed military sources. Additionally, the events described in the records of the pilot testimonies and the recently released content of the AR 15-6 informal investigation closely resemble the footage. In further support, the still gun camera images contained in the Army reports seem identical to portions of the WikiLeaks? video, and the documentation of the aftermath conducted by ground troops resembles the location shown in the video. At the same time, though, some news sources have reported information which raises doubt about the veracity, with a few reports of a Capt. Jack x stating that the Army can no longer find its gun camera footage (seattle), and stating to Fox News that ""It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Whether this can be taken as an admission from the pentagon that the video is accurate is unclear from the context, and as stated earlier, I have not unconvered any confirmation that the Pentagon has gone on record verifying the events.
Deleted:
< <
According to the New York Times, on April 5th, "Navy Capt. Jake Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said U.S. forces in Iraq recognize many of the images in the video posted at Wikileaks.org and have no reason to believe it is a fake. However, he said, they were still comparing the video and audio to see if it matched their own."
Whether or not WikiLeaks? has been honest in its display of the video is a separate matter. The short version clearly differs from the "full" version, and does so in some troubling ways. As such, it remains to be seen whether or not the longer version is itself uneditted, or if liberties have been taken of which the viewer cannot judge.
1:25 above video starts.
> >
On April 5th, 2010, WikiLeaks made headlines by posting a 17-minute video purporting to be the gun camera footage of one of the Apaches involved in the strike. The footage is graphic and disturbing, and has raised questions for some as to whether the investigation and its conclusions were correct.
Changed:
< <
12:28--difference. cuts from 10:54.
> >
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
Changed:
< <
12:48 video resumes. Has cut to around 18:51.
> >
WikiLeaks is not hosting either video itself, but provides an embedded link to the shorter Youtube video. The site stipulates that those who desire further information should visit CollateralMurder. At CollateralMurder, one finds embedded Youtube links to two videos--the short version also found at WikiLeaks and the longer video, purported to be the full version of what WikiLeaks obtained. I have watched both versions side-by-side, and found the two to be similar.
Changed:
< <
At 13:02, cuts audio and replays from around 12:48. Cuts from bottom video at 19:01, and video resumes at 21:18. Video omits information regarding the discovery of an rpg round beneath one of the dead 19:18. Jump from 22:08 (14:33) to 21:09 (14:34) regarding injured child. At 14:34 jumps to 23:05 to show wounded child and soldier running. 23:34 (15:03) to 27:57 (15:04) to talk about rejection regarding evacuation of child to rustamaya and to local hospital instead. Cut at 28:20 (15:27) to 18:07 to catch quote of them saying it was enemy's fault for bringing kid. Misses the dejected "Ah damn. oh well." from the pilot as soon when they hear the news at (17:19). This comment comes almost a minute later, after a long silence. Cuts at 18:18 (15:37). At 15:54 replays footage of firing on van. Claims to show children after artificially zooming in. Cuts at 16:19 before firing starts again.
> >
Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress." Wikileaks.org implies that Sunshine Press is synonymous with Wikileaks, and a number of documents found on CollateralMurder assert that the Sunshine Press is the publisher of WikiLeaks. In further support, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder.
Added:
> >
Conclusion: Though much circumstantial evidence exists, I cannot draw a straight line from Youtube user "sunshinepress" to WikiLeaks or CollateralMurder. However, both sites seem to endorse the "sunshinepress" videos.
Added:
> >
Is the video the actual Apache gun camera footage?
Changed:
< <
Is the video an accurate reflection of the events which transpired?
> >
The Pentagon has not released an official, attributable statement confirming the validity of the footage. However, Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Britain's Daily Telegraph all claim to have verified the video's authenticity via unnamed military sources. Additionally, the events described in the pilot statements and the AR 15-6 investigation reflect portions of the WikiLeaks video.
Added:
> >
Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations.
Changed:
< <
Subsub 2
> >
Did WikiLeaks edit or alter the footage in a way which reduces its evidentiary value?
Added:
> >
Quite possibly. The short video differs from the "full" version in troubling ways. On a basic level, the short segment adds subjective analysis to the footage. These additions are a subtle taint, as they remove the viewer from the events as seen by the pilots. Additionally, I found WikiLeak's labels do draw the eye and distract the viewer, as noted by Fox News.
Added:
> >
More damagingly, the video plays with chronology. The short video skips the first 1:25 of the long video. As such, it isn't clear that the Apaches were directed to the area after reports of people with weapons. The short video cuts out the pilots' initial reaction of regret to the news that a child was wounded at 17:19, and omits the ground report that an individual was found on top of an RPG round at 19:18. The short video plays with the chronology of the rescue of the children, weaving between footage separated by as much as five minutes and playing segments out of order to make the events appear seamless. It also utilizes some of the more disturbing radio chatter out of chronological order to increase shock value (15:27 in short vid, jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long).
Changed:
< <
Section II
> >
As such, questions exist about the integrity of the "full" video. On multiple occasions, the video fades to black and shifts to a new scene (example--4:42). This creates an impression that the film has been edited. This impression is troublesome given that both videos seem to be incomplete records of the events, omitting a number of intermediate events described in multiple sworn pilot statements.
Changed:
< <
Subsection A
> >
Conclusion: WikiLeaks showed a willingness to edit the short video in a subjective manner. Neither set of footage completely reflects the pilot statements and the videos seem to contain time lapses. I cannot say that the footage was not altered.
Changed:
< <
Subsection B
> >
Is the video an accurate reflection of the events?
Added:
> >
The AR 15-6 investigation brings facts to light which are not clear from the video. The sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered RPG launchers, at least one AK-47, and a wounded individual lying on top of a RPG round. As such, it seems the reporters were in the company of combatants. At the same time, the investigation reveals that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. Additionally, the investigation makes clear that the ground troops were consistently taking RPG and AK fire in that area during the operation, and that the Apaches were flying a Troops In Contact (TIC) air support mission.
Changed:
< <
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
> >
The most damning footage is that of the van's destruction. The investigations, sworn statements, and the video all seem to establish that the pilots knew the people in the van were picking up the wounded, and I did not find a clear vocalization of a threat which the van posed. As such, I would like to better understand the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under. WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. Though they look convincing, I have no way to verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if the requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, would generally include picking up wounded enemy combatants. I would also like to know if there was a proscription against firing at the injured, and if the ROE during TIC missions differed.
I would also like a better understanding of how clearance to engage is issued--does the clearer have visual access to the scene? Is he actually involved in the battle? Can a pilot run afoul of the ROE by describing a situation inaccurately or asking for clearance to engage inappropriate targets? To what extent is a pilot culpable if granted clearance?
Changed:
< <
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list
> >
Conclusion: The video, on its own, lacks necessary context to allow one to come to a decision about the events depicted.
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
An Analysis of What I Do and Do Not Know Regarding the July 12, 2007 Apache Controversy
-- By RonMazor - 18 Apr 2010
[Short Version]
[Long Version]
(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
Though this may seem an obvious matter at first glance, the issue is not so simple. In short, there exist three separate entities who claim ties to the videos, and their relation is not immediately apparent. WikiLeaks is not hosting either video itself, but provides an embedded link to the shorter, 17 minute long Youtube video. The site stipulates that those who desire further information should visit CollateralMurder. At CollateralMurder, one finds embedded Youtube links to two videos--the short 17 minute version found at WikiLeaks and the longer video, purported to be the full version of what WikiLeaks obtained. I have watched both versions side-by-side, and found the two to be substantially similar (see below for analysis).
Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress." The contact page of CollateralMurder lists a number of emails linked to sunshinepress.org, and includes the phone number for Julian Assange, a founder/spokesperson of Wikileaks. WikiLeaks? also has links with associations to the domain name sunshinepress.org. In further support, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks?originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder? . Further, the original wikileaks video is also hosted by sunshinepress, and sunshinepress.org seems to be a mirror of WikiLeaks.
Conclusion: It is possible that the youtube video hosted by sunshinepress and linked from CollateralMurder is not the full video that Wikileaks obtained, despite CollateralMurder's claims. It is also possible that the address wikileaks.org is not the website of Wikileaks, that Reuters was wrong in asserting that Wikileaks hosted its video on CollateralMurder? , and that the embedded video provided on CollateralMurder? is not the correct video. However, I have found no information that would support such conclusions. As such, I am willing to assume that the videos I posted above reflect two similar versions of the video Wikileaks claims to have obtained.
Is the video the actual Apache gun camera footage, as WikiLeaks/CollateralMurder claim?
It needs to be established that the video being displayed is the actual footage of the event. However, some questions exist. The Pentagon has not released an official, attributable statement confirming the validity of the footage. However, Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Britain's Daily Telegraph all claim to have verified the video's authenticity via unnamed military sources. Additionally, the events described in the records of the pilot testimonies and the recently released content of the AR 15-6 informal investigation closely resemble the footage. In further support, the still gun camera images contained in the Army reports seem identical to portions of the WikiLeaks? video, and the documentation of the aftermath conducted by ground troops resembles the location shown in the video. At the same time, though, some news sources have reported information which raises doubt about the veracity, with a few reports of a Capt. Jack x stating that the Army can no longer find its gun camera footage (seattle), and stating to Fox News that ""It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Whether this can be taken as an admission from the pentagon that the video is accurate is unclear from the context, and as stated earlier, I have not unconvered any confirmation that the Pentagon has gone on record verifying the events.
According to the New York Times, on April 5th, "Navy Capt. Jake Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said U.S. forces in Iraq recognize many of the images in the video posted at Wikileaks.org and have no reason to believe it is a fake. However, he said, they were still comparing the video and audio to see if it matched their own."
Read more: http://dailyme.com/story/2010040500002881/ap-source-confirms-video-baghdad-firefight.html#ixzz0lQFJAeyg
Did WikiLeaks? edit or alter the footage in a way which reduces its evidentiary value?
Whether or not WikiLeaks? has been honest in its display of the video is a separate matter. The short version clearly differs from the "full" version, and does so in some troubling ways. As such, it remains to be seen whether or not the longer version is itself uneditted, or if liberties have been taken of which the viewer cannot judge.
1:25 above video starts.
12:28--difference. cuts from 10:54.
12:48 video resumes. Has cut to around 18:51.
At 13:02, cuts audio and replays from around 12:48. Cuts from bottom video at 19:01, and video resumes at 21:18. Video omits information regarding the discovery of an rpg round beneath one of the dead 19:18. Jump from 22:08 (14:33) to 21:09 (14:34) regarding injured child. At 14:34 jumps to 23:05 to show wounded child and soldier running. 23:34 (15:03) to 27:57 (15:04) to talk about rejection regarding evacuation of child to rustamaya and to local hospital instead. Cut at 28:20 (15:27) to 18:07 to catch quote of them saying it was enemy's fault for bringing kid. Misses the dejected "Ah damn. oh well." from the pilot as soon when they hear the news at (17:19). This comment comes almost a minute later, after a long silence. Cuts at 18:18 (15:37). At 15:54 replays footage of firing on van. Claims to show children after artificially zooming in. Cuts at 16:19 before firing starts again.
Is the video an accurate reflection of the events which transpired?
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, RonMazorNote: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.