| | |
|
RonMazorSecondPaper 3 - 18 Apr 2010 - Main.RonMazor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | 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). | |
<
< | 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? | |
<
< | 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. |
|
| Revision 3 | r3 - 18 Apr 2010 - 17:38:37 - RonMazor |
| Revision 2 | r2 - 18 Apr 2010 - 12:53:54 - RonMazor |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |