| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
|
| | Background |
|
<
< | On July 12, 2007, Reuters employees Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh were killed in a helicopter strike by U.S. forces, along with nine other individuals. Following an informal investigation (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6) the U.S. accepted responsibility for their deaths. Since the incident, Reuters has pushed for a more substantial inquiry, yet met with little success. |
>
> | On July 12, 2007, Reuters employees Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh were killed in a helicopter strike by U.S. forces, along with nine other individuals. Following an informal investigation (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6) the U.S. found the pilots acted appropriately. Since the incident, Reuters has pushed for a more substantial inquiry, yet met with little success. |
| | 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.
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks? |
|
<
< | 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. |
>
> | 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. Reuters reported that WikiLeaks originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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. |
>
> | 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. Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress." |
| | 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. |
| | 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. |
>
> | There are a number of disturbing scenes in the video. 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. There are also additional bursts of fire, both at the crowd (4:18-4:24 (long)) and the van (9:14-9:30 (long)), after radio chatter implies the threat seems neutralized. As such, I would like to better understand the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under. |
| | |
|
<
< | 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? |
>
> | WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. I cannot verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if there was a requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, as defined by the Wikileaks documents. If so, I would like to know how the van's behavior satisfied the requirement. I would also like to know if the actual ROE included a proscription against firing at the injured/neutralized, as implied by Wikileaks. |
| | |
|
<
< | Conclusion: The video, on its own, lacks necessary context to allow one to come to a decision about the events depicted. |
>
> | Conclusion: The video, on its own, lacks necessary context. The footage provides a single perspective, and sometimes has a poor view of the events (ex: 4:18-4:24). Moreover, without the official ROE, one cannot place the pilots' behavior in context. |