| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | Ron - I have saved this as a new revision. I'm happy to talk about this, feel free to write back to me in another color. | | |
An Analysis of What I Do and Do Not Know Regarding the July 12, 2007 Apache Controversy | | | 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. found the pilots acted appropriately. 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 yet they have had 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. | >
> | 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? | | | 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. | |
<
< | Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations. | >
> | Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree to which I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations. | | | Did WikiLeaks edit or alter the footage in a way which reduces its evidentiary value?
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. | |
<
< | 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). | >
> | 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 video , jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long). | | | 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. | | | 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. 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. | |
>
> | I'll begin with the general commentary and then discuss specific elements of your paper and give some suggestions. I'm going to discuss how I would have written this paper differently - the way I would have done it is not necessarily the correct way, so feel free to ignore whatever I say. I'm not going to sugarcoat my comments here. Overall, however, I think that your paper is well written, thought provoking and convincingly argued.
My main issue with this paper is that it is difficult for me to understand what your overall goal is. You begin by asking whether video can be trusted. Ashley Simpson asked a similar question in class (or rather, suggested that videos were a good type of evidence) and Eben made it pretty clear that videos can be easily manipulated. Not only can they be manipulated, but they can be edited in ways that affect the viewer's understanding of the events. They can also be played out of context, or can be cut at inappropriate points. In short, it seems like we've already established that videos can't be trusted. You don't need 1000 words to tell us this.
That said, it seems like you are trying to do something different. You appear to be analyzing various elements of these specific videos: where the videos came from, whether they are actually Apache footage, whether they are inappropriately edited and whether they reflect the events accurately. Each of these questions is a valid one. Given that you have so little space, however, it seems like it may have made more sense to have discussed a single one of these topics - while breadth has its value, you certainly sacrifice depth and none of the points are argued very convincingly. I would have started the paper by signaling that there are a lot of potential issues with these videos, including the ones that you mentioned, and chose one to focus on.
Specifically, your analysis of whether the video is actual Apache gun camera footage is particularly lacking. You barely scratch the surface of a topic that could be the subject of a much longer paper. You don't do the topic justice, and I think it would be far more effective for you to mention that this is another potential issue, but that you won't explore it in this paper. I am of the belief that it is better to not discuss something than to do so in a lacking way.
I think that the last section is the most convincingly argued by far. You address many of the problems that come with using videos for evidence, namely the lack of context, poor views and only one perspective, and you give concrete examples to back this up. I know that we're all short on time, but if this is something that really interests you, I'd recommend expanding this one section and giving a bit more in-depth analysis as opposed to trying to touch on so many issues (perhaps post finals). I'd definitely read it. |
|