(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)
Added:
> >
Introduction and Background
Added:
> >
The use of video evidence presents a number of problems. We cannot simply accept videos at face value - they are very easy to alter, cut and stage. This is a given. In this paper, I will briefly analyze two videos pertaining to a particular incident. My goal will be to determine what I can, and can't, know given the above videos. I will then discuss the broader implications this has.
Changed:
< <
Can video be trusted?
> >
The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions. Reuters' requests for a more substantial investigation have not been granted.
Changed:
< <
Background
> >
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version. Both videos cast a shadow of doubt upon the results of the U.S. investigation into the incident.
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.
> >
There is no conclusive evidence that this is actual Apache gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement conforming, or denying, that this is legitimate. A number of news sources claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity through unnamed military sources. None have identified their sources. The video also does comport with the statements of the pilots regarding the events on the day in question. That said, without verification, we cannot know that the video is what it is claimed to be. We are left to trust the news organizations, which is unwise.
Changed:
< <
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
> >
Equally troubling are the alterations made to the videos, both in the long and the short versions. Of specific concern is the lack of a video which can be considered chronologically accurate. The short video is edited to emphasize certain events, so I will focus on the "full" video. It isn't clear to what extent this has been edited. There are multiple instances where the video fades to a black screen and shifts to a new scene (such as at 4:42). There are also instances where there appear to be cuts and shifts to new scenes that are much less obvious (3:33 and 23:27 are two of the many examples). Granted, we cannot expect perfect footage, but the combination of these shifts strongly suggests that the "full" video isn't a true chronological record of the entire situation. Moreover, it is impossible to tell how clear extensively the video has been edited.
Changed:
< <
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.
> >
Analysis
Changed:
< <
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."
> >
These are just two of the many issues with the videos posted. Given, however, that we can't verify the authenticity of the video and that it appears as though even the "full" video may have been altered, the next step is to consider what we know, both about the videos and about the incident. We know that at least eleven people died on July 12, 2007 as a result of the incident in question. We know that among the dead were Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, two Reuters employees. Beyond this, however, the videos WikiLeaks revealed add little more to our knowledge of the events surrounding the incident in question.
Changed:
< <
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.
> >
As lawyers, part of our training involves learning to be skeptical and scrutinize evidence closely. This is vital; all too often, people lie. Moreover, given technological developments, more and more people have access to programs that allow us to alter videos and photos. Adobe Photoshop is one example - people with minimal computer skills can convincingly alter photographs.
Changed:
< <
Is the video the actual Apache gun camera footage?
> >
This is problematic for U.S. citizens trying to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Journalists have only partial access to much of what is taking place. Moreover, when things go wrong, as they did on July 12, 2007, the information that we have is even more limited. There are military reasons for this - full access would compromise the security of members of the military. At the same time, however, these actions are being taken on behalf of U.S. citizens. We should be able to demand some level of accountability, but given the lack of evidence of what is taking place and the unreliable nature of that which does make it to the media, it is very hard to do so.
Changed:
< <
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.
> >
Conclusions
Changed:
< <
Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations.
> >
Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions - either for this specific situation or for the more general problem of demanding accountability from our military while they are taking actions overseas.
Changed:
< <
Did WikiLeaks edit or alter the footage in a way which reduces its evidentiary value?
> >
As for the July 12, 2007 incident, perhaps a second investigation, or a more in depth investigation is in order. Perhaps it is not - there are limited investigatory resources and need to be cognizant of the incentives that a second investigation would have - it would encourage the posting of unverified and potentially altered videos to obtain more in depth investigations. This isn't what we want.
Deleted:
< <
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).
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. 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.
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.
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.
\ No newline at end of file
Added:
> >
In relation to the broader issue of accountability, especially since we don't have good evidence of what is happening, we must make our voices heard. Perhaps we should take Eben's advice, and do this the old fashioned way, by protesting. Perhaps we should try something new - online petitions and email campaigns are two quick examples. But if we want to prevent incidents like these in the future, we need to make it clear to the U.S. government that we won't stand by idly after one takes place.
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.