| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | (Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.) | |
<
< | Introduction and Background | >
> | Introduction | | | 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 of the video.
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. | | | Analysis | |
<
< | 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 about the incident after the leak. 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 to our knowledge of the events surrounding the incident in question. | >
> | The footage itself tells an interesting story. The long video establishes that the Apaches were directed to the area after receiving reports of armed individuals, and in addition to the journalists, early portions of the video feature individuals who seem to be carrying weapons (2:04-2:24). Later on, the footage reflects a discovery by the ground troops of an individual lying on top of an RPG round (19:18), and the subsequent sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered weapons and ammunition among the dead. I was initially under the impression that the Iraqis involved were unarmed--further research and examination of the footage complicates the picture. | | | | |
<
< | 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 are able to convincingly alter photographs. | >
> | At the same time, the written reports provide important context for the events of the video. As an example, the informal investigation revealed that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. This is not clear from the footage alone. 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. The written reports clarify important emotional and situational considerations influencing the pilots' actions. | | | | |
<
< | 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 concrete 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. | >
> | Yet, even after reading through the written sources, certain questions remain. The incident involving the van remains troublesome--I do not understand why the van was perceived as a threat or why engagement was authorized. Both the sworn statements and the video reflect that the pilots were aware that the van was picking up wounded, and the van does not seem to pose any threat. However, the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under--important for contextualizing the pilots' actions--are not publicly available. | | | | |
>
> | WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. The usual authenticity questions remain. Yet, if the ROE are authentic, I don't understand how the van squares with the requisite procedure for positively identifying a threat before using force. Nor do I understand how the additional bursts of fire (crowd (4:18-4:24), van (9:14-9:30)), comport with the restriction against firing at previously neutralized/incapacitated threats. If the ROE were properly applied, I am bothered by the prospect that the military is not sufficiently considering the welfare of civilians or the injured, and is casting too wide a net in defining combatants. | | | Zhuangzi |
|