Wikileaks Releases Video Depicting US Military Killing Dozen Iraqis Including Two Reuters Employees

[Raivyn]

So I'm sure the thread has progressed but I did some general searching and found the Army investigative report which has all the after action reports from the soldiers involved. You can download it at http://cryptome.org/ - it is the reuters-kill.zip file so you'll need an unzip utility to view it. The report includes still frames of the video as well as pictures of the weapons on location. The individual reports and total report also confirm that there was a raid and that U.S. soldiers in the area had been fired upon. When you see him crouch near the building with his camera he is actually taking several photos of a HMMWV down the street. Included in the report is information on why they fired on the van as well. I suggest downloading this and reading through all of it (including the scans of written pages) if you are actually interested in what happened.

[Elvis]

Why did I come back to read more posts in this thead? I think I'm getting sick.

P.S.:

http://i41.tinypic.com/343tb0j.jpg

'sup RPG.

It wasn't an RPG, it was a camera. You're probably saying that's what it looked like though, right? After 10+ pages people still think the Iraqis in the edited version, were in fact, sporting AKs and bazookas. Yea, I tend to agree that it looked like a weapon, through the lens of the whatever-Heli-thing.

[Raivyn]

It wasn't an RPG, it was a camera. You're probably saying that's what it looked like though, right? After 10+ pages people still think the Iraqis in the edited version, were in fact, sporting AKs and bazookas. Yea, I tend to agree.

If you download the report and read through it you'll see that it was later confirmed to be an rpg launcher.

[Drex]

They shot up a van and injured two children and they're going to let the Iraqi police handle it? What happened to saving lives? Isn't that what they went to Iraq for?

I can't comment much on this since I don't know the layout of the area or anything, but it's entirely plausible that the Iraqi hospital was a lot closer by and more capable of providing first aid than an American hospital. It's also probable that if the children weren't dead, the injuries weren't too severe and didn't warrant subjecting the children to even more trauma of being transported by enemy soldiers to an enemy hospital for treatment when there were more familiar options available. Like I said though, I don't know.

And the war stopped being about saving lives years ago, it's just a pretend excuse to stay there. Prolonged war/invasion is about ending lives, unfortunately.

As for not noticing the helicopter: With the camera lensing they have available, it's entirely plausible the video was taken from far enough to be out of earshot. And I doubt the family in the van would have gone to their rescue if they knew the people who committed the violence were still around.

It seems likely to me that they did not know it was there, nor did the van family that pulled up to try to help them.

[ilduce]

If you account for the speed of the gun they're firing, assuming everything is in synch in the video, the helicopter is at least 1 to 1.5 miles away, look how long it takes for the shots to hit the ground.

[Ikith]

Why did I come back to read more posts in this thead? I think I'm getting sick.

P.S.:

http://i41.tinypic.com/343tb0j.jpg

'sup RPG.

After seeing this and reading it was confirmed an RPG I say they deserved to be shot. Something mighty suspicious is going on there. BRB Downloading the video with pages etc.

[Elvis]

In the report, it identifies the man kneeling, around the corner (the moment where one of the soldiers says 'RPG!') as holding a camera, not an RPG.

The gif. though is correct. It was an RPG. According to the report, it also states that there were AKs present.

What I still don't get, in spite of this evidence, is why they said everyone was an insurgent or that they didn't know how the kids got hurt or that they couldn't confirm whether cameramen were shot.

They hit the kids (couldn't see them though) so they should have known. They also had access to the film, and in the report they say it was consistent w/ blah blah.

One thing that is kind of strange is how in one of the photos, it says 'Man of military age'. Well, in the other photos, it does not say that as a caption.

So, it's like they'll post a 'fact' but then annotate it. Actually, I think they did that w/ cameras too. Like 'Possible Camera' or 'Probable Camera'.

Wouldn't they know by then? Or was it that, they found the cameras and are trying to match it up to their position in the video?

[Therin]

If they're holding an RPG, they're getting shot, as well as everyone that is standing remotely close to them being friendly with them, as well as any van that might try to pick up their dead bodies.

If someone is identified as a threat, and you shoot him, and some mysterious black van shows up and starts picking up the dead body of that threat, that van also becomes a threat.

It really does suck that there were two children in that van and I hate that they were injured, but it was completely justified to do what they did, given that that person WAS in fact holding an RPG. And if you deny that, you're not really qualified to be passing judgment, sorry.

[Elvis]

If they're holding an RPG, they're getting shot, as well as everyone that is standing remotely close to them being friendly with them, as well as any van that might try to pick up their dead bodies.

If someone is identified as a threat, and you shoot him, and some mysterious black van shows up and starts picking up the dead body of that threat, that van also becomes a threat.

It really does suck that there were two children in that van and I hate that they were injured, but it was completely justified to do what they did, given that that person WAS in fact holding an RPG. And if you deny that, you're not really qualified to be passing judgment, sorry.

Don't get so excited just yet, Therin. One of the 'Rules of Engagement' is to NOT strike a target who is OUT OF COMBAT due to 'sickness, surrender, or wounds'.

If the 'mysterious van' (in the report I think one of the soldiers states he felt it arrived as if on cue) were there to pick up a wounded 'insurgent' (in this case, it's one of the cameramen though) - how do they have the authorization to fire?

@bold/underlined

Source please. How do you decide 'friendliness' from 10 seconds of a bunch of people walking around. Red Cross has to walk around too - they being friendly?

[Elvis]

More on 'Rules of Engagement' -

I have a question to pose to the discussion. From this PDF:

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf

This part specifically, if my train of thought is correct:

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/612...ngagement1.jpg

Annex E, 'Deliberate Targets', CDE

EDIT:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/139...ngagement2.jpg

So far, what we know is that the Apaches were sent in as a response to reports of gunfire in the vicinity. You don't see any troops on the ground taking fire. You don't see any troops period. Where was the action?

How do you judge hostile intent? And, does that 'intent' conflate the other persons within the vicinity?

I think in this incident, they were operating under 'Deliberate Targets'. They were told of possible enemy combatants in that area. So that's why they went there. They expected hostile intent and all that, but there is nothing going on, on the ground.

They nominated the use of force, based on image in Therin's gif. I think when one of the Reuters reporter knelt down, w/ his camera, it kind of sealed the deal. At that point, they had already decided to use force, so the pertinent space of time to scrutinize is a bit earlier than when one of the soldiers worryingly says 'RPG!'

The question is, is simply having the weapon out like that enough to fire? I'm now reading why the soldiers assumed all the people present, were involved and thus, legitimate targets.

The next thing to consider is the van, which I think is the weakest point, for the Army's case.

[Drex]

If you download the report and read through it you'll see that it was later confirmed to be an rpg launcher.

Reading through this now, and figured I'd provide cliff notes for people who don't wanna read the full 43 pages (though the first 12 are intro stuff and details on the appointment for a review blahblah). This is all from the report, not from me (I'll include stuff in parentheses if it's me commenting, but I'll try to keep mostly quiet):

(There are two helicopters communicating in this video. We only get video from one of them. The second copter is assumed to be across from the first, to view the action that is obscured from "our" copter by angles. Bear that in mind when reading the review, since it includes things we can not see from this video, but which the investigator can supposedly see in the second, unincluded video)

1) Purpose of the review and investigation

2) Investigate the investment and treatment of the children, assess whether the cameramen were killed during fire on hostile targets, assess other relevant issues including their use of force

3) Guy provides background on where his decisions are based - interviews with the men arriving (in the video) after the helicopter's firing, and the gun camera tapes provided

4) There were U.S. ground soldiers within 100 meters of the place the incident took place at. The individuals in the video include 2 armed men and the 2 photographers. The incident lasted 21 minutes.

5) Fighting began at dawn, video is taken around 1020-1040 am. Some of the radio dialogue is from the ground troops themselves. They were clearing the area and searching for weapons caches.

6) The videos were being viewed on small screens; the pilots are in charge of covering the guys on the ground and protecting their aircraft; the troops had been engaged since dawn and the pilots were actively searching for armed insurgents; they had no idea there would be noncombatants in the area

(And now comes his analysis of what happened)

a) Military-aged males dressed in western style pants and shirts, two have cameras with telephoto lenses, one has an ak-47, one has an rpg. The cameras are mistaken for rpgs as well, and neither camerman is wearing anything that identifies him as media

b) Two men are seen openly displaying an rpg and ak47, while a third has an object that looks like an rpg round. The rest of the men are obscured by a building

c) One of the cameramen peers around the wall, looking towards the approaching ground troops. The voice on the video mistakes the camera lens he points for an RPG.

d) The cameraman raises his lens to sight a picture, and the voice on the tape warns "he's getting ready to fire." They later found the photos the cameraman was taking, of a HMMWV sitting at an intersection nearby (I think someone in this thread posted the pictures earlier?). The cameraman exhibits a "furtive nature" and appeared to be ready to fire on ground troops

e) The apache circles and sees all the men clustered together, an RPG and AK are visible and the entire circle is assumed to be armed insurgents. The apache engages and kills 8 of the 9 men.

f) A black van with white paint on the roof arrives, and two military aged males + the vehicle driver attempt to load the survivor into the van. The helicopter requests permission to engage and it is granted, so they open fire.

g) The ground forces arrive and approach the engagement area. They find two RPGs and an ak-47, along with the two digital cameras and large telescopic lenses near the bodies. Two of the military-aged men are alive, and the soldiers on scene give them first aid.

h & i) They find the injured children (4 year old girl and 8 year old boy) and they evacuate them to "FOB LOYALTY" and then transfer them to an Iraqi controlled treatment facility the next day.

j) As the ground troops secured the scene they found another RPG round near one body, and an additional, loaded RPG near another. None of the bodies had the normal media badges, or the vests normally worn to indicate noncombatants are in the area. The soldiers remained until the Iraqi Security Forces arrived and took the bodies, weapons, and cameras.

k) The press security badges were found (doesn't say where, but presumably in a bag or pocket since they weren't wearing them) and returned to Reuters. The investigator hasn't been able to find out where and when they were returned because Reuters wont answer their inquiries. Reuters ran the story of their photographers being killed by US troops.

(And the conclusions part)

a) The ground forces were not able identify the bodies; they were only identified later by the Iraqi security forces

b) The cameras recovered are confirmed to belong to the Reuters photographers

c) The Reuters photographers were in the company of armed insurgents at the time of the incident, and were killed in the video shown

d) The presence of Reuters photographers was unknown to the US forces, the cameramen made no effort to visibly display their status as media, and their close proximity and seeming familiarity to the armed insurgents made them appear to be hostile combatants. Their attempts to take photographs of US forces were misinterpreted as preperations for an imminent attack on the ground forces. Also, their ownership of cameras does not mean they were noncombatants, since the both sides frequently include cameramen in their units to film and photograph their attacks.

9) The children in the van are never seen, and the van is assumed to have a connection to the insurgents due to its timely arrival and immediate, organized action in rescuing the men. Their connection to the insurgents remains unknown, if any exists.

(Their recommendations are censored from the report, as well as parts of the photography, but there are labeled screencaps from the video with the cameras, telephoto lenses, RPGs, and AK47s, from pages 17-24 of the report. The rest is the source materials - transcripts of the interviews)


Make of it what you will

[Ikith]

Don't get so excited just yet, Therin. One of the 'Rules of Engagement' is to NOT strike a target who is OUT OF COMBAT due to 'sickness, surrender, or wounds'.

If the 'mysterious van' (in the report I think one of the soldiers states he felt it arrived as if on cue) were there to pick up a wounded 'insurgent' (in this case, it's one of the cameramen though) - how do they have the authorization to fire?

@bold/underlined

Source please. How do you decide 'friendliness' from 10 seconds of a bunch of people walking around. Red Cross has to walk around too - they being friendly?

Maybe when they start to huddle up together and supposedly talk or something to me and I think anyone else here that would look pretty friendly to me shit I don't just go huddle up with a bunch of strangers walking along the street especially ones with RPGs and AKs do you? Does anyone on BG? Does anyone in Iraq that isn't either military or insurgent? Serious question.

I dont know what the van was going to do next but as a soldier (IMO) you must assume if they are going to pick up one they are going to pick up the others as well and maybe the weapons which is what I think the soldiers assumed. They also couldn't see inside of the van what if there were weapons in the van already?

For some reason the documents n shit won't download so these are just educated guesses n all of that shit.

Heh just read the above poster... Sounds like my first statement is almost spot on and my second is a bit far off however they didn't specify that there were no weapons in the vehicle and they know no connection to the insurgents and the van.

Love how this thread has gone from OMFG THEY KILLED CIVILIANS to OH... THEY WERE ARMED... YEAH.

[dejet]

What I would like to know is, Is this area open? Did the US close said area off because of what they where doing. Why is there only 12 or so people outside, where the US has tanks, and yet 4-5 have RPG's or AK's?

They had a right to wonder what was going on down there. We do not fully understand the mission too, unless we get the details how can we say really?

[Elvis]

Love how this thread has gone from OMFG THEY KILLED CIVILIANS to OH... THEY WERE ARMED... YEAH.

You're just like Therin, jumping the gun. In the report, it states 2 men were holding RPGs. A third was holding an AK (I think).

There is another photo, but it's just at a different angle.

When they came to the scene on ground, afterward - the report states the Army found 2 RPGs, and an AK.

3 weapons. 3 people out of the larger group.

I'm looking for some identification of the armed men, killed. Haven't gotten to that part yet.

If the only requirement to getting shot, is 'military aged male' then it's no wonder so many civilians are caught in the cross-fire.

The situation was tense, and as I said, and as it is noted in the report - I think the moment of 'truth' came when they saw the reporter kneeling, around the corner.

They thought he was getting ready to fire.

But prior to that, they had ALREADY designated all those guys as targets and were going to engage.

Here is the April 2007 'Rules':

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1...ngagement3.jpg

Not sure how some of that stuff applies, given the position of the Apaches. They decide to attack, when they see the guys walking around (and I think in this situation, warning shots would not be an option, since the context is TIF) - NOT when they see the camera-looking-like-a-rocket-launcher around the corner.

[Ikith]

You're just like Therin, jumping the gun. In the report, it states 2 men were holding RPGs. A third was holding an AK (I think).

There is another photo, but it's just at a different angle.

When they came to the scene on ground, afterward - the report states the Army found 2 RPGs, and an AK.

3 weapons. 3 people out of the larger group.

I'm looking for some identification of the armed men, killed. Haven't gotten to that part yet.

If the only requirement to getting shot, is 'military aged male' then it's no wonder so many civilians are caught in the cross-fire.

The situation was tense, and as I said, and as it is noted in the report - I think the moment of 'truth' came when they saw the reporter kneeling, around the corner.

They thought he was getting ready to fire.

But prior to that, they had ALREADY designated all those guys as targets and were going to engage.

Here is the April 2007 'Rules':

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1...ngagement3.jpg

Not sure how some of that stuff applies, given the position of the Apaches. They decide to attack, when they see the guys walking around (and I think in this situation, warning shots would not be an option, since the context is TIF) - NOT when they see the camera-looking-like-a-rocket-launcher around the corner.

a) Military-aged males dressed in western style pants and shirts, two have cameras with telephoto lenses, one has an ak-47, one has an rpg. The cameras are mistaken for rpgs as well, and neither camerman is wearing anything that identifies him as media

b) Two men are seen openly displaying an rpg and ak47, while a third has an object that looks like an rpg round. The rest of the men are obscured by a building

c) One of the cameramen peers around the wall, looking towards the approaching ground troops. The voice on the video mistakes the camera lens he points for an RPG.

d) The cameraman raises his lens to sight a picture, and the voice on the tape warns "he's getting ready to fire." They later found the photos the cameraman was taking, of a HMMWV sitting at an intersection nearby (I think someone in this thread posted the pictures earlier?). The cameraman exhibits a "furtive nature" and appeared to be ready to fire on ground troops

e) The apache circles and sees all the men clustered together, an RPG and AK are visible and the entire circle is assumed to be armed insurgents. The apache engages and kills 8 of the 9 men.

All BEFORE firing. They had PID they also "assume" the whole group is armed which I don't blame them for you have people with RPGs and AKs yes the dude kneeling to take a shot wasn't actually shooting at the apache but the way they were gathered around leads me to believe that if no action was taken they would have fired upon the apache. They did have suspicious behavior ala getting behind a wall out of site of the apache to "exchange weapons" maybe but it was clearly seen that they had weapons there in that group and gathering like that out of site is fishy and suspicious.

[Drex]

I think 1-b, 2-a, and 2-c are definitely relevant. 1-a and 2-b don't apply, since the group took no actual hostile action towards us troops and graduated measure of force wouldn't have been reasonable with RPGs in the picture.

And Ikith/Elvis - I think one of you is arguing from a legality standpoint, while the other is from a morality standpoint, hence the issues. From a legality standpoint, they don't seem to have violated the rules of engagement (note that 2-a says to ask a higher up in the case of no identification, which they did), except for 2-c, although you could argue that they didn't violate 2-c intentionally since they were firing on the van and its occupants (which they again had clearance from higher ranks to do).

Looking at it from a morality standpoint, is a whole different discussion.

[Elvis]

a) Military-aged males dressed in western style pants and shirts, two have cameras with telephoto lenses, one has an ak-47, one has an rpg. The cameras are mistaken for rpgs as well, and neither camerman is wearing anything that identifies him as media

b) Two men are seen openly displaying an rpg and ak47, while a third has an object that looks like an rpg round. The rest of the men are obscured by a building

c) One of the cameramen peers around the wall, looking towards the approaching ground troops. The voice on the video mistakes the camera lens he points for an RPG.

d) The cameraman raises his lens to sight a picture, and the voice on the tape warns "he's getting ready to fire." They later found the photos the cameraman was taking, of a HMMWV sitting at an intersection nearby (I think someone in this thread posted the pictures earlier?). The cameraman exhibits a "furtive nature" and appeared to be ready to fire on ground troops

e) The apache circles and sees all the men clustered together, an RPG and AK are visible and the entire circle is assumed to be armed insurgents. The apache engages and kills 8 of the 9 men.

All BEFORE firing. They had PID they also "assume" the whole group is armed which I don't blame them for you have people with RPGs and AKs yes the dude kneeling to take a shot wasn't actually shooting at the apache but the way they were gathered around leads me to believe that if no action was taken they would have fired upon the apache. They did have suspicious behavior ala getting behind a wall out of site of the apache to "exchange weapons" maybe but it was clearly seen that they had weapons there in that group and gathering like that out of site is fishy and suspicious.

I agree with that summary except that:

A) 'military aged men' is a big conflation (but given the fact, that it is a war-zone, it's reasonable to think they'd stay on their toes by going on alert w/ respect to this demographic)

B) 'openly displayed' is passive-aggressive and really reaching - were they expressing hostile intent OR did they simply possess weapons. The Reuters reporters were not insurgents, and they were walking around calmly. Since, the soldiers thought all of the people were insurgents, they might assume that everyone was calm because they didn't know what was about to happen to them.

- However, if that's true (the calm) - then where is the hostile intent? It was a preemptive strike. So I think the 'Rules' applied were 'Deliberate Target'. You could make a case for TIF but WHERE are the troops in that vicinity? Where is the impression that these guys, calmly walking around are firing at US soldiers.

(BTW, who were they?)

What was the mode of engagement? What rule was applied?

If it was 'Deliberate Target' - where was the CDE? A lot of this is woosh for me, since I reacted emotionally first and foremost, but I'm trying to understand what the hell is going on.

[Elvis]

Just to reiterate:

3 weapons. 3 people. The rest are what then? 2 were Reuters reporters. Civilians. 3 were just driving around and saw someone shot on the ground, and came outside to help.

Who were the others, in the big initial group of people who were shot?

This comes down to one small space of time, when you see the 3 dudes walking around CALMLY with weapons. The suspicious part IMO comes AFTER (when the camera is mistaken for a bazooka) the soldiers decide to engage already.

Something is wrong with your chronology, Ikith.

In the video (I need to double check, but I'll just say it for now), the soldiers decide BEFORE the men are walking toward the building, and the Apache is at that bad angle, where they cannot see.

[Elvis]

If I were the soldiers, I would probably decide something AFTER I saw the camera-mistaken-for-bazooka around the corner.

I don't know what I would do, but to me, that's the moment of 'truth' - not when the guys are just walking around.

I would not shoot the van. I don't see how that's legal.

EDIT:

And this is from the point-of-view, that I'm a soldier, and I have to do soldier things. Not within the context of 'is the war right or wrong' - obviously, by definition, the soldiers are there to fight. So they will focus on these scenarios w/ the premise that the war is 'right' in some way, and they have to fulfill their duty.

[Kyrra]

I don't think it's that bad. At least Wikileaks got it out there.