![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Collateral Murder (Of The Truth)
There is a shocking video floating around today, which you too can view at collateralmurder.com
It is described by its makers as "a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff."
Surface Truth: in two incidents a few minutes apart, apparently unarmed men (and two children, out of sight in a van) are chewed on by remotely directed 30mm cannon fire. If you look very closely, you get glimpses of what appear to be long sticks.
Lie: the men were unarmed, the shooting was baseless, their deaths were murder. Representing the Lie (or Big Lie) I have selected Glenn Greenwald's article, where he says:
"That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital."
Deeper Truth: the men were armed insurgents, with two RPGs and an AK, and the cameramen were dressed like them engaged in behaviors that made them appear to be supporters. One was taking pictures of a US ground unit less than 100 meters away with a long-barrel camera in such a way as to look like he is firing on them; the other was talking on a cell phone, a common part of both tactical communications and IED (bomb) detonations. All of this took place in a closed military zone which nearby American ground forces were actively sweeping and clearing while under small arms fire.
New facts? Yes, lots. See a recent CNN article for the context the video and its adroit packaging deprives you of. See also here: one of the Army investigations into this matter. This forty-three page report goes into great and graphic detail.
The laws of war are clear: you hang with a group, you take your chance of sharing their fate. This is one purpose behind Red Cross and Red Crescent -- here, let's hang a big red sign on you which makes you less likely to be shot at. This is also why combatants are required by the laws of war to wear uniforms -- here, let's hang something on you that makes it less likely that civilians will be mistaken for you.
But I will not bore you with mere facts. Here is graphic evidence which a man died to bring you:
These three photos were taken from the memory card of a camera belonging to one of the dead journalists. Photos of a nearby American military vehicle.
You take photos like this of combatant forces in active combat operations, you risk sudden and immediate death. As happened.
A veteran comments further here:
"This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened ... [to] any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by [friendly fire] in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists."
So behind the lie, a deeper truth. This is not atrocity, this is war. This is soldiers doing their job well, a job their country called them out to do. Be sickened by it, please. Don't send our soldiers out to war unless you are willing to own all the consequences. And once you have, don't blame them for what you chose for them to do.
It is described by its makers as "a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff."
Surface Truth: in two incidents a few minutes apart, apparently unarmed men (and two children, out of sight in a van) are chewed on by remotely directed 30mm cannon fire. If you look very closely, you get glimpses of what appear to be long sticks.
Lie: the men were unarmed, the shooting was baseless, their deaths were murder. Representing the Lie (or Big Lie) I have selected Glenn Greenwald's article, where he says:
"That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital."
Deeper Truth: the men were armed insurgents, with two RPGs and an AK, and the cameramen were dressed like them engaged in behaviors that made them appear to be supporters. One was taking pictures of a US ground unit less than 100 meters away with a long-barrel camera in such a way as to look like he is firing on them; the other was talking on a cell phone, a common part of both tactical communications and IED (bomb) detonations. All of this took place in a closed military zone which nearby American ground forces were actively sweeping and clearing while under small arms fire.
New facts? Yes, lots. See a recent CNN article for the context the video and its adroit packaging deprives you of. See also here: one of the Army investigations into this matter. This forty-three page report goes into great and graphic detail.
The laws of war are clear: you hang with a group, you take your chance of sharing their fate. This is one purpose behind Red Cross and Red Crescent -- here, let's hang a big red sign on you which makes you less likely to be shot at. This is also why combatants are required by the laws of war to wear uniforms -- here, let's hang something on you that makes it less likely that civilians will be mistaken for you.
But I will not bore you with mere facts. Here is graphic evidence which a man died to bring you:
These three photos were taken from the memory card of a camera belonging to one of the dead journalists. Photos of a nearby American military vehicle.
You take photos like this of combatant forces in active combat operations, you risk sudden and immediate death. As happened.
A veteran comments further here:
"This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened ... [to] any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by [friendly fire] in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists."
So behind the lie, a deeper truth. This is not atrocity, this is war. This is soldiers doing their job well, a job their country called them out to do. Be sickened by it, please. Don't send our soldiers out to war unless you are willing to own all the consequences. And once you have, don't blame them for what you chose for them to do.
no subject
I in fact carefully reviewed the video and the evidence before coming to these views. I'm heavily biased against much of what I hear nowadays, either from the left or the right.
The laws of war are a horrible mercy. Read that again. They limit the scope of certain outrageous acts while permitting, nay encouraging others. If there were no laws of war, perhaps war would be too horrible to fight. (Prior experience with weapons "too horrible to use" such as Nobel's dynamite, machine guns and napalm has ended in disaster.) Perhaps the laws of war permit of an eventual peace without we would engage in endless bloodshed.
There is nothing in the laws of war to suggest that a combatant must be armed or engaged in warlike acts at the moment you happen to kill them. Unarmed planes can be shot down; freighters torpedoed with all hands; ammo and fuel dumps blown up; factories with workers in them bombed. At Pearl Harbor the vast majority of the dead American sailors never had a chance either to save their own lives or to strike back at the Japanese. That doesn't make Pearl Harbor a war crime. Horrible tragedy and a valuable lesson to remember, yes. War crime, no.
Marked ambulances and medical personnel are protected. One heavy weapon (above a rifle) in an ambulance and all the ambulances you have lose their protection. Persons who are hors de combat and helpless have some protection, which you can see on this video because they didn't shoot the wounded man. Surrendered POWs are absolutely protected, in fact there is a positive duty to safeguard POWs. People attempting to surrender by leaflet are much better off than those who throw up their hands when attacked by surprise. Neither engagement gave the insurgents a chance to surrender, but this also is not required.
The insurgents follow none of these rules, by the way. Soldiers of law-abiding powers are extensively trained on them. Wikileaks has the rules of engagement from 2007 up on its collateralmurder.com Web site here (http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html).
Two separate investigations were conducted. I read one in detail. No cover up took place, as can be seen from the video and audio transcripts themselves. They were insurgents, with weapons, accompanied by journalists. They had two RPGs. One can be seen on the video, as can one AK. Two RPGs were seized by American forces and turned over to Iraqi forces during the mop-up. The ground unit was under small arms fire during this entire phase according to the sworn testimony of several eyewitneses, not incidentally. I've read their handwritten statements.
When you travel with others in a war zone, you take your chances.
no subject
I am in fact opposed to the Iraq War, and so is this post. Either you didn't read it, or you didn't get it.
When the American people and our Congress allowed Bush to launch us into an offensive war against Iraq, we acted in direct contravention of a large chunk of Constitutional precedent and a fair bit of international law. Congress could have stopped it by setting the funds available for the purpose to zero. Congress spent the money instead. Despite a clear mandate from the American people to Get The F--- Out of Iraq, Obama is taking his sweet time about it.
Bush may have pushed for it, and led it, and argued us into it. But it's our country and our soldiers and ultimately the blood is on our hands.
When you say "Go To War," what is going to happen is what you see in that video. It's not an atrocity, it's not a war crime any more than war itself is. Or any less.
Combatants wear uniforms. Insurgents choose not to. The vehicle picking up wounded was participating in a military operation and could have been engaged on the way to the site, at the site (as it was) or while driving away with wounded piled on top of each other in the back. The only way for it to be protected under Geneva is for it to be a marked ambulance or the men getting out of it to be marked as medics, preferably both. Just because it's not being used to transport insurgents today doesn't mean it won't be used as a car bomb tomorrow.
This was not a peaceful morning on a quiet urban street. This was active combat operations, the streets were empty of civilians and you can see this on the video. If an audio mike had been present on the ground, you would have heard the crackle of small arms in the distance and the growl of engines, whine of turbines and roar of circling helicopter blades, once in a great while punctuated by heavy weapons fire and/or an explosion. Civilians were not visible because they were ELSEWHERE, hiding, knowing full well that this is a battle area.
WRONG.
iraqbodycount.org puts the civilian death toll of the invasion and occupation at circa 105,000. That's in addition to about 24,000 insurgent deaths and 11,000 odd security force (Iraqi government) deaths. Call the total 140,000.
By contrast we're still under 5,000 for US servicemembers.
In the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqis suffered over 300,000 casualties while inflicting at least that amount and possibly up to three times more (1 million) due to suicidal Iranian tactics. Most of the soldiers were draftees. Although the true numbers will never be known, there is a huge gap in the military-age population in both Iran and Iraq in which a million men died.
140K (US Invasion of Iraq) < 1000 K (Iran-Iraq War)
Saddam still has us beat, even if you don't include the Kuwait War. Let's ask the Kurds instead, you know, the ones that aren't getting chemical weapons dropped on them any more. That's another 5,000 or so we can't ask thanks to Saddam hitting towns with chemical agents in 1988, but we're into small change now, along with other anti-Kurd operations and the massacre of the Marsh Arabs who foolishly believed that America would back their revolt after Gulf War I. Prewar population estimated at 150,000, all displaced and most killed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq)
Let's add in the UN sanctions, just to be fair, because they killed people without actually doing anything to weaken Saddam's grip on power. While the actual numbers are hotly disputed and inflated, that's at least another 100,000 right there -- most of whom were children.
So no, we're not any better at killing Iraqis now than either the Iranians or Saddam were. We ourselves probably killed as many innocent civilians in combat operations as we did prior to the invasion with "non-violent" sanctions.
You are right
And of course nothing you've said means US soldiers aren't committing some war crimes. This isn't one of them.
no subject
In preparing the Rules Of Engagement for the Iraq War, the Army itself acknowledged two things that you're disagreeing with: yes, it is a war crime to open fire on someone who is unarmed and providing medical assistance, medic uniform or no medic uniform, and no, you may not assume that someone is a combatant just because they're carrying a weapon. The ROEs in Iraq specifically say that it is illegal for US soldiers to open fire on someone unless they are now actively engaged in combat or have been seen to have been engaged in combat.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the helicopter crew mistook the photographer's telephoto lens for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher (RPG), which means that yes, when he ducked low behind a corner so he wouldn't be seen and aimed that camera at a US convoy down the block, it did look to the helicopter crew like he was aiming an RPG at them. (Ironically, it was almost certainly this exact fear that caused him to crouch furtively in the first place.) So they got permission to open fire on him, and then did so. There are people reacting badly to how happy the chopper crew were over having killed him and everybody around him, but that's just war; nobody who knows anything about war is criticizing it up to his point. It's what happens after that that turns this into a war crime.
First of all, notice what happens when they see that one of the people they opened fire on is still alive, but wounded. An unarmed wounded man is not a combatant. Frankly, if they thought he was a Baathist or Al Qaeda in Iraq insurgent, they should have wanted him captured. Instead, they spend every minute from then to the end of the tape begging their superiors for permission to open fire, until they finally get it.
You are correct that if armed men pulled up to that battle site and began evacuating the wounded, they would be targets. Notice that not even the US Army claims that the men in the van were armed at the time they opened fire on it. Flatly legally indefensible.
And finally, notice that the Army is still behaving as if they know they've done something wrong: the Army report keeps insisting that an RPG was found at the site. Look up their report. Look at the two photos they say "prove" that there's an RPG on the site. One consists of two blurry white pixels that could be anything. The other is a photograph taken by the first troops to arrive on the site, and is labeled "RPG -->" ... only the arrow points to something that is hidden by a censorship box. What's the only actual evidence they SHOW that there's an RPG? Troops on the ground say they saw one.
Frankly, so many US soldiers have falsified their after-action reports to cover up attacks on civilians by now that I no longer give the benefit of the doubt. The helicopter crew knew, by the end of the engagement, that they were killing civilians to eliminate the witnesses, and Army brass has been helping them cover it up ever since. How do I know which side to believe in this? Because we have YET to find a single journalist "crying wolf" over this accusation. Every single time, in the whole history of the Iraq War, that journalists have reported that the Army knowingly slaughtered civilians and the Army denied it, the Army has turned out to be lying.
no subject
I've been wrong before, but I'm fairly certain that in this case The Truth Will Out, and soon. If skulduggery occurred, and I am as skeptical about formal reports and internal investigations as it gets, we will find out.
Unfortunately, there is no potential for physical evidence because the weapons collected at the scene were turned over to Iraqi forces. In a policing context, I find any break in the chain of custody of key evidence, and the failure to follow normal procedure and collect important evidence, to be clear and convincing evidence in itself of misconduct. So when a Federal agency at Waco misplaced one of the metal front doors, that looks really overwhelmingly bad for ATF's actions that morning. The military uses written reporting and photographic evidence instead, so by analogy if someone clearly pokes a hole in the military's own formal statements and photos, the house of cards crumbles. I have not seen that hole poked . . . yet.
I have not read recent US military statements, nor do I consider them to be much other than a PIO's opinion of what happened. Googling around, the closest I've come is this article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/) which quotes a CENTCOM spokesman. I'm primarily reviewing documents from CENTCOM found here: http://www.centcom.mil/en/press-releases/link-for-foia-documents-on-july-2007-new-baghdad-combat-action.html and re-released elsewehere as seen on scribd.
>> yes, it is a war crime to open fire on someone who is unarmed and providing medical assistance, medic uniform or no medic uniform
This is not accurate and I'd appreciate a cite on this. Geneva protects medical personnel and marked medical vehicles and hospitals. I am not aware of any Geneva protection for first aid or for casevac by other combatants.
>> and no, you may not assume that someone is a combatant just because they're carrying a weapon.
As was demonstrated in a civilian context at Ruby Ridge. The totality of the circumstances must be considered. The key point here is the RPGs on the one hand, and the necessary inverse of your statement on the other.
You cannot assume someone is not a combatant just because they are not carrying a weapon.
>> The ROEs in Iraq specifically say that it is illegal for US soldiers to open fire on someone unless they are now actively engaged in combat or have been seen to have been engaged in combat.
The ROEs are more restrictive than war crimes law, and this is a good thing IMHO. However, the meaning of "engaged in combat" is something I'd want to see a military lawyer's view on. The first engagement we've agreed was legitimate operations of war. The 2nd engagement, starting when the van arrives, is the question here.
>> You are correct that if armed men pulled up to that battle site and began evacuating the wounded, they would be targets.
Why does it matter whether they are armed or unarmed? Medical personnel continue to enjoy the protections of Geneva even when armed for self-defense. Combatants have no protection through being unarmed. A truck driver is just as much a lawful target as an MP or a gunner.
specifics of that morning
>> Notice that not even the US Army claims that the men in the van were armed at the time they opened fire on it. Flatly legally indefensible.
According to the helicopter gunner's own sworn statement, "Soon after our engagement, a van and 4-5 military aged males arrived at the engagement site and began loading personnel and weapons into the van. Bushmaster cleared us to engage the van and personnel. Crazy Horse 18 initiated fire and I fired approximately 40 rounds at the personnel and the van. We remained above the engagement site while Bushmaster sent ground forces to the site. Bushmaster arrived and reported 11x AIF KIA and found RPGs and RPG rounds at the site. We also witnessed a loaded RPG lying 2-3 blocks south of the engagement site that had been dropped by fleeing AIF."
Policing up weapons and helping other combatants flee.
>> And finally, notice that the Army is still behaving as if they know they've done something wrong: the Army report keeps insisting that an RPG was found at the site. . . . Look at the two photos they say "prove" that there's an RPG on the site. One consists of two blurry white pixels that could be anything. The other is a photograph taken by the first troops to arrive on the site, and is labeled "RPG -->" ... only the arrow points to something that is hidden by a censorship box.
I hope we see some expansion on this. I chased down the original PDF, which is floating out there, and it contains the censorship boxes as well -- I see nothing that could be classified information covered by that box except perhaps some sort of intelligence tag. It's not enough that the Army is convinced that there was an RPG there -- I think these photos should be uncensored. I just don't see them having the gumption to falsify them and then release them publicly.
>> What's the only actual evidence they SHOW that there's an RPG? Troops on the ground say they saw one.
And also the troops in the air, and the drone operators, and you can see it on the video here. The double cone of the shaped charge warhead is very distinctive.
>> The helicopter crew knew, by the end of the engagement, that they were killing civilians to eliminate the witnesses, and Army brass has been helping them cover it up ever since.
Where's the cover up? They admit engaging the van with 30mm cannon fire. I genuinely don't understand this comment.
no subject
http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/
"The point at which I cannot support the actions of Crazyhorse 18, at all, comes when the van arrives somewhere around 9:45 and is engaged. Unless someone had jumped out with an RPG ready to fire on the aircraft, there was no threat warranting a hail of 30mm from above. Might it have been prudent to follow the vehicle (perhaps with a UAV), or at least put out a BOLO (Be On the Look Out) for the vehicle? Absolutely without question. Was this portion of the engagement even remotely understandable, to me? No, it was not."
So this is the pivotal point.
no subject
War is a VERY messy business. No matter what. No matter who's doing it, and to whom. People DIE. INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE. Don't engage in wars unless you're willing to accept that.
The 15-6 report on this incident was remarkably cover-up free as official Army reports go. Makes sense, fits the evidence-- having actually served time once in Iraq myself and knowing what life is like in a combat zone (as well as having been thoroughly trained in the soldier's level view of the 'Laws of War')-- I do see some tragic events and effects, but I DO NOT see any war crimes knowingly committed by US Forces here. Those who scream cover-up on this one because no charges are being pressed evidently see cover-ups everywhere they look, where none are really to be found.
Vans picking up wounded personnel-- several problems here-- the moment that van picks up any weapons or moves to evacuate combatants who are not wounded and clearly out of the fighting, it loses whatever 'protected status' it might have had under the Laws of Land Warfare. If it wasn't clearly marked as an ambulance/casualty evacuation vehicle, it never had a protected status in the first place under the laws of war. Given the situation and past/present actions of insurgents in Iraq (none of whom are wearing uniforms or any other item of clothing to distinguish themselves as combatants btw-- which is itself a probable violation of the laws of war on their part)-- there's a good legal presumption to make that that van was there to provide evacuation to live, able, hostile combatants and their weapons, not as transport for a mercy mission-- thus, it's a legal target.
Regarding the Reuters journalists-- sucks to be them. But-- they were travelling WITH Armed Insurgents (not sure how so many people MISSED that point), who were engaging in combat with US Forces, and acting in such a way as to appear to be armed, hostile insurgents themselves, even though they in fact were not. Which made them legal targets. For all I know-- they WERE there on a sideline business of shooting and producing combat propaganda for the insurgency, not just collecting news. Being in a warzone in any capacity is dangerous-- being a journalist doesn't give you some magic protection that will keep you safe, and it certainly won't protect journalists from their own STUPIDITY if they insist on putting themselves into the line of fire.
no subject
And, in spite of the crocodile tears of the international press, there actually is NO special protected category for 'journalist' under the Laws of War, and never has been-- Journalists have no more (and also no less) protections than any other non-combatant under the Laws of War (presuming they are truly non-combatants).
No effort?
(Anonymous) 2013-07-30 08:09 pm (UTC)(link)Re: No effort?
The M-230 chain gun carried by the Apache attack helicopter has a range of 1500 meters.
Against the background of a modern city, let alone the fighting taking place in the city that day, it is completely reasonable that the sound of the rotor blades at distance would be missed.
Obviously once the helicopter begins firing it is too late for the insurgents and the embedded photographers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M230_chain_gun
http://www.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter.htm
no subject
Even more interesting is the Reuters article and other news articles about the event. The Reuters article appears to try to keep a neutral facts-only tone about the event, yet seems to purposefully leave out key relevant facts such as the presence of actual weapons carried by men in the video and their close proximity to US ground forces which have recently been fired upon by such weapons.
It's an interesting study in how selective truthful statements can be used to lie. The article paints an image of this being a bunch of unarmed civilians that were just hanging out talking to some reporters when blood thirsty helicopter crews spotted their next innocent victims.
And yet, the insurgents in the video may have been the very ones who had been firing upon the nearby US ground troops. At least one of the men in the video really is carrying an RPG and is close enough to US ground troops to fire it at them. It can be seen in the video, and it is found after the engagement.
That sort of context seems to be completely lost on the public. They watch the video and feel sorry for seemingly innocent helpless guys... as if the weapons they were carrying were just cute little toys that couldn't pose any real threat.
Let's consider a hypothetical question. What if the helicopter crew _did_ successfully identify the two journalists among the insurgents. What then?
Obviously, they wouldn't have fired, right?
Well, here's the problem. These armed insurgents are within range to fire at US ground troops. The weapons they carry are not pop guns. And they are literally shoulder to shoulder with these two journalists. I don't see what option the helicopter crew would really have but to fire on the armed men anyway.
The helicopter crew isn't murderous and looking for innocent victims to harm. They're gung ho watching out for their boys on the ground to keep them safe.
They killed the journalists. They also killed that guy with the RPG before he could fire it. That second part may have saved the lives of several young men. I mean... that guy wasn't toting around a rocket launcher just to pick up chicks, you know?
The helicopter crew did their jobs. They engaged and defeated enemy forces that posed a real and present danger to their own troops. I can't find anything in the video which was inappropriate _given the context of the situation_. The crew made the best decisions they could with the goal of protecting their own troops.
It is tragic that two journalists were killed in that engagement. I'm certainly not saying that it wasn't. But frankly, they must have been aware of just how much danger they were putting themselves in. They're taking pictures of nearby US forces while moving along with the enemy and making no effort at all to distinguish themselves from the armed insurgents they were with. Given the circumstances of the event, I'm actually a little mystified as to how they expected to _not_ be killed.
Now all that said... I think it's entirely reasonable to question the US being in Iraq at all. If people want to argue about that, I think there's a lot of reasonable arguments to make.
But I don't think they should be painting the troops themselves as blood thirsty murderers like is happening with the news coverage of this video. That's creating the same scenario as when the troops returning from Vietnam were condemned as if the war had been their own personal choice.
History's Verdict
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204
no subject
"So I just unfriended drewkitty for buying into the collateral murder coverup by pushing the "official" line in [his] sickening post. Obviously, I support the freedom of anyone to have an opinion. On the other hand, I'm often surprised when people think that means that they won't get called suckers."
It is now a known fact that the video was heavily edited for use as a propaganda piece. The verdict of history is in, and my analysis was correct -- without having had the benefit of viewing the unedited video. There was no cover-up. This was a legitimate (and quite horrible, as I pointed out) operation of war.
You might want to carefully consider just who the sucker is -- the guy who fell for some lies he was biased towards believing, or the guy who saw that the world is a lot more complicated than the ideologues and 'advocates' want to make you believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike
The attacks received worldwide coverage following the release of 39 minutes of classified cockpit video footage in 2010. Reuters had unsuccessfully requested the footage under the Freedom of Information Act in 2007. The footage was acquired from an undisclosed source in 2009 by the Internet leak website Wikileaks, which released a shorter, edited version on April 5, 2010, under the name Collateral Murder along with the full version.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204
"The video released by Wiki Leaks is EXTREMELY misleading, and propagating it as “murder” is borderline criminal. Their 17 minute version edited out any mention of hostile gunfire on the part of insurgents for the purpose of defaming U.S. Defence Forces. WikiLeak head Julian Assange has since reluctantly admitted to AK-47 and RPGs being present."
This is followed by a detailed transcript of air-ground radio traffic describing the arms and behavior of the insurgents.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/
The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.
However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.
...
Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."
Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks became "unsure" about the weapons. He claimed the RPG could have been a camera tripod, so editors decided not to point it out.
"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area."
The military has said Army units on the ground were experiencing RPG fire before calling in close air support. And although it could be argued AK-47 rifles are common household items, RPGs are not.
Assange said video evidence of the cameras was much clearer than it was of the weapons and that military statements about the presence of weapons had already been widely distributed. But critics say those watching the video online or on television for the first time may not have had any knowledge of those statements.
"It's ludicrous to allege that we have taken anything out of context in this video," Assange told Fox News.