Collateral Murder

The video is self-explanatory.

http://collateralmurder.com/

'Collateral Murder' in Baghdad Anything But

Bill Roggio
Weekly Standard
April 5, 2010

Wikileaks, the website devoted to publishing classified documents on the Internet, made a splash today with a video claiming to show that the U.S. military "murdered" a Reuters cameraman and other Iraqi "civilians" in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. But a careful watching of the video shows that the U.S. helicopter gun crews that attacked a group of armed men in the then Mahdi Army stronghold of New Baghdad was anything but "Collateral Murder," as Wikileaks describes the incident.

There are a couple of things to note in the video. First, Wikileaks characterizes the attack as the U.S. military casually gunning down Iraqis who were innocently gathering on the streets of New Baghdad. But the video begins somewhat abruptly, with a UAV starting to track a group of Iraqi males gathering on the streets. The voice of a U.S. officer is captured in mid-sentence. It would be nice to know what happened before Wikileaks decided to begin the video. The U.S. military claimed the Iraqis were killed after a gun battle with U.S. and Iraqi security forces. It is unclear if any of that was captured on the strike footage. Here is what the U.S. military had to say about the engagement in a July 2007 press release:

Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, and the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, both operating in eastern Baghdad under the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, along with their Iraqi counterparts from the 1st Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st Division National Police, were conducting a coordinated raid as part of a planned operation when they were attacked by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Coalition Forces returned fire and called in attack aviation reinforcement.

There is nothing in that video that is inconsistent with the military's report. What you see is the air weapons team engaging armed men.

Second, note how empty the streets are in the video. The only people visible on the streets are the armed men and the accompanying Reuters cameramen. This is a very good indicator that there was a battle going on in the vicinity. Civilians smartly clear the streets during a gunfight.

Third, several of the men are clearly armed with assault rifles; one appears to have an RPG. Wikileaks purposely chooses not to identify them, but instead focuses on the Reuters cameraman. Why?

Fourth, there is no indication that the U.S. military weapons crew that fired on this group of armed men violated the military's Rules of Engagement. Ironically, Wikileaks published the military's Rules of Engagement from 2007, which you can read here. What you do see in the video is troops working to identify targets and confirm they were armed before engaging. Once the engagement began, the U.S. troops ruthlessly hunted their prey.

Fifth, critics will undoubtedly be up in arms over the attack on that black van you see that moves in to evacuate the wounded; but it is not a marked ambulance, nor is such a vehicle on the "Protected Collateral Objects" listed in the Rules of Engagement. The van, which was coming to the aid of the fighters, was fair game, even if the men who exited the van weren't armed.

Sixth, Wikileaks' claim that the U.S. military's decision to pass the two children inside the van to the Iraqi police for treatment at an Iraqi hospital threatened their lives is unsubstantiated. We do not know the medical assessment of the two Iraqi children wounded in the airstrike. We don't even know if the children were killed in the attack, although you can be sure that if they were Wikileaks would have touted this. (And who drives their kids into the middle of a war zone anyway?) Having been at attacks where Iraqis have ben killed and wounded, I can say I understand a little about the process that is used to determine if wounded Iraqis are transported to a U.S. hospital. The person has to be considered to have a life-threatening situation or in danger of losing a vital function (eyesight, etc.). Yet, even though the threshold to transfer Iraqis to U.S. military hospitals is high, I have repeatedly seen U.S. personnel err on the side of caution and transport wounded who probably should not have been sent to a U.S. hospital.

Baghdad in July 2007 was a very violent place, and the neighborhoods of Sadr City and New Baghdad were breeding grounds for the Mahdi Army and associated Iranian-backed Shia terror groups. The city was a war zone. To describe the attack you see in the video as "murder" is a sensationalist gimmick that succeeded in driving tons of media attention and traffic to Wikileaks' website.

Military Killing Reuters Photographer

Colby Hall
Mediaite
April 5th, 2010

WikiLeaks has just published video of US Military killing 12 individuals in Iraq, two of whom were later revealed to be staff members of the Reuters news organization. Wikileaks has previously been labeled a “muckraking” website by some in the press, and indeed the graphic video is presented by the site as an “indiscriminate” killing, when it clearly appears to be a grave and horrible mistake — there was a clear military procedure followed. Warning, the following video is graphic in nature.

In the past few weeks, the Pentagon has been waging battle on a whole new front: classified information that ends up on the Internet. A primary target this brave new war is a website called WikiLeaks is a website that, according to the NY Times, is viewed as a real threat to national security, according to the Pentagon. Now we have a much clearer understanding of why WikiLeaks is considered a threat.

In the following video, US Military in an Apache helicopter gravely mistake a group of Iraqi men for insurgents (what appears to be a camera is viewed by those in the helicopter to be a RPG.) Warning, the video below is graphic in nature.

The video is presented thusly:

WikiLeaks has released 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.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

While in some respects, WikiLeaks should be lauded for getting information out, the way that this is presented goes beyond responsible. “Indiscriminate” implies hit-or-miss or thoughtless. But this video clearly demonstrates that not to be the case. The military personnel recorded on the tape audibly mistook the camera for an RPG, a weapon that can, and has, taken down Apache Helicopters. While this is a horribly sad and terrible instance of the horrors of war, the military personnel were clearly fearing for their own lives. Not to diminish the tragedy, but to present it as indiscriminate reveals a larger agenda that belittles everyone involved.

It is easy to explain why things worked out or didn’t go according to plan in hindsight. But the brave men and women put their lives on the line, and often don’t have the time to consider every possible angle. Put another way, what if that were an RPG and they took more time to consider the options – they could have very likely ended up dead. War is hell, and to pretend that this sort of thing doesn’t happen more often, or to claim that the actions took were indiscriminate, is an affront to every member of the US Military.

Collateral murder, or the risks of war zones?

Ed Morrissey
April 5, 2010

Wikileaks released a video today of an engagement in Baghdad in 2007 that resulted in the deaths of two journalists from Reuters in an effort to accuse the US of covering up a war crime. Calling the incident “collateral murder,” Wikileaks says that it wants to promote the safety of journalists in war zones with the release of the DoD video, but the video itself shows why the US forces fired on the group — and on the vehicle that came to their aid. Note that the video itself contains NSFW language and graphic images of death (via John Holowach at TrueHigh):

In the video, starting at the 3:50 mark, one member of this group starts preparing what clearly looks like an RPG launcher, as well as some individuals with AK-47s. The launcher then reappears at the 4:06 mark as the man wielding it sets up a shot for down the street. In 2007 Baghdad, this would be a clear threat to US and Iraqi Army ground forces; in fact, it’s difficult to imagine any other purpose for an RPG launcher at that time and place. That’s exactly the kind of threat that US airborne forces were tasked to detect and destroy, which is why the gunships targeted and shot all of the members of the group.

Another accusation is that US forces fired on and killed rescue workers attempting to carry one of the journalists out of the area. However, the video clearly shows that the vehicle in question bore no markings of a rescue vehicle at all, and the men who ran out of the van to grab the wounded man wore no uniforms identifying themselves as such. Under any rules of engagement, and especially in a terrorist hot zone like Baghdad in 2007, that vehicle would properly be seen as support for the terrorists that had just been engaged and a legitimate target for US forces. While they didn’t grab weapons before getting shot, the truth is that the gunships didn’t give them the chance to try, either — which is exactly what they’re trained to do. They don’t need to wait until someone gets hold of the RPG launcher and fires it at the gunship or at the reinforcements that had already begun to approach the scene. The gunships acted to protect the approaching patrol, which is again the very reason we had them in the air over Baghdad.

War correspondents take huge risks to bring news of a war to readers far away. What this shows is just how risky it is to embed with terrorists, especially when their enemy controls the air. War is not the same thing as law enforcement; the US forces had no responsibility for identifying each member of the group and determining their mens rea. Legitimate rescue operations would have included markings on the vehicle and on uniforms to let hostile forces know to hold fire, and in the absence of that, the hostile forces have every reason to consider the second support group as a legitimate target as well. It’s heartbreaking for the families of these journalists, but this isn’t “collateral murder” — it’s war.

WikiLeaks – “Collateral Murder”

Anthony Martinez
April 5th, 2010

Warning: The video content contained within this post is likely to greatly disturb those who have not seen these things many times before. People die. It is real. War, as they say, is hell. Updates below.

To start things off, I will come right out and say I support WikiLeaks in their endeavors to bring about transparency in government. The government promises to do such things and fails time and time again. That said, I have several problems with their presentation of “Collateral Murder,” the video immediately below this paragraph.

For those unaware of my background, I have spent quite a lot of time (a conservative estimate would be around 4500 hours) viewing aerial footage of Iraq. I am certain my voice can be heard on several transmissions with several different Crazyhorse aircraft, as I have called them to assist troops on the ground more times in my 24-months in Iraq than I could even attempt to guess. I need no reassurances to determine the presence of an RPG7 or an AK-variant rifle, especially not from a craft flying as low as Apache (even after the video has been reduced in dimensions to a point at which it is nearly useless).

Several commenters on Twitter and YouTube have expressed a great deal of anger towards the United States and members of its military. Many of them, unsurprisingly, have wished death on us all. Part of the problem, which is far more complex than I have the time or desire to fully discuss, lies in the presentation of above video.

What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer.

WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience.

Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable.

At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error.

I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. Any of the officers with whom I served are well aware that I would continue voicing that recommendation until ordered to do otherwise. A few of them threatened me with action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for doing so. Better officers than they, fortunately, were always ready to go to bat for me and keep that from happening. That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed.

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.

All in all, the engagement clearly went bad. I would have objected when I was a private first-class pulling triple duty as an RTO, driver, and vehicle gunner. I would have objected when I was a sergeant working well above my pay-grade as the Brigade Battle NCO. My assessment is based on my experiences in that very theater of operations. I did not see a threat that warranted an engagement at any point. I did, however, see the elements indicating such a threat could develop at any moment. People can make their judgements however they wish, but what is clearly visible is not the entire picture. I’ll also say that I’ve seen Crazyhorse elements do some pretty drastic maneuvers to protect troops and civilians alike. Those pilots have saved the lives of my friends many times, and a bad shoot is not going to ruin them as far as I’m concerned.

Update: I have seen several mentions of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle running over a body off in the rubble. This is highlighted at some point in the video. Crazyhorse 18 misidentifies a Canon zoom lens as an RPG7, but WikiLeaks has managed to identify a HMMWV as a BFV. I’m not even sure how that’s possible. The transcript also has the ground commander calling on the BFV crew to “drop rap” – there should be an ‘m’ between the ‘a’ and the ‘p’ – ramp is what it should read.

WikiLeaks claims to seek to shed the light on the truth, yet continues to allow such gross errors in reporting stand unchanged. There are many veterans with thousands of hours experience in both analyzing aerial video and understanding the often-garbled radio transmissions between units. It is not unreasonable to think any number of us would be willing to make sure everything is identified correctly, and all jargon is translated appropriately, before things go to the presses. Promoting truth with gross errors is just as shameful as an unnecessary engagement.

More in depth......

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

A bunch of bullshit excuses for the killing of innocent men. If you're going to open fire on 12 people dressed as civilians, you better be DAMN sure that they're armed and dangerous.
It took ground troops 2 minutes to get to the spot, I'm sure they could have confirmed whether the individuals were armed or not. And what kind of insurgents are still opening fire and walking around armed when there's a US Apache flying right over their heads?

Apparently you skipped everything i posted.

My post was in response to what you posted.

The fact that these killings were legal according to US military conduct does not change the fact that innocent people were killed, even if some of them weren't innocent.

There's never a case where innocents don't die in war. That's a reality. To say that the US military intentionally targeted innocents is blasphemous in my view. I served with the military and know quite a few people that are vets and a couple who are currently in there. It's a slap in the face. Now... when i say US military, i speak of it as a whole... an organization. Not an individual who does that. There's a huge difference.

Yet comments like "haha look at the dead bastards" or "go ahead and pick up that rifle" (so he can shoot again) shows a trigger happiness that will likely lead to civilian casualties. They can't be prevented, but they should be minimized, which is something I don't the US military works very hard on. You see it in Afghanistan, you saw it in Iraq, you saw it in Vietnam, and you'll continue seeing great amounts of PREVENTABLE civilian casualties as long as the mindset of 'that's just war, collateral damage happens' is kept in place.
Sure, if a soldier accidentaly kills 5 innocent people because of wrong coordinates or some other kind of accident, you can tell him that this kinda stuff happens to make him feel better. But when the death of several innocent civilians occurs because of trying to kill 1 target, and it's authorized by military conduct, you're asking for civilian casualties and NOT working to minimize them.

Don't you think that when you see a foreign helicopter open fire on 8 civilians, no matter if 2 of them were armed or not, the Insurgency will grow by a couple of members?

You're speaking of individuals doing that sh!t. The military has taken care of issues like that. Most anyways. As an organization, nobody can sit there with a straight face and say that orders to kill anything and everything in sight is coming from the top. If they do, they're kooks.

Insurgency is already on. It doesn't matter. That's besides the point as far as what we're talking about.

I'm talking about the official DOCUMENT that outlines to what degree collateral damage is acceptable. It's in your articles several times. When you have a document like that, there will be no minimization effort for collateral damage, there will only be an effort to not overstep the boundaries set by that document.

It's there because it has to be there for legal purposes. Fer crissakes, are you this blind? Gawd.

Doesn't change its effect it has on soldiers and the military. Excusing collateral damage as just a part of war, does nothing to minimize it.