Slashdot Mirror
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
grassy_knoll writes "Related to the Wikileaks video recently released and discussed here, the NY Times reports: 'Somehow — it will not say how — WikiLeaks found the necessary computer time to decrypt a graphic video, released Monday, of a United States Army assault in Baghdad in 2007 that left 12 people dead, including two employees of the news agency Reuters. The video has been viewed more than two million times on YouTube, and has been replayed hundreds of times in television news reports.'
The article is light on details; what encryption algorithm was used? Was this a brute force attack? Did someone pass the decryption keys to Wikileaks along with the video? Something else?"
they got it unencrypted
The question isn't why, but how.
Wikilieaks have not been playing this up, the media has. And they should. This is what is known as 'an important news story.' The fact that wikileaks is asking for donations is irrelevant. They have always asked for donations, and they don't have control over how popular a leaked document becomes.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's not why they did anything, but how they did it. They have employees, need to pay for servers and other services. If some organization in the world should get donations, it's Wikileaks. Even democratic nations should support them, but I can clearly see why not. Instead even US tries to shut them down and have been spying and interrogating their workers.
The article states they posted this three months ago:
“Have encrypted videos of U.S. bomb strikes on civilians. We need super computer time,"
It seems to me that whoever leaked the video must have been able to view it, since they knew what was on it. So they would have had the video, as well as the decryption keys. If they're going to leak the video, why not leak the keys too?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No sources say how the video was encrypted. Maybe it used weak crypto. Bad algorithm, a key based on a weak password that was easy to guess, or the key was available in some way from some source. I doubt that the story is about bruteforcing the key to AES 128 or something similar.
Judge White said at the time, “We live in an age when people can do some good things and people can do some terrible things without accountability necessarily in a court of law.”
Obviously, the ability to do some terrible things without accountability should be reserved for the government.
Whoever was willing to leak them the video either unencrypted it for them or was probably willing to leak the key too. In for a penny in for a pound.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
GPU parallel processing power is how I would do it, 14 GPU's on one motherboard is currently possible and provides the brute force cracking power of server farm with 14,000 CPU's!!!!!! and about 1000 times more affordable
Encryption is far behind the current power of hardware these days.
They need it. They should get attention and money for trying to investigate and report much needed transparency in government. As opposed to most news outlets which have turned into spineless shadows of journalism. I hope this sparks demand for the rebirth of investigatory journalism.
I loaned them my quantum computer that can crack 1024 bit RSA in 12 hours.
You can't be serious - you're that short sighted?
You know they can't... Or at least shouldn't release their sources.
That being said, it's amazing that they were able to pull this off. I was skeptical when I first heard of it on twitter but each day more and more official sources seem to be acknowledging it as true and legit.
If I had the power, I'd nominate them for a pulitzer, or whatever the equivalent is.
maybe this has something to do with it?
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
WHY DOES THAT EXIST
WHY
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
No, you're incorrect. It's how, not why.
WikiLeaks claims they decrypted the material. While that's certainly possible, we have no way to know if this is true. They might have received it unencrypted, but made these assertions (including the Internet posts requesting supercomputer time) to throw investigators off-track.
I hope they find who did it and erect a statue in his honor. Sometime breaking the law is the only way to get justice. This video was not classified for any legitimate reason except to cover someone's ass.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Going to war in Iraq is what's putting our soldiers in danger, not exposing their subsequent war crimes.
such as, the FACT that the "civilians" were actually enemy combatants. For more details:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php
Who kills people (even if at war if it is done without any reason) must be be punished by the law as the law states. Especially if you are a soldier and think that's funny to kill everything you see
No, shooting up a country we don't belong in puts all of our American soldiers in danger. They wouldn't be in danger if we weren't playing "we have the biggest cock in the world."
Living With a Nerd
Apparently you can't be serious either, because your posting anon.
If you understood just how gratuitously censor-happy our document-classifying authorities are, you might revise that position.
It matters what the document is, and why it was classified.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
This entire post seems suspiciously like a honeypot to me! Don't post the real answer unless you want to get caught!
So, it is this supposed 'bias' you object to, not the appeals for money. Thanks for clearing that up, now we know your bias.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Haha, well played sir, well played.
Wikileak Editor said clearly that they did it via bruteforce password guessing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QEdAykXxoM
Presumably someone was able to grab a copy of the encrypted file, but didn't know the password?
It's because of what Wikileaks offers to those submitters that lets Wikileaks do what it does. I think the decision to reveal how it was done should not just be Wikileak's but also the particular video's submitter. It's interesting that the FOIA wasn't enough for Reuters to get the same video.
Here's an honestly genuine question: At what point should documents/videos be posted, and at what point does posting such items really do more hurt than good?
Was this a brute force attack?
I have seen the video and I can positively confirm that it was indeed a brute force attack.
Ezekiel 23:20
They used a farm of PS3s running Linux to crack the encryption. This is why Sony, acting in behalf of the US DOD, removed the "Other OS" installation option and randomly bricked consoles through last week's firmware update, (albeit too late to prevent the video from being released). Also, as documented in FCC filings, Apple's iPad has a secret built-in front camera used to spy on the American people to find the person who leaked the data. That's why the wifi connection is so poor, most of it is saturated sending live video to DHS. Finally. Microsoft is also involved somehow. I'm not sure how, but I'm sure the OOXML file format is somehow involved.
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
Another early attempt to shut down the site involved a United States District Court judge in California. In 2008, Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the American version of the site shut down after it published confidential documents concerning a subsidiary of a Swiss bank. Two weeks later he reversed himself, in part recognizing that the order had little effect because the same material could be accessed on a number of other "mirror sites."
Judge White said at the time, "We live in an age when people can do some good things and people can do some terrible things without accountability necessarily in a court of law."
yes, Judge, you are obviously doing one of those terrible things without accountability in a court of law when you silence the truth.
You can't handle the truth.
"WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video..."
I hope they find out who leaked this and put them in a locked cell. Releasing classified material puts all of our American soldiers in danger -- not to mention our country.
Explain to me how the release of this particular video puts all of our American soldiers in danger. Do you understand the difference between classified and 'military sensitive'? Do you realize that some (not all) things marked as 'classified' are done so just to cover some ass?
I can understand the difference between leaking, for example, the engineering details (and possible achille's heel) of one of our military pieces of equipment, or security details regarding the protection of our nuclear plants and leaking a video that has no security value beyond PR damage control.
You are just sensationalizing a logical fallacy, in a very highschoolish fashion. Pure hand waving. Not buying it.
Here you can find the original file
http://leaks.telecomix.org/
http://leaks.telecomix.org/cm.rda
Did not analyze
They kind of screwed up the facts.
Here's some shots of the video with the so called "civilians" (actually armed insurgents) and shots of the Pentagon report explaining the results of the research:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php
This is a non story, a grab for attention.
So that you would ask.
In the run up to the release, they posted some stuff to make it seem like they uncovered a secret plot to target and murder journalists. Instead it was a mistake made in wartime.
Better question is why where these people killed when they were unarmed?
Wikileaks lost a lot of respect from me. Instead of actually, you know, leaking the video, they are using it as a campaign with bias.
I fully support the idea of wikileaks. I fully look down on them for the way they released this with an opinionated campaign. They should not be in the job of interpreting their leaks. They should not be in the job of making sites like collateralmurder.com to publicize their leaks. They should be in the business of actually leaking newsworthy items with confidentiality.
If the transmission of the video from the helicopters is similar to systems used on the drones then getting the video may have been trivial: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html
What makes you think the video was encrypted in the first place? When I was deployed, I watched several aerial videos of our missions and none of them were encrypted...they were just plain old AVI's. Assuming the Unit operating the helicopters in the video used some kind of encryption, whoever leaked the video to Wikileaks probably decrypted it first.
Rule 34.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY.
I know Julian Assange slightly. He used to be the sysadmin at Suburbia.net. That's where my critic of Scientology website lives. He and Mark Dorset of Suburbia have assiduously defended that site against baseless legal threats from Scientology for the past fifteen years. The guy's got balls of titanium.
The newspapers whine about "who's going to do journalism without us around?" The answer is the same as who'll do it with them around, i.e. someone else. So far it's Wikileaks.
I gave 'em GBP50 (~US$100) last pay and will again this pay. So should you.
Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY.
Thank you.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I hope they find out who leaked this and put them in a locked cell. Releasing classified material puts all of our American soldiers in danger -- not to mention our country.
How? Were we counting on the terrorists thinking they would be completely safe, on base if you will, if they were unarmed, in a van with kids? Or are you implying the bad guys didn't know we had helicopters with guns?
After watching this video, I can think of a few soldiers (and officers) who probably could use some more risk & danger in their lives.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=NBKaAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
They had to kill Michael Uy after the patent was filed so he wouldn't tell anybody about it. RIP Michael. Excuse me, someone is knocking on my do
What run up to the release? This was posted months before there was any kind of media frenzy. Rather than leave yourself open to charges of 'making shit up' or 'spreading misinformation,' you could post links to these sources.
And to be clear, what I saw on those tapes was not 'a mistake made in wartime' any more than My Lai was. It was a deliberate massacre of civilians.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, password guessing is typically way faster than brute force.
that the military have lost their original of the video. So I assume the encryption was some kind of spooky quantum encryption that destroyed the original as a consequence of being decoded by wikileaks.
Nullius in verba
How many civilians do you know that carry RPGs around with them around town?
Are all the US army videos encrypted by default and only the 'good' (not making us looks bad) ones released?
Trolling for spam-> spam1net@jestais.net
Thank freaking christ they did do it. It is extremely important for us to understand what exactly our guys are doing/did over there. In a democracy, it is incumbent that the voting citizenry understand the impact of the decisions it makes.
Hear hear, the cameras those Reuters reporters were carrying presented a clear and present danger to Freedom(TM). Don't even get me started on those kids in the minivan! Why, if they had their way, Democracy(TM) the world over would have been struck such a blow as to never recover. Have you ever seen a small child rape Mother Democracy? I have, it's not pretty.
You are absolutely right. Everything our government does should, under all circumstances, always and forever be hidden away from those it governs.
"It's for your own good, trust us!"
Sometimes a government must test its boundaries.
12 hours? Dude, you need to upgrade.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Nobody in the group had RPGs or anything that looked remotely like them. Nobody made any kind of threatening move. No one was frightened of US military helicopters, because they were not enemy combatants and probably believed, up until the first bullet hit, that the US were there to help them.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I would question who classified the video and why.
Explicit guidance exists that you are not to classify something just because it is embarrassing. What national secret is protected by classifying this video? Security Guidance says that the use of the SECRET classification is to prevent harm to the security of the US.
I believe an investigation needs to be opened into the misuse of classification for this video.
Speaking as somebody with a security clearance, I have to agree in a way. Although your position is oversimplified jingoism, people who violate the laws regarding classified material should be prosecuted. It's important to maintain all the boundaries on classified material, even when that material is classified for ethically questionable reasons. If the law were weak here, it would potentially encourage others to abuse their clearance for personal gain.
I myself don't think ill of whoever leaked this. I say they should be prosecuted on purely procedural grounds, but honestly I think they should be proud to be prosecuted should they actually be caught. It will hurt them, of course, but Ghandi was jailed too after all. I must say that if something like this passed through my hands I wouldn't have it in me to stand against the system, let alone take the punishment for it. I've got a family after all, and leaking something isn't going to bring those Reuters people back.
Or is it something else? The NY Times,regardless of the hype of it being a "liberal" (you can stop LOLing now) paper, has always ever been tied to the ruling class whether in the U.S. or abroad. I'm sure of my opinion that if this had gone to them first, the Times would have contacted the Pentagon first and been only too glad to bury the story at their behest. Thank goodness for organizations like Wikileaks.
Wikileaks edited out 17 minutes of the video
Both the short (edited) and full (unedited) versions are available on the front page of the site they released it from.
It's obvious they used monkeys to do it.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
They continue to identify the zoom lens being pointed around a corner as an RPG. It was a LENS! In any case, these guys were not taking aim at US troops or the helicopters. They were just standing around. Those guys with AK-47s could be bodyguards for the reporters, for all you know.
If this attack by the Apache helicopter was pre-emptive, then it easily could have been made by ground-interception by nearby US troops. These half-dozen would have had no hope facing Bradley IFVs and their mounted and heavily armed infantry.
if it exists, there is goatse of it?
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
Wikileaks made a public request for computer time to help decrypt it, and announced they had succeeded some six weeks later.
This is odd because it seems slow for a very weak encryption and far, far too fast for strong encryption.
Likewise, why would a whistleblower leak an encrypted video without the key?
I'm not doubting Wikileaks' claims about the origin, but it is odd.
I hope they find out who did it, determine their motivations and the trade-offs that have resulted from their actions, and then decide whether to honor them or execute them.
Leaking a document does not necessarily translate into casualties or hardship for anyone, especially when the classification level is merely a pretext for a cover-up. Clearly the law can hide injustice or protect those of ill intent.
At the same time, simply Standing up to The Man is not sufficient justification to break the law. Like it or not, military classification does have a purpose, and if you are an outsider, some very good reasons for the classification level will not be apparent to you. Data that has nothing to do with the actual content of the video, such as the capabilities of the weapons systems, or the general operating area of the units involved can be determined from some video evidence. There is always the possibility that while you might be righting an injustice, you could at the same time be consigning other people in the field to their deaths with the very same action. The two end results are not mutually exclusive with the release of classified material.
So, if you are planning to be a "hero", consider very carefully the total result of your actions. For my part, until I know about the leaker and their position and motivations, my opinion is decidedly out on whether they have done good with this action.
Personally, I may not agree with their interpretation of the issue but what makes them different (and, in my opinion, important) is that, regardless of any editorial they may add to the story, they always post all the original material they receive unedited. As long as they do that, I can view it myself and develop my own opinion. What the mainstream media and the military do is highly limit your direct access to the original evidence then tell you to "trust us" that they are giving you an honest description. As this case, and other such as the death of Pat Tillman, the military has proven that, as an organization, they are pathological liers that cannot be trusted.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
trying to make funny comments in this thread do not seem to make sense somehow. it should hurt!
I find it odd that the major news sites have removed this from the main pages.
Classification is about hiding tactical details and to some extent strategic planning and capabilities from real and potential enemies, to improve the effectiveness and reduce the vulnerability of military units. It is about troop movements, attack sites and times, resource levels, weapons construction, and so on.
It is NOT about hiding evidence of crime and allowing the perpetrators to escape justice- even if letting the existence or details of the crime be known puts troops at risk. Misusing it in this way is an additional criminal activity, making those who do so accessories after the fact, members of a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
There are rules for "civilized warfare". They include limits on the acceptable activities - especially against bystanders. They also include the participating groups taking credit and blame for their actions. If personnel of the US military or the US' hirelings broke the rules, it is up to the US to bring them to justice and take the heat. If it instead actively covers up the events it is institutionalizing them, effectively making them policy. This rates a lot more heat.
To the extent that the "increased risk to the troops" from the disclosure is just the righteous "blowback" from people's anger about, and rational planning changes based on, activity disclosed, it's the fault of the perpetrators, not the whistleblower.
The way to avoid or mitigate blowback, when training fails and atrocities are committed by our own personnel, is to VISIBLY punish it, making it clear that it is NOT policy, NOT acceptable, NOT a way to achieve success and advancement, and NOT to be done in the future.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
They asked Chuck Norris to do it.
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
Would the leak about how the leak happened be hosted on wikileaks, or do we need a WikiLeaksLeaks?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
From here they mention a hacker named Rop Gonggrijp, who has some background in crypto, but other articles mention a crowd-source of hackers.
If they did indeed break the encryption, I can imagine that it's likely a very old block cypher, such as a standard DES/3DES stream.
Whatever it is, or how well it was protected - it's likely very bad news. I'm sure it's a crime, somewhere..
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Like the rolls of photos missing from Srebrenica, where the US airforce responsible for providing air support for dutch forces mysteriously failed to show up, and an american general now blames american cowardice on dutch homosexuals.
How do you know the US is your alley? By the bullet holes in your back.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm extremely disappointed that this was covered up, but I don't understand all the spin. Wikileaks claimed they have video showing the US government murdered someone.
The video is brutal. You see an injured reporter crawl, trying to survive. They shoot him again. But you also clearly see on the video a group with rifles, and an RPG. When the RPG is first visible, it appears to be pointed at the gunship.
The soldiers in question call, describe the situation and request permission to engage. They were told to engage. When they first see the reporter crawl away, they say on the video so long as he doesn't reach for a weapon, they're not going to shoot him again.
They're fighting insurgents who aren't wearing uniforms. The lines between insurgents and civilians isn't very clear.
It is no doubt disturbing to hear people take pleasure in killing others, but that is the reality of warfare. They believed they killed the enemy. After the fact, it is discovered that at least two of those individuals worked for Reuters and may be innocent civilians killed in the incident.
"Collateral damage" happens in every military conflict. It is unfortunate and should not be overlooked. But this isn't a video of people just randomly killing inoocent civilians for no good reason. Murder is unlawful killing. The soldiers in this video followed protocol and opened fire on an armed group when they were ordered to do so.
My problem with the video is two-fold. The US government shouldn't have covered it up. And it is against the Geneva convention to fire those high-caliber weapons at people. It is an odd rule, but apparently it is humane to kill someone with an M-16, but not a 30mm mounted gun. It happens all the time. Someone could make a stink about breaching the Geneva convention, but I really don't understand all the spin I'm reading about random wanton murder of innocents in this video.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
If those links are legit, it's probably OpenSSL with the 8 bytes of salt included. So you just have to brute force the password with the given salt. You don't even have to decrypt the whole file - do the first 16 bytes or so and look for a legit file header. I doubt they stripped the header. Send the first 16 bytes to a file identification tool or something like VLC so you don't have to even program that part.
I don't think this is revealing any secrets any idiot could have found on his own - they needed supercomputer time (or something equivalent) to brute-force it, just like everyone's reporting. I'm an idiot and I found it.
http://juliusdavies.ca/commons-ssl/pbe.html
Thanks for clearing that up, now we know your bias.
You really think your post doesn't expose your bias?
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Unless you're funding them through your tax system (and you're not), what right have you got to tell them what they should and should not do?
If you don't like their site, nobody is preventing you from setting up your own.
I hope in the future you don't get murdered after your country is arbitrariously invaded.
http://tinyurl.com/navigoatse [tinyurl.com]
Creative. Can you please do a True Blood version?
I have every right to tell them what they should and should not do. And they have a right not to listen. And people's opinions have a right to change based on the back and forth, or not at all.
What part of that didn't you understand before you posted?
And, where is the raw video? The timestamps are almost unreadable, it's obviously been reduced in size and re-encoded. Wikileaks put it into a boxed frame with titles and subtitles. The MP4 they provided is larger but is still blurry and obviously not the source video. Why are they not leaking that???
With all the assholes and pussies in the world someone has to be a dick.
Probably the same part of "If you don't like their site, nobody is preventing you from setting up your own." that you're struggling with.
Well, next time you get something you can leak, you can upload it to liveleaks, or distribute it yourself, or whatever. When actual journalists get the videos distributed by wikileaks, the journalists are the ones in charge of non biased reporting. The job of wikileaks is to let everyone know that if you want to disclose something, going through them is the safest way to do it.
5th April 2010 10:44 EST 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.
What is non-factual about this ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Wikileaks would probably receive more support if they ditched their attempts at analyzing the materials they leak. I believe I can trust them to release the full context of whatever they publish, but I don't believe I can trust their analysis of that media to be independent of their political agenda. In other words, I trust them about the same as any other source of information: with skepticism.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Right, and when you don't like the service you got at McDonald's you should never say anything because you can go to Burger King and get one.
Oh wait, because I paid for the burger I get to complain.
OK, so if I'm in a store and I see a misleading ad, even though I don't plain to buy the product, I shouldn't say anything because I didn't pay?
Or, if I'm watching TV and I see a show that's completely full of misinformation I should never say anything because I can always start my own TV show?
Oh, wait, the world's not the garbage you tried to paint it. I can voice my opinion about anything I want and don't have to be willing to "make my own" to do so.
Thanks for clearing that up, now we know your bias.
You really think your post doesn't expose your bias?
Yes. I have an anti-massacre-of-civilians bias.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
> Wikileaks lost a lot of respect from me. Instead of actually, you know, leaking the video, they are using it as a campaign with bias.
Erm.. maybe because... i dunno... they were being STALKED by US gov agents?
Sorry, but no.
I think there's too many "unbiased" people out there. People shouldn't be unbiased. They should be biased towards justice, fairness, and doing TheRightThing(tm). Killing unarmerd civilians is not TheRightThing(tm), so I'm actually damned glad that WikiLeaks isn't biased, but rather -- for a change -- biased towards the right thing.
In other words: being good is biased, just aswell as being evil is biased. Being unbiased it's not the same as being good, it's being indifferent. And that can be evil, too, given the right circumstances.
It is not against the Geneva Conventions to fire cannon from an aircraft against people on the ground.
The Hague Convention of 1923 would have covered it, but it wasn't adopted.
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Hague_Rules_of_Air_Warfare
The same caliber weapons were used on vehicles against infantry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_anti-aircraft_weapon
"On occasion SPAAGs have been used as very effective direct fire weapons against infantry, for example by American forces during late World War II, in Korea against mass infantry assault, and extensively during the Vietnam War, where for example the U.S. M42 Duster SPAAG (based on a light tank) was employed purely for this purpose."
This might cover what you are talking about
1980 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW)
But the M-1 tank has an anti-personal round and that is a 120mm gun.
M1028 120 mm anti-personnel canister cartridge was brought into service early for use in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It contains 1,098 38-inch (9.5 mm) tungsten balls which spread from the muzzle to produce a shotgun effect lethal out to 600 meters (2,000 ft). The tungsten balls can be used to clear enemy dismounts, break up hasty ambush sites in urban areas, clear defiles, stop infantry attacks and counter-attacks and support friendly infantry assaults by providing covering fire. The canister round is also a highly effective breaching round and can level cinder block walls and knock man-sized holes in reinforced concrete walls for infantry raids at distances up to 75 meters (246 ft).
What is non-factual about this ?
"Guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879#
And, where is the raw video? The timestamps are almost unreadable, it's obviously been reduced in size and re-encoded. Wikileaks put it into a boxed frame with titles and subtitles. The MP4 they provided is larger but is still blurry and obviously not the source video. Why are they not leaking that???
The raw video is here: http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder_full.mp4.torrent
The world is far from garbage. This is mainly due to people who take action upon their beliefs, whatever those beliefs might be, despite the endless ranks of know-everything-do-nothing fools who sit on internet messageboards and whine about it.
The word "indiscriminate" in the first line, and "unprovoked" in the second last sentence. Both of those express an opinion as to the *motive* of the attack. That is opinion, it is biased against the soldiers who clearly (listen to the audio) go through the correct chain of command and rules of engagement before opening fire.
Also the term "rescue" and "rescuer" bias the reader that the van that just happened to enter the area with three men who jump out immediately and attempt to put the wounded man into the van while the van is rapidly turning and moving to provide a getaway was some good Samaritan, and not at all involved despite everyone in Iraq knowing to stay away from where the Apaches are circling.
That, and naming the site, "Collateral Murder" as well.
That puts it outside the provenance of just factually "leaking" the data.
A factual release would have been, "5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting a military action in Iraq which resulted in the deaths 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 slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and the riders in a van apparently coming to remove him from the scene. Two young children seated in the van were also seriously wounded in the attack."
The difference is subtle, but important. The factual version lets you decide whether it is indiscriminate or not -- by watching the video. The original version acts as judge and jury on the actions of the Apache crew -- a crew vindicated as meeting all the rules of engagement by a Pentagon review of their actions.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
I guess that's why you posted AC, you don't want anyone knowing you read hate sites calling for the death of all 'sand people.'
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
mechanical turk
If your a civilian you would be smart enough to walk/run away fromt eh dude with the rpgs and ak-47s in a war zone where it's illegal to have said weapons.
sooo 95,000-105,000 civilians dead, and 1034 US soldiers dead? It's probabaly not a bad thing to put thoes soldiers in danger, it'd even out the ratios a bit.
Penguins can be fascists too
This isn't about the bravery of the troops.
This is about their commanders putting them at risk by doing coverups which, when they eventually fail, feed the enemys' ability to recruit, rather than actively and transparently enforcing the "rules of war" and thus pulling the enemys' teeth.
It's time for YOU to grow up. There's more to war than tactical details and bravery under fire.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I stand corrected. When I was trained on certain weapons (such as the .50 cal) in the Marine Corps, I was told that the Geneva Convention dictated I could only use them against vehicles, not people. But I wasn't infantry, and my training in this matter was very brief.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
...and sometimes highly editing then releasing a stolen video (aka lying) is the only way to get support for a leftist political cause.
Notice how the video slowed to show camera tripods but quickly skipped on past the guy carrying an RPG and another toting an AK? Notice how there's no description of the firefight that took place before the video or an explanation that the guys carrying the weapons had just been in it?
As for the Reuters reporters...when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
This is a manufactured story, and the people who did it did so to undermine the United States. They are just as much our enemies as the guys shooting at us, only less trustworthy.
Well, seeing as how little coverage they have gotten by mainstream media for any of the other leaks that were released in the neutral fashion you mention, and also considering that, as they are solely financed by donations, they have been quite in the gutter financially, this "dress-up" seems like a good way to allow for a greater audience to take notice of not only this event, but of Wikileaks itself.
What else would you suggest? Hosting and securing information like this and taking precautions against attacks by the powers that be is not cheap. The luke-warm publicity they did gain by breaking a story like this in this fashion might be the only way to actually get it out to the masses which in turn might get them some sorely needed leverage against the corrupt powers they are trying to expose.
So, if you are thinking about planning to be a "hero", consider very carefully the total result of your actions. For my part, I will remind you that thoughtcrime is punishable by death. The Party is the only entity capable of discerning what the truth is, or what it was, or who indeed should know it.
Sincerely,
Citizen O'Brien
Inner Party
WHO CONTROLS THE PAST CONTROLS THE FUTURE. WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT CONTROLS THE PAST.
do you even know what a telephoto lens is?
They don't usually analyze anything, it's only in a few cases like the recent killing of those reporters. Almost 99% time you can just download the original material and do your judgment yourself.
Remember, we are not seeing what the soldiers see here here. We can watch the video fifty times on slow-mo, squinting to see if that dude's carrying an RPG or a camera: the soldiers are making snap decisions on half-second glimpses. Contrariwise, the soldiers have a much wider perspective on the entire battlefront, and see things we can't. Our hindsight second-guessing is pointless.
But my point here is not to defend the soldiers or the military: it's to say that since hindsight is useless, we should try foresight. BEFORE we send troops into a country, we should understand that shit like this WILL happen. Absolute precision in warfare is impossible: conflict WILL result in innocents getting slaughtered by terrified boys with heavy weapons.
So when the option of war starts being discussed, we should not ask, "is our cause righteous? Are we prepared to sacrifice our sons' lives for it?" but rather, "Is our cause righteous enough that we can watch the mass slaughter of innocents, and still say we did the right thing?"
Aaaaw the nasty man made Wikileaks cry - you are so horrible, yes you are. I think you should take a timeout on the naughty step.
There has been alot of that, I think its a selling point "This gun is so powerful and the bullet so BIG that you can't shoot a human with it!!!" in training.
Then you find 50 caliber sniper rifles...sorry anti-material rifles, used against infantry and guys like Hathcock using 50 calibers all over Vietnam against infantry.
It seems that all forms of journalism feel the need to be more and more biased these days.
You are massively ignorant of the history of journalism, which has always been a hotbed of bias and sensationalism.
It ain't perfect, but it's what we've got, and your argument is a textbook example of "the best is the enemy of the good", which as every engineer knows is one of the very worst characteristics a person can have.
Is Wikileaks pure and blinding white, unadulterated by any baser motives than the desire to tell the truth? Of course not. Only an idiot would expect them to be, and only an idiot would think that it is any way interesting to point out that they aren't. Nothing is. Everyone who has been paying attention to anything knows this, and yet banal critics keep trotting it out as if was new and interesting whenever they have nothing substantive to say, but want to try to sway public opinion regardless.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Do note that WikiLeaks spent real money to send real journalists to the actual Iraq to speak to real eyewitnesses and the very children who survived the attack. This was part of the verification process, and I do not see why this additional information gathered to provide context to the video should not also be used to voice some sort of opinion about the ongoing injustices that happen as part of wars. We civilians, removed from the locus of this conflict, tend to marginalize the innocent victims in our own personal evaluations of the war.
FWIW, I don't think that the pilots should ever be punished harshly at this point, as they likely were indeed operating within rules of engagement, as the military concluded. The root cause of the errors lies farther up the chain of command.
Also, remember that this is also about the CYA actions on the part of the military. If they had told Reuters, "Hey, our guys seriously fucked up," and perhaps paid the families of the journalists restitution (which would be the least they could do to somehow attempt to make right), and made significant changes to the rules of engagement, it wouldn't be quite as bad. But of course, this is probably not an isolated incident, and Wikileaks has footage of something in Afghanistan IIRC.
And again, they need money to operate. There is enough of a PR component in all of this that one might consider whether money potentially derived through increased exposure played a factor in this. If so, that's one hell of a calculated gamble.
We need to know that we look what it is more familiar to us.
Now, the less biased person would be the one who is a huge Bob Marley fan AND an expert on christian iconography and is familiar with pareidolia.
But definitely, it is highly unlikely that the reporters were carrying RPGs. Common sense + observation of video + identification of the subject in the video = Definitely telephoto lens.
I wonder who's biased here. The American who sees any criticism as anti-americanism, that must be objective.
They spy, break into systems, lie and threaten employees.
There is a difference between revealing leaked documents and this.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well said. Points often missed by the large number of people on this site who feel that slanted news is justified when it supports their views.
Crap, I was not logged in.
That is NOT the raw video, that's the "MP4 they provided [that is] larger but is still blurry and obviously not the source video." The file is an mp4 (do helicopter cameras use that? Doubt it.) Are the timestamps clear? No. Is it still in a boxed frame in a lossy codec with titles? Yes. Is this file in the format they received it in? Maybe, but I'd still like to have it without any of the tampering they did to it to add titles, etc.
... do i have to explain my joke?
"...and sometimes highly editing then releasing a stolen video (aka lying) is the only way to get support for a leftist political cause. "
Leftist wasn't needed in the sentence. Any political cause can use lying to support their claims.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Especially if you are a soldier and think that's funny to kill everything you see"
What kind of world do we live in when someone can't even enjoy their job?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A) It reveals military tactics
B) It reveals military hardware capability.
C) It reveals location and power of the military ins a specific location.
D)To people trained to watch for it, it reveals a lot.
One of the thing it reveals is how it's been edited a specific way, and it reeks of propaganda. The way ti was released, further details, it's reception in other countries.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, and it still reeks of propaganda.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So, you'd rather see a slaughter of innocent civilians by Bradleys than by attack choppers? Not seeing how ground interception would make a difference.
Wow -- you really teed that one up for me; thanks!
Ground personnel can easily identify whether Iraqis on the ground are actually threatening. Though they may choose to shoot even though the guys were just milling around, they will certainly have a better perspective as to whether they are actually milling around.
When non-combatants are killed, it is because of a lack of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. This is "indiscriminate." When a person is killed who posed no threat to the people doing the killing, it is "unprovoked." These are both statements of FACT, which can easily be confirmed by viewing the video. The wording is a summary, not an opinion.
Even if one of the guys really had an RPG (which is considerably longer than the tele-lens of the photographer in the vid) consider that the high velocity bullets shot from the chopper took about 2 seconds to arrive at the targeted area indicating at least a mile of distance between them and the *suspected* insurgents. Now, aiming and hitting a chopper say 100 yards away requires skill and quite an amount of luck - imagine trying to hit it from one mile away with the warhead traveling on a clean ballistic arc for around 10s before hitting the target - the chopper was never in any real danger. What should have been done was to get a real positive ID of any weapons instead of going by the opinion of a few trigger-happy nuts.
Not to mention that the far worse thing happened after the the van with people arrived at the scene of the carnage and just wanted to help the wounded man.
Are you suggesting I'm biased and wanted to see an RPG? I watched a video that was presented to me under a certain assumption. I assumed the preamble to the video, and all the stories I read were factual. If I had any bias going in, I had bias that the video did depict a fairly random murder of innocent reporters.
However, what I observed in the video did not match the accountings I was reading.
The individual identified as holding an RPG comes peeking out from around a corner. Earlier in the video, the reporter is identified with a camera. The camera is fairly small and does not look anything like an RPG.
As the gunship moves around, we lose the group behind the building. It is impossible to tell at this point if that person is the reporter. When they open fire, the area is filled with dust. We later see the reporter crawl away, but he does not have a large object with him.
There was a large group of people. Only one was a reporter. The other was a driver. The others no one seems to know anything about, except they were in fact holding rifles.
You're suggesting that an RPG would be out of place for a group that only included reporters. But that isn't the case here.
If it was a telephoto lens, it magically appeared because the reporter isn't carrying a large case, nor a massive lens when we see him earlier. Are you suggesting an RPG-sized lens magically appeared out of nowhere when the reporter wasn't carrying it 20 seconds earlier?
Do you have any explanation for all the rifles being carried at that moment?
Several of the news outlets reporting on the story are saying there was an RPG present. Can you provide evidence that there wasn't an RPG?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I very much doubt that military encryption works that way
You don't know very much about how the military works then. There's a reason why these are the people who brought us the terms SNAFU and FUBAR.
As has already been mentioned, they use encryption rarely enough that insurgents have been able to tap into their unencrypted video feeds in the past.
I would love to donate some money to support wikileaks. But I'd prefer that my name not be hanging around on their donor list when they are eventually violently shut down by some government. likewise I'd prefer that they not appear on my credit card statements. Anyone have any thought on how I can support them PRIVATELY?
Everyone has a bias. The idea is to be truthful and open about your bias. That's why news reports say things like (this company's parent company is also the parent company of CNN). Also, just because someone has a bias does not negate the truth of what they are saying.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Everyone is missing one fact.....If they do not want anyone to see it.... no one ever will!!!! Encryption is done after recordings have been reviewed. Depending on what level they are classified as determines what method is used.
It's common knowledge that UAV feeds and some gunship video feeds are transmitted unencrypted over the air. I really don't see the point of encrypting plaintext that has been obviously compromised already.
Perhaps Wikileaks ( or the submitter ) simply setup a few receiver stations to capture the video footage over the air.
Now regarding this "encryption" buzzword being thrown around by Wikileak's PR and journalist, I'm guessing they heard something like "the video feed was transmitted as 64QAM over Ku-band 12.8475Ghz" and thinks all those technical jargons means "encryption".
REDRUM
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Yup, you should be shot.
The civilians didn't have any weapons. Perhaps you are right, and someone did, but not the group of civilians and children who were massacred. And they live there, you know? Are you saying they should run from their homes? Why, so we don't shoot them? Is that just how we roll?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Saying blatant lies (remember, they could see much better than the low res b/w video we get) e.g. "a van stopped and they are picking up weapons", just to get a green light to shoot (and getting really frustrated that the unarmed people might leave before you get a chance to shoot at them) is not "meeting all the rules of engagement" no mater what the Pentagon said (and note they did not release the video). I would call someone watching the video and not getting that it is not war but murder, a very biased person. Yeah, it is obvious wikileaks wanted to advertize this leak a bit more than usual, but I would not say they are swaying the opinion of people watching the film. It is quite obvious what is going on.
It's funny how everyone who justifies the attack claims that there clearly were RPGs and AKs involved, but when someone suggests it might be photography equipment it's all "well it's fuzzy and you can't be sure and there was an attack not too long ago". If you are not sure then it's not positive ID, period.
an Apache helicopter gun-site
That would be "gun-sight", unless the video was shot from a website that focused on guns for Apache helicopters like this http://tri.army.mil/lc/cs/csa/aptoc.htm
No, it is an after-action summary with near perfect knowledge of the situation. You know, going into the video, that these are non-combatants embedded in a group of combatants. The pilot and gunner did not know this. Under the Rules of Engagement, when some of a group is armed, they are all combatants.
Secondly, the Reuters reporters failed to wear their officially issued retro-reflective "Press" vests, that would have identified them as non-combatants. They made this choice knowing the consequences. Thus, they intentionally, and knowingly, put themselves into a situation where they were endangering their lives. They also had failed to report to Reuters that they would be in the area, or even in the city of Bagdhad. It was only because one of the reporters was talking to a third man on his cell phone that Reuters found out where they were.
Third, recovered from the scene were one (or more) AK-47 fully automatic rifles, and two RPG7 rocket launchers with two warheads. One of the RPG rounds was actually found under the body of the cameraman.
Fourth, also recovered were the two Canon EOS cameras used by the reporters. The last images on the cameraman at the corner (the one found on the RPG round) were beautiful pictures of the lightly armored side of a Humvee about a block away from them. These are included in the investigative report. Were an RPG to have been fired from his position, those American soldiers would have died.
Again, with perfect knowledge, we know that the guy leaning around the corner is holding a camera with a long lens. To an Apache gunner, guarding the convoy below, it looks like a big tube, and the guy is standing over an RPG round (remember, it was found under him) pointing right down the street at the troops the Apache is supposed to be protecting.
That convoy had already received small arms fire (the reason for calling in the Apache air support) and was attempting to move through the area.
Now, consider what the Apache pilot knew. He has been called in to protect an armored column that has been taking fire from insurgents in the area. He (and a second Apache) spot a group of armed men, one holding an RPG (which rules out the idea of "bodyguards" floated so often in this discussion.) approaching the route of the column he's been called in to protect. These men brandish the weapons, and then gather around a blind corner on the route of the column. One of them, apparently holding a long, straight tube, leans around the corner and sights down the tube directly at the column of soldiers.
Still think that "unprovoked" applies? The mere presence of an RPG means that this is not just a bunch of guys taking pictures. So the attack is provoked.
As for "indiscriminate"? Seriously? When the guy is down and wounded, and not carrying a weapon, they do not fire. Admittedly they beg for him to "give them a reason," but they do not fire. "Indiscriminate?" I think not.
At every step of the way, they are getting cleared by commanders watching the same video feed, the commanders have the feed from two different Apaches to make those decisions (and apparently a UAV in the area as well.) We are seeing a single viewpoint. And we can slow-mo and zoom in on the video in a light-controlled office environment, with all the leisure to scroll back and forth and take closer looks. We are not in the heat, light, and adrenaline rush of a helicopter cockpit, buffeted by noise, smoke,and wind, and fearing for the lives of the men below who are counting on us to protect them.
The "FACT" can only come with perfect knowledge after the facts are known, and even then, you have to ignore most of the facts to come to that conclusion.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
if the enemy would not shoot at someone holding a camera. As a former combat camera videographer I can attest that that is not the case.
You have no idea why it was classified.
Rule of thumb: if classified information is leaked, and no one can explain why it was classified in the first place, then it should never have been classified.
Troop locations? No. Security codes? No. Reveals an undiscovered weakness in the Army's defenses? I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that helicopters are vulnerable to RPGs already, especially those who would be interested in that.
Seriously, someone suggest why what I'm looking at should be secret to protect our troops. Play devil's advocate. I haven't even heard a -bad- reason why this should be classified. What, the callsigns haven't changed, and they're worried an insurgent will get on the comm and tell them to bomb the wrong place?
This is not anything that should have been classified, whoever released it was doing a everyone a service by breaking that law and exposing this criminal act.
Quite nasty stuff, particularly the shooting of the van. If that makes me "as much an enemy as the guys shooting at us" then so be it. The very, very best that any sane person can call this is gross negligence causing death. Personally I'm for calling it a war crime.
I dont see how it is actually relevant for the motives that they went through the correct chain of command and rules of engagement. Nobody else but them actually SAW what was going on there.
I also dont see your "everyone in Iraq knows to stay away from an Apache circling". This might be true or not... but put yourself into the position of seeing a seriously injured, unarmed man. Would you expect to be shot by the people who say they are there to bring freedom to your country if you help this guy?
In other news.. i think it would be quite ok if they would have left out what has been called bias here. Because in someway it is.
Though... i agree with lots of what they say. You hear one of those guys actually laugh after the first shootings. Yes.. i beleive no souldier should enjoy killing. Killing might be reasonable in war situations. But never ever should it be fun.
One of the guys is like "all you have to do is pick up a gun", waiting for a proper reason to shot that guy. In other words.. he wants to have a reason to kill the guy. i have serious doubts that this guy should be on the job he s doing. Really doesnt sound like his decessions have the proper basis.
The rifles are pretty clear.
And as I responded to someone above you, you can see the reporter earlier walking down the street with a camera. It isn't a huge camera. When an RPG is visible later, it is much larger than the camera seen previously.
I'd wager you haven't watched the video.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
classifying things is easy.
iv got a CD with a document on it. i tagged the CD with SECRET markings. now its SECRET and it doesnt go on unclassified systems or get seen/handled by people without proper clearance and need to know.
of course that wouldnt neccesarily hold up to scrutiny if the document was controversial and not actually SECRET, but the fact remains that its that easy to do it in the army.
The first time they engage the group it's pretty clearly a case of extremely poor and unfortunate target identification, but it's pretty far from "premeditated murder" or whatever it was called.
However, there is simply no acceptable explanation whatsoever for the following two times the crew engages ground targets. A civilian van pulls up and two unarmed guys get out to pick up the clearly unarmed, wounded man. We know this because:
Then they lie about them picking up weapons when they clearly only tried to get the photographer, whine for permission to fire, and obliterate the van complete with the two new guys, the wounded man, and two children. Admittedly the children survived and were basically impossible to see, but still there was no reason at all to fire at that van.
The next part is just as bad - they get permission to shoot a building, and the gunner launches a hellfire missile a few seconds after an unarmed civilian walks into the frame and past the bulding, scoring a direct hit on him. Oh, and I think the building only housed three normal families, who were killed by this missile. To be fair that's not the crew's fault, but they've done enough by this point.
This isn't collateral damage, because for collateral damage there have to be legitimate targets there in the first place. Here, it was just the unlucky civilians. While the first case could maybe be explained away by the context and incompetence, these last two cases are clearly unlawful killing. Thus, the murder part.
If your a civilian you would be smart enough to walk/run away fromt eh dude with the rpgs and ak-47s in a war zone where it's illegal to have said weapons.
It's perfectly legal, and quite common, to own and carry an AK-47 in Iraq.
You'll have that sometimes...
And whither where or when? Won't somebody think of the prepositions?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
No sources say how the video was encrypted. Maybe it used weak crypto.
So you're saying we shouldn't follow the military's example and use ROT26 just because nobody else is using else, thus cunningly combining cryptography and obscurity ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
It's a fucking war idiot.
No, it's the "fucking war idiots" who caused this problem in the first place.
Maybe they gave it to Pixarely.
Pixarely can be given any input and can output any video, given enough computer power and artists to sketch the stuff.
Because, nature abbhors a hoover.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If anyone is interested I was part of the decryption effort back in December, the original file was merely a encrypted zip file with a single wmv file in it.
brute forcing it using fzipcrack is by no means easy but still doable with enough resources as well as decent dictionary attacks.
indiscriminate - not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment
The US army killed everyone in the group since 1 may have had a gun and 1 may have had an RPG. That may be called prudent even. But it certainly was indiscriminate.
unprovoked - occurring without motivation or provocation
The men on the ground didn't shoot. They weren't close enough to swear at or give the finger. Hell there was no indication that they were aware of the helicopter.
rescuer - a person who rescues you from harm or danger
In this case you are right. Attempted rescuer would be better. I think you could say with confidence in a strict a situation as a legal court that they were rescuers. There was a man laying on the ground riddled with bullets and they tried to drive off with him. Would you describe them as kidnappers?
The title I will give you! It is clearly a leading title.
Though i find it ironic that you don't want wikileaks to act as jury. But you are cool with the us gov acting as judge, jury and executioner in this case. Do remember that the US gov pretty clearly lied about this action in cover up and refused to release the footage. That is pretty evil.
and put our men and women at risk.
They are in plenty of risk already, wouldn't you say? I'd say that their commanders put them more at risk than this video does. Same goes for th POTUS.
You'll have that sometimes...
They're fighting insurgents who aren't wearing uniforms. The lines between insurgents and civilians isn't very clear.
This would call for more discretion, more reluctance to fire, more honest and accurate assessments - never less.
...and sometimes highly editing then releasing a stolen video (aka lying) is the only way to get support for a leftist political cause.
You sir, are a dumbass. Did you not see them shoot up the van? Picking up the wounded? You know that's a war crime right?
You'll have that sometimes...
Flamebait or no, there's an important response to this.
Releasing this video did not put American soldiers or your country in danger. It's what is being done in the video doing that. Maybe, hopefully, the outrage in the US over this video will convince them this is not a reflection of America, that the wanton murder of Iraqis is not considered acceptable. Just maybe the release of this video is enough to prevent them deciding America is the enemy, because you can be sure that is what they were thinking when they saw this through their home window, or heard about it on the street. This video brings news to Americans, it is not news to Iraqis. What is news to Iraqis is that Americans are upset about it.
But since when does Wikileaks not take sides? Where did you get this idea?
Also the term "rescue" and "rescuer" bias the reader that the van that just happened to enter the area with three men who jump out immediately and attempt to put the wounded man into the van while the van is rapidly turning and moving to provide a getaway was some good Samaritan, and not at all involved despite everyone in Iraq knowing to stay away from where the Apaches are circling.
Yeah, if they weren't bad guys what were they doing trying to save lives near the US gunships?
Personally, I may not agree with their interpretation of the issue but what makes them different (and, in my opinion, important) is that, regardless of any editorial they may add to the story, they always post all the original material they receive unedited.
The only links I've seen from wikileaks on the military footage is edited and editorialized. Did I miss something?
That would be fitting if the encryption was hardened, but the password-protected keyfile had a weak password.
Also, does no one else think that this explains the reason they were being followed around by investigators? They're shopping around for a way to break government encryption. That HAD to draw attention, whatever their motives...
Don't even bother trying to argue with these right-wing assholes. They're probably too busy sucking military cock to form a reasoned argument, or maybe their mental atrophy is the result of watching too much Fox News...
Killing civilians, especially unarmed ones, is wrong. The 'Oh my god, they're coming right for us' defense doesn't fly with me, and the cavalier attitude that the soldiers have toward the atrocities they're committing is sickening. Their terrible 'I saw an RPG' excuse was merely justification to start gunning down brown people. This whole mess is the result of some dim-witted grunts playing trying to act out Call of Duty for real, and I hope (completely in vain, I might add) that these criminals will be called to answer for their crimes.
I'd like to add that foresight also does include consideration of the risk of mass slaughter of innocents and taking every reasonable step to minimize that risk. Sometimes it takes a little hindsight to realize that this should also be a necessary component of planning military action in a region where the majority of residents are civilians. Regardless of the righteousness of the endeavor, it's a very difficult balance to strike between protecting the lives of innocents and protecting the lives of our troops. Analyzing events like this in hindsight allow us to pinpoint where things went wrong and how we might best prevent them from going wrong in the future without compromising the safety of our troops.
As a matter of opinion regarding your last point, though, if we'd rather slaughter innocents than risk the safety of our troops how can what we're doing be the right thing? why are our troops even there? As I understand it, there are two stated goals in continuing to be involved in Iraq: securing the safety and freedom of the Iraqi people and securing the safety and freedom of the American people. I believe that both are necessarily intertwined and slaughtering the very people we don't want to become anti-Americans and terrorists is counter-productive even if you do not consider the ethical and moral ramifications of any military action and only consider American interests in the matter.
Everyone is so quick to believe that the government has covered up willful **murder** of civilians, but nobody cares to do any oversight on Wikileaks?
I'm not talking about the content of the video, etc... but all this stuff about being followed and having encrypted military videos that they somehow were able to decrypt in such a short time smells very funny. ...and hot on the heels of a big drive for donations? I'm skeptical.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
From memory (you can look it up on his blog). The NSA has come up with drastic requirements for key management for encryption, and every time the military encrypts something it has to obey them. That's not such a problem for control data, such as commands from the operator to the drone; but it's unusable for high bandwidth, high maintenance stuff like the video feed. Local support has to be able to access it, but they can't handle the requirements for key management; so they had to forgo encryption for that altogether. The solution would be for the NSA to establish another tier for encryption requirement with lesser requirements.
I hope they find out who did it, determine their motivations and the trade-offs that have resulted from their actions, and then decide whether to honor them or execute them.
I hope "they" here is an impartial third party with no connection to the US Government.
Right, but no assholes have gotten fucked in Iraq. The American military contractors got an orgasm, and the country just got AIDS. // continuing the metaphor
The fact remains they were wrong. They didn't even try to be sure, they just started shooting and laughed about it.
Screw you for trying to protect trailer park trash like this which shouldn't even be allowed access to weapons of any kind, never mind heavily armed assault choppers.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
From their site the reason they encrypt is to protect sources and intermediate handlers since the data is encryption they don't know what it is and can't be held responsible for knowingly passing its contents along or backpeddling to associate with a source.
I have no idea what algorithms they use but its not like Wikileaks is doing cryptoanalysis here they are mearly using agreed upon (a)symetric keys to manipulate data...PGP et al would be my guess.
These situations have happened before, and have been captured on video.
The shooting of British troops by A-10 pilots.
Missionary family shot out of sky by anti-drug smuggling operations
Usually they had some doubt but still made the decision.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
The word "indiscriminate" in the first line, and "unprovoked" in the second last sentence. Both of those express an opinion as to the *motive* of the attack. That is opinion, it is biased against the soldiers who clearly (listen to the audio) go through the correct chain of command and rules of engagement before opening fire.
That would probably be because nobody on the ground was doing anything hostile. The pilot sure as fuck didn't discriminate - they shot everyone they could without so much as a warning. If you think the attack *was* somehow provoked, you must really be seeing something completely different in that video than what I saw. If you actually support this action, you're as terrible a human being as the guys in the helicopter who basically murdered a bunch of people without so much as a single shot fired at them.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Don't you mean "half-breed muslin?"
Exactly, dehumanizing the enemy is a necessary part of war if your soldiers aren't sociopaths (and the US military is fairly good at weeding those out).
Mo, the US military has almost nothing else. How, the fuck do you think they keep managing to find scum to send all around the world fucking America in the ass?
Keep in mind, the US military hasn't been used for anything except fucking the world for the sake of a few very rich sociopaths since world war 2. So given that, your assertion that the members of the US military are anything but sociopathic traitors is batshit insane. If they had a scrap of integrity they would have killed themselves long before obeying criminal, treasonous orders to fuck their country.
Seriously, try thinking not just spouting the idiotic militaristic propaganda you've been spoonfed.
I agree with you that in recent decades the U.S. military has mostly been used as a beatstick to protect the interests of a small handful of wealthy sociopathic elite. However, most of the soldiers aren't bad people. They are mostly ignorant, uneducated people who truly believe the lie that they are fighting the good fight and doing what needs to be done. It's not that they lack integrity, they genuinely don't know that what they are doing is traitorous to their country and their planet. Only a small handful at the very top qualify as "sociopathic traitors".
Knowledge != Intelligence
Of course, you can't be a thinking man or woman and not have a bias.
Psst, 1 GBP = 1.5271 USD. We aren't in 2008 anymore.
..to not be that guy who stereotypically hates America for being America, but things like this really make me think your country fucking sucks.
unprovoked - occurring without motivation or provocation
The men on the ground didn't shoot. They weren't close enough to swear at or give the finger. Hell there was no indication that they were aware of the helicopter.
For the 200th time today (it feels like) -- they weren't a threat to the Apache. They were a threat to the column of vehicles, already under fire, a block away. That's why the Apaches were called in for air support. Please go look at the lovely pictures from the reporter's camera that show just how close these guys with guns and RPGs were to the ground troops and a column of 4 unarmored humvees.
Link to the Report See page 41.
Do remember that the US gov pretty clearly lied about this action in cover up and refused to release the footage. That is pretty evil.
Really? Did you know that Reuters was shown the video on July 25th, 2007 in an off-the-record briefing? Did you know that their FOIA request is based not on, "this shows they were murdered," but rather Reuters filed it because they wanted to use it to show their reporters how not to get into that situation. Go look up the original Reuters articles on it. They admit they saw the video back in 2007.
The official report with footage from the video, pictures from the scene, and all the sworn testimony of the pilots and gunner is also available. Here it is. I've linked to the ground squad report above. The report here follows everything you see on the video exactly. It includes captured frames. There was no "cover-up" of what happened. They just didn't release the video.
The Army proceeded to put this entire incident through an investigation, and determined that the actions, given the circumstances, were vindicated. The video doesn't show you the convoy under fire for 49 minutes leading up to this video, it doesn't show you that they were taking small arms fire a block away when the insurgent with the RPG comes up on this corner that is giving a clear shot at the side of the humvee. (See the reporter's own photos from the corner, just before he was shot -- Page 41 above)
The only thing "indiscriminate" is that a bullet shot into a group doesn't seek out those who "deserve" it.
The gunner did the best he could with limited information, in a high-pressure situation, protecting ground troops who were under fire and apparently about to be RPG'ed. He used the best discrimination he could, and the investigation by the Pentagon agreed. The fact that we, here on Slashdot, don't, doesn't mean a hill of beans.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
From watching the video I really got the impression that they were using the footage as a fundraising campaign. I was not impressed either.
I agree completely.
However, there was a group with rifles. And it appeared an RPG was pointed at the gunship. Even then, they waited, and asked for permission to engage.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Right, but not prosecuting a criminal because it might leak national security information has hardly ever been the prerogative of this government. The military could have had a closed court martial, tried the individuals for breaking engagement rules, and lying to cover up the information, all without exposing any national security.
The government instead decided to push facts into the media that do not conform to the video presented, and now we know what they did.
If a government does not want to compromise their national security on video tapes or documents, then they should not commit crimes or fraud based on those same.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
You appear to think a combat unit should be a group of hard drinking, hard raping Vikings that are let off the leash, pointed at a spot and told to kill. That is a kick in the face to the professional military.
You are soiling the graves of our dead soldiers with your armchair marine bullshit and are a disgrace to the nation.
The reporters were embedded with the 'other-sides fighters'. The other side were fired on the reported lost their lives. BUT the main question why was the van fired on? The helicopter crew got an OK over the radio for both engagements, who gave that OK?
Fish rot from the head down. A government goes to war over nonexistent WMD's and gets away with it, soldiers lie about weapons to get permission to kill a group of people and then those who tries to help the wounded.
Laat uw website stijgen in de rankings van google zodat u altijd als (een van de) eersten verschijnt in de zoekresultaten. www.google-vindbaarheid.com
Being in the military doesn't bring a soldier an exemption from morality. They're essentially my employees and I'm essentially responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Dammit! Helicopters with guns! I hadn't taken that into account in my plan for Total World Domination, ABORT! ABORT!
-cV63SdaQwwP76X1Dd0-
Except the incident was reported on when it happened.
Okay, you've convinced me enough that I feel I should offer a retraction and apology: I'm sorry I assumed you were a bigot.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hey, it's the original rick roll. Everyone's gotta pop their cherry sometime.
Maybe, just maybe, that humvee, that chopper, the entire force in Iraq, just shouldn't have been there in the first place.
We invaded that country. Do you honestly expect them not to defend themselves?
If US soldiers get shot in Iraq, that's the price they pay for signing up. We shouldn't be there, we never should have gone, we have no right to invade.
Awesome, a political piece on /. and I thought this would be about _how_ the video was decrypted.
/. from the rest of the new aggregate sites is becoming less clear and I'm finding /. less relevant.
The line dividing
"Is our cause righteous enough that we can watch the mass slaughter of innocents, and still say we did the right thing?"
"Is our cause righteous enough that we can watch the mass airplanes-on-a-building slaughter of innocents, and still say we did the right thing?"
I think he means in depth knowledge of what constitutes reason for allowing firing on the insurgents vs withholding fire.
For example the insurgents can tell if they walk with children or women, in a smaller group and can conceal the RPG and extra rounds in a vehicle or cart (rather than swinging them around) then they likely won't be fired on before they attack the ground patrols.
You're writing on an internet discussion forum you twat. What do you think we do here? And nothing I wrote was whine. I gave my reasons. It's not like I wrote "They suq" or anything. I mean, what do you expect to be seen in the "discussion"?
Wikileaks shouldn't be interpreting their links. That goes against their own mission statement. They've politicized their leaks and that's not right nor just. It's a piece of agenda. That's my opinion and if you don't like it feel free to discuss it or not. But all you've done is show me that there's ignorant people out there that like to stifle dissent. How ironic given the topic.
Very interesting point of view. It really gives me a better idea of what went on. Thanks for taking the time to post.
According to Julian Assange from Wikileaks...as reported on CNN...(http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/international/2010/04/07/bs.julian.assange.wikileaks.int.cnn?hpt=T2), they had volunteers donate computer time for the past 3 months.
We need Wikileaks and others like them to tell the truth to the American people. What good is a democracy if the voters are kept ignorant of the government’s actions?
The government routinely lies to us. How many times have there been news reports about attacking insurgents only to later find out that it was a wedding that was bombed? The government never acknowledges the truth until it is widely reported. Do you remember the story of Pat Tillman?
The vast majority of information that is classified is classified to keep the Americans from finding out about it, not because it would strengthen our enemies.
They government tries to create the impression that we are the good guys; that we only attack terrorists; that our attacks are “surgical” and that killings of innocents are rare. The reality is quite different. How do you minimize “collateral damage” when dropping a 2000 lb. bomb?
I’m not blaming the soldiers here. I’m blaming the government that lied us into war.
Pure horse shit.
Did you listen to the radio chatter? Did you read the captions supplied?
Once again, for the obtuse who refuse to look, listen, and think:
That gunship was called in by a ground unit, Hotel 26, which was under fire. Bullets were being fired at a US ground unit from this location. The gunship came in, and cleared away armed personnel. In fact, that reporter was embedded with an enemy unit, just like reporters have been embedded with US forces. The only mistake made in the entire video was the identification of a camera as an RPG.
Personally, if it were my call, I probably wouldn't have fired on the van. I say, "probably". I might have, had I actually been there. But, the van had no internationally recognized markings on it - no Red Cross, no Red Crescent. I saw people in a van aiding and abetting a member of an armed group that had fired upon our side on the ground.
Unless and until you understand that Hotel 26 had taken fire from this area, and almost certainly THESE ARMED PEOPLE, then you have zero understanding of what you saw on the video.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Nonsense. On my first casual watch-through, I heard them claim 5-6 guys with AKs. My jaw dropped, then I assumed that was chatter from a different site. There was ONE man in the PLENTIFUL video beforehand who had anything long enough to be a rifle, and it was the wrong shape.
It soon became evident that the claim was not chatter from a different site.
I only watched as far as the first salvo - the crime had been committed at that point. I didn't watch the rest of the egregious violations, and I didn't watch it in slo-mo, so my criticisms above aren't about 'heat of battle'. I'm also not a trained killing professional. There was no battle before the US started it. This isn't about 'absolute precision'. This isn't even supposed to be a war at this point, but an occupation.
This is one of the weakest positive identifications in existance, outside of total, utter fabrication.
All these stories about wikileaks every day. Wikileaks announces it has secret video. Wikileaks being investigated. Wikileaks releases video, Wikileaks claims to have decrypted video. Why can't we have more fluff pieces designed to hawk wares? I want my iPad articles!
There is NO EXCUSE TO SHOOT UNARMED PEOPLE, AND WOUNDED! THAT IS NOT WAR! THAT IS MURDER!
That is a cold fucking blooded murder!
Dont give us that shit about "squinting to figure out if they were carrying RPG or AKS" bullshit.
Fuck you gov't drone - fuck your bullshit lies.
Two UNARMED people CAME OUT OF THE CAR and WERE TRYING TO SAVE THE A WOUNDED.
Terrorist or not - you do not kill people who are WOUNDED OR DYING- OR UNARMED PEOPLE WHO WERE OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO HELP THEM.
Fucking asshole - FUCK YOU!
Can you quote your sources where the munitions were actually found with evidence of such? every document i have seen simply has the grainy shots from the apache video and nothing from ground sources
You were not there
you do not know where those weapons came from, but you already ACCEPT IT as being truth, compare to what you saw and heard with your own eyes.
A person without a weapon is a person without a weapon. You do not MURDER UNARMED PEOPLE just because there IS an ARMED person with them.
Your logic is so flawed, by its own fallacy, as soon as we invaded Iraq, there is no difference between "bad people" all are bad, even if they dont have weapons - thus, there are no civilians.
FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!
The way I see it, the problem is not that the military fucked up. Of course that is going to happen, it is a sad reality. The problem is that instead of owning up to their fuckup, they tried to bury it and make it go away. Except for that whole part where they shot up the kids and refused them military medical services, that's just fucked up all the way around.
Who the fuck are you talking to? I learned long ago not to use unrelated actions as an excuse for another. The US military should not have tried to cover this up. I'm not cool that they did. But that is not related to Wikileaks misrepresenting the "facts" as I see them. Not do I think they should even represent the facts.
I'm concerned enough to know I want an impartial site for leaks. Not just wants they want to leak because it meats an agenda. And the was they released this they clearly have an agenda more then just "knowledge".
I never voted for a Bush in my life, but it's also interesting that after the fact we know that Iraq didn't have WMD like they claimed. But that we believed they did because they wanted us to believe they did because it was a show of power, mostly for Iran.
The pilot and gunner did not know this. Under the Rules of Engagement, when some of a group is armed, they are all combatants
In other words, if the chain of command mistakenly believes you've got a rocket launcher, the ROE permit an indiscriminate and unprovoked attack.
Thus the text provided by Wikileaks is accurate.
I have to deal with news stations, and yes all of them, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc etc that slant news to their demographic. let me view the **** video unedited and let me make up my own freaking mind about the events. The way they did this is so beyond wrong and whether or not you agree with them, more people should be giving them a proverbial *** whooping for telling people what they should think about the video before they even watch. The worse part is the whole thing is posioned now and now that they have shown a massive bias. I personally will never be able to take wikileaks seriously again. How do I know now all those documents they release now aren't edited towards some political agenda?
The second person on the credits list is the most famous hacker of the Netherlands.
http://rop.gonggri.jp/
>They had weapons -- including an RPG.
Nope.
>Even Wikileaks admits that.
Nope!
>A US unit was engaged a block away.
Er...nope. Not even close!
Flamebait is the wrong mod. You're a troll because you got all your facts wrong.
Interesting thing to note is that even the ground troops through the camera guy had an RPG on him.
The armed guards had weapons, that much was clear. They asked for a go according to the rules of engagement and likely because this civilian reporter was stupid enough to not inform the military of his movements caused his untimely death.
It's a common coping strategy to deal with extreme situations. Something one learns in the first year of psychology.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Just because the van was within the rules of engagement doesn't make it right.
Ah, Wikileaks was never like that. Look up interviews with one of the top guys at wikileaks. It was created to combat corrupt governments and such. But I do get your desire for a completely neutral robot-like place to put leaks.
Either way any of the language that Wikileaks used (aside from the title) would be acceptable in a court of law from the judge. So it isn't like Fox/MSNBC news bad at aleast. TBH I am happy to have cited facts at all. Breath of fresh air compared to news media which cites nothing (and is often taken from blogs and other shit sources).
>When the RPG is first visible, it appears to be pointed at the gunship.
No, it's really not. I know the video is unclear, but this part isn't. At no time does this group of men acknowledge the presence of the helicopters. Pretty much everyone agrees on this. If they were targeting something, it wasn't up in the air.
President, in his mind "God", Barak Hussain Obama has retained the God Given Right of Murder, for what ever reason his troubled mind can invent in his perception of "Commandar and Chief". Perhaps is Ass was itching a "certain" way or his Pinus was "quivering" in a "certain" way. Make no mistake, we have a Mad Man and Chief Executive.
I have not doubt that President Barak Hussain Obama order the Murder.
Reuters much consider, now, that the US considers them a Terrrorists Organization whose members, in total, must at all cost be Murdered on order of the President of the United States of America.
Welcome to Barak Hussain Obama's beautiful America (I hope you are the "correct" race).
Indeed! Wikileaks should not tell me what to think! I'm a grown up, I can make up my own mind tyvm!
If we apply the logic that "war is hell" that so many people are claiming here, it doesn't matter that you get additonal data from the video that leads to the killing of US soldiers. Soldiers die. War is hell, right.
Yes, I know it's only valid when the hell happens to the enemy or colored people. When war happens to you, it's a tragedy. I just wish these people weren't such hypocrites about it.
How about just getting rid of the whole idea of righteous causes, and look at wars with a lens of pragmatism. How will the slaughter of innocents in foreign countries benefit us? It worked out pretty well for Rome!
indiscriminate - not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment
The US army killed everyone in the group since 1 may have had a gun and 1 may have had an RPG. That may be called prudent even. But it certainly was indiscriminate.
They discriminated between the armed group and the rest of the city. It's not the granularity you wanted but that's a matter of opinion.
unprovoked - occurring without motivation or provocation
The men on the ground didn't shoot. They weren't close enough to swear at or give the finger. Hell there was no indication that they were aware of the helicopter.
Well, carrying an RPG in a war zone is provocative. You really can't argue against that can you?
It is if you're really, really lucky.
I can understand your meaning, but really. . . is there anything in this specific video that could accomplish that? It wasn't even a new helicopter that did the deed.
Maybe, just maybe, that humvee, that chopper, the entire force in Iraq, just shouldn't have been there in the first place.
We invaded that country. Do you honestly expect them not to defend themselves?
If US soldiers get shot in Iraq, that's the price they pay for signing up. We shouldn't be there, we never should have gone, we have no right to invade.
I wouldn't blame to soldiers one bit. It's completely the GWB administration's fault that they're there. Once they're there and see people (including their friends) die left and right, they go into survival mode and since they still have the values of a normal human being, have to think that they're not killing other human beings but only enemies. But I also don't blame the Iraqis for wanting the US to GTFO (get the fuck out, not get the fucking oil).
Now, I also wouldn't say that it's a fair price for them to pay for signing up. Every nation needs an army and thus people must have incentives to join it (or be forced to, like countries with mandatory service but those are really only for defence and never any offensive actions). Being interested in a military career is not a bad thing since serving, rightly, has a prestige aspect to it - after all, you are committing yourself to be willing to put your life at stake to protect others. For some it's obviously just an economic issue. Now, permitting an army to go on strike is also not an option so really, it's very, very unfair to blame the soldiers when it's all GWB's fault. Many, many people could predict that it would become this kind of really ugly war but his administration either didn't care or didn't want to know.
Disclaimer: I'm European.
I watched this video and was simply appalled! I'm a die-hard conservative, and am all for the war in Iraq, but this was simply ridiculous! First of all, even if those guys on the ground were hostiles, they weren't engaged! They weren't threatening troops on the ground, nor the choppers in the air. It was simply "hey, there are some dudes that might have guns, let's kill 'em." Disgusting! Second of all, how in the world can anybody justify firing on people picking up the wounded?!?! The people in the van were of no threat to anybody!!! Sadly, I get the feeling that if the people in the van had been waving white flags, and there was a big red cross on the van, those dicks in the choppers would have been asking for the go ahead to fire on 'em anyway, just because they were picking up the "enemy". What BS!
Here's what should have happened: (Chopper guys): "Hey, be careful down there. It looks like there are some enemy combatants at XY coordinates." (Guys on the ground): "Okie Dokie!" Then, and only then, if the ground guys became engaged with those men observed, the choppers would have had all the right in the world to burn 'em (and anybody with them).
IMO, this was murder, pure and simple! War or not. For example, if I walked down the middle of main street here in my small town with an assault rifle, when the cops were called they wouldn't simply have a sniper take me out from 150 meters with no questions asked! No! They would engage me first! If I threatened those engaging me then they would justifiably take me out, and if not then they would take me into custody. LOL, and if they did take me out, they certainly wouldn't start firing on unarmed unknowns that where coming to my aid!
This was sickning. Totally sickining!
In other words, if the chain of command mistakenly believes you've got a rocket launcher, the ROE permit an indiscriminate and unprovoked attack.
Mistakenly? I'm pretty sure he said they found not one, but TWO RPG launchers and warheads.
The wikileaks video is heavily biased. As others have said, they should have just released the unedited video and let people decide for themselves.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
Why was this modded troll?
I completely agree with your disappointment in the "spin-full" way Wikileaks presented this. For example, take the screen in the short video that says:
The treating soldier eventually decides to evacuate the children to the medical center at the nearby U.S. base of Rustamiyah. However, higher command orders that the children are instead to be handed to Iraqi Police and be taken to an Iraqi hospital.
This could mean poorer standards of medical treatment and additional delay.
I completely disagree with that statement. This should be handled by the Iraqi police. The last thing the U.S. needs there is another sexual scandal involving a little girl (or a rumor of one started to riot people up and increase violence).
Wikileaks should have just posted the video and left the judgment and interpretations to someone else. Or if Julian Assange felt so strongly about it, he should have started his collateraldamage.com campaign under his own name and left Wikileaks out of it.
Not only is his presentation sensationalist and questionable, he's taking Wikileaks integrity and neutrality down with him.
If you can't mod them join them.
You are still assuming the Army, at some level, did something wrong, probably as a result of the bias added to the video. Everything else I've read comes to the conclusion that it was justified. This was not a gathering for tea and cake, they were armed insurgents who were about to attack a convoy. Wikileaks set this up so one sided that this one crucial fact gets lost.
I may sound like a dick for saying it, but it's the truth: the journalists are to blame for their own deaths. It was a risk they willingly took, embeding with active insurgents, apparently without telling the appropriate people where they were and without their Blue "PRESS" body-armor on to ID them. Even if they had their vests on, the insurgents were still threatening a convoy, and thus a valid target. The known presence of a journalist does not convey immunity to a group of active combatants.
The Army's response might as well be "lol, ur guys wuz with the enemy. That's where we shoot, so don't do it. Srsly, Kthnx"
I have a ton of sympathy for the children, but the blame for that lies squarely on the person who put them in a van and drove them into a combat area. They were barely even visible with the zoomed-in enhanced video, and even then I'm not sure I would have said "children" if the video didn't label them for me. It is completely unreasonably to expect the soldiers to have known they were present.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
I wish I could type harder to get this to show up in HUGE FREAKING LETTERS, since some troll-mod put you up +insightful.
They did have weapons, which were positively identified before the helicopter fired. The only ambiguity was that they did not identify the cameras as such. The journalists were NOT wearing identification vests. It was not a group of unarmed civilians. IT WAS NOT A GROUP OF UNARMED CIVILIANS!!!1!!eleventyone THEY WERE ABOUT TO ATTACK A CONVOY.
Read the report before you keep repeating this uninformed drek
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29468022/6-2nd-Brigade-Combat-Team-15-6-Investigation
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
War means it's okay that innocents die.
Except, of course, when it's the other side that killed them.
We are all God's parents.
It's yet to be established that any of those killed were armed.
Two points:
1) They were armed. Regardless of what you can or can not see in the video, when ground forces arrived they confirmed the presence of multiple AKs and RPGs.
2) The journalists were not wearing appropriate ID, and the holding of a camera does not grant you protected status.
Read the report:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29468022/6-2nd-Brigade-Combat-Team-15-6-Investigation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
I'm looking at that exact second and don't see anything that looks anything like a weapon. 4 people, which one is brandishing the grenade launcher?
You steal classified material, you should be penalized as the criminal you are. Execute them for treason. I'm a freelance photographer and know a few lightstalkers who have spent time overseas. The two photogs killed were with insurgents. They are wearing indig clothing and not identifying themselves in any way. There are several individuals carrying weapons at least 2 AK's and an RPG that can be clearly seen. Regardless, if you are with the bad guys and are carryinga long glassed camera it looks a great deal like a LAW. I've had my 600mm on my camera and had the cops called on me when taking photos of aircraft. This is war and I'm sorry, but innocents are going to get killed. If you are going to hang out with bad guys, you'd better remember that bullets and bombs don't discriminate.
I'm confused. What question?
They just used the ChuckNorris backdoor.
How does the parent, which contains facts and a citation link the the actual investigation report, get modded flamebait, while the GP makes unsubstantiated claims, calls the soldiers "trailer park trash" and gets insightful?
The police aren't allowed to KILL in that situation. You don't "chase" someone by putting 30mm AP into their body, you know. Not unless you're an arsehole.
Bullshit. Total bullshit. The US doesn't have the right to get all scared and start lashing out at people it perceives as threats (without any evidence). AK-47s are perfectly legal for anyone to have in Iraq. The RPG the gunner claimed to have seen didn't exist. I'd like to see the source for your "embedded with enemy troops" claim. No markings on the minivan? That's what it'd take someone to not fire on a family picking up a wounded man crawling down the street? You sick fuck. I hope you never get invaded and have to put up with that shit - you'd hit the roof.
Yeah, you missed the 40-minute uncut version of the footage, it seems.
You know, right, that this helicopter was aprox. 900 m away? Yet you claim that Iraqis in Baghdad should evacuate a 5400 m^2 section of *their* city following the path of each US Apache gunship? Seriously, you present this as reasonable?
this is 100% correct, not more, not less
Higuita
You've been in combat, I take it. You've been shot at. You speak from experience. You've also seen combat from a gunship.
I'm pretty sure that you've never seen combat, and you have little idea what you're talking about. You've swallowed the propaganda handed out along with the video, hook, line, and sinker.
Evidence? American troops were fired on, and the response was swift and deadly. That is as it should be. It's possible and quite likely that those people in the video actually are the ones who shot at Hotel 26.
Try reading this interview/discussion. Reuters admits that the reporter was embedded with an enemy unit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/04/06/DI2010040600750.html The clueless, like yourself, don't even know that much.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
In reality, the person leaking the video will likely be found guilty of treason and shot.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Screw you for trying to protect trailer park trash like this which shouldn't even be allowed access to weapons of any kind, never mind heavily armed assault choppers.
Your average soldier has never been a genius, going back through milennia of military history. Soldiers have been killing innocents, through malice, fear, or accident, in every war since the dawn of time. Did you expect it to be different this time around?
My point is that while this was a case of poor soldiering of the highest order, the only useful place to lay blame is at YOUR feet. You, me, and every American citizen who allowed our military to enter Iraq.
Militaries are like tigers. No matter how finely you train them, if you let them out of their cage, the consequences are your responsibility.
The way I see it, the problem is not that the military fucked up. Of course that is going to happen, it is a sad reality. The problem is that instead of owning up to their fuckup, they tried to bury it and make it go away.
Militaries kill innocents: it's a fact of life. Bureaucracies cover up embarassments: that too is a fact of life.
I say, the problem is that we as a nation made a conscious choice to engage our military bureaucracy in this war, with full knowledge of how militaries and bureaucracies operate.
I feel that we as a nation are using this fiasco to shift blame onto the soldiers rather than facing it ourselves: it's a case of the tradesman blaming his tools.
I don't know about Iraqi insurgents, but I have heard of islamic terrorists hiding behind women and children before in battle. And it's not a state secret that shooting innocent human shields is something one should avoid.
Concealing an RPG is something they'd also probably have a keen awareness of even without this confirmation. It has to be taken for granted that even the dumbest insurgent knows "If I can see the helicopter, the helicopter can see me."
Yup - you're right. I expected links at wikileaks without going on to their "special project" site.
Fuck you and your damned scribd link. They'll go out of business, making the web a better place, if people stop using them.
> I saw people in a van aiding and abetting a member of an armed group
So helping someone that is injured and dying is "aiding and abetting" an armed group.
You are one sick person....among many similar Americans.
My favourite ROT26 implementation is called "cat".
Anything related to a tactical operation could and probably would be classified SECRET just on principle. Getting it unclassified would be the problem. It should be automatic and the classification just expire after some time period. But in practice the Army would never take that last step to let it go open unless they had a good reason.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
The guy who begs for permission to shoot the van is a psychopat, in his defense I can say that he probably wasn't one when at home and became one after the stupid greedy corporate sponsored excuse of a goverment of yours send him to war. War is unffair and all soldiers are hitmen, an the U.S. sending muscle to ensure oil economy for 10 more years while suffering a healcare, education and economic crisis should outrage mor than enough people to make it stop, But those people working in brainwashing at home are very succesfull and enough gringos buy the crap throwed at them by the tv networks. Fuck this is so wrong in so many ways, I hope everybody who still supports the gringo army (or any other armed force for that matter) and even try to justify the gruesome murder we all just saw some day see the their sttuborness and error.
I don't hear any terrified boys there. They're having fun. They're going after the injured journalist who is trying to crawl away. They actually wait till the van of some good samaritan comes to rescue him, so they can blow them up all together. I don't know much about what it's like on a battle ground, and I hope I will never have to, but I can trust my ears. I know what kind of people they are. Not terrified boys.
When non-combatants are killed, it is because of a lack of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. This is "indiscriminate." When a person is killed who posed no threat to the people doing the killing, it is "unprovoked." These are both statements of FACT, which can easily be confirmed by viewing the video. The wording is a summary, not an opinion.
100% Grade A Homogenized Wrong. All of the evaluations you have just summarized can be one of two things: an armchair opinion, or a professional opinion. In either case, the distinction between opinion and observation occurs because you did not phrase the descriptions in terms of the observable quantities of the video: the objects, settings, speech, and events.
Those 'indiscriminately' does not imply a failure of discrimination to sufficiently divide. It requires that discrimination was not implied. Lack of provocation requires a context-appropriate standard of provocation and response.
To state some observable facts: The voices on the video identified the people, identified their characteristics, and engage in a dialogue with their superiors to determine the nature of the situation and their response. That is OBSERVABLE discrimination.
Collateral Murder is loaded a phrase that I will not even try to find appropriate hyperbole.
This is a travesty!
The chances are they could have seen the helicopter but were not aware of its presence a couple of km away and so didn't know to look. They do, as you rightly say, know to attempt to conceal the weapon - indeed it's mere presence is not enough to warrant the helo to fire. It is only when the men with the RPG and rounds and AK's take cover (relative to the convoy) and start peaking around the wall at the APCs that they (helicopters) are released to fire.
since hindsight is useless, we should try foresight
Rather illogical. Hindsight improves foresight. And those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it.
Well, you need to really watch the unedited version. There were at least two men strolling with AK-47s, facing the camera before the helicopter did a half-orbit and started shooting.
The helicopter started requesting permission to shoot based on those weapons, their report of an RPG being aimed at them was later. The men with the AK-47s are visible on the more open side of the street, not the side with the wall where the van ended up at. By the time the helicopter started shooting everyone was in one group. Whatever the reporter was doing with his camera, he was in the middle of targets.
So if they can't see something very well, that means they should shoot first ("kill them, kill them all!") and figure it out later?
And yes, shit like this will happen. But, when it does, one would expect the government to own up and apologize for it, and at least pretend that they were going to do something to make it less likely in the future. Instead they tried to deny it had ever happened. But several people knew that it had, and the end result was that, instead of "trigger happy cowboys", the american forces ended up looking as "murderous liars".
Neither is very good, but one still manages to be worse than the other.
Please type harder. That doesn't change the fact that they blew up a bunch of civilians who were not up to anything malicious.
Assuming they were armed, and going to attack a convoy, why was it that NOT ONE OF THEM got a shot off at the chopper? COMMON FUCKING SENSE would seem to dictate that they would probably SHOOT BACK.
People like you are such morons that even when the truth is on fucking film, right in front of you, you'll try to find ways to not believe it.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
In response to your first accusation...
You weren't either. The only information sources we have available are the video, and the military's statements. It's your decision as to whether or not to believe, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Wholeheartedly agreed. While I'm not sure if you are referring to a particular segment of the recorded carnage, I would like to say this - it's not as if they were picking them off with sniper fire. They identified the group as being a group with weapons(taking the RPGs into special consideration), and thus identified the group as hostile. And so they were given a green light to fire *on the group*.
I believe your logic is flawed here. The flaw being the presence of armed individuals. If all Iraqi civilians moved in groups which carried RPGs; then yes, there would be "no civilians".
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Please type harder. That doesn't change the fact that they blew up a bunch of civilians who were not up to anything malicious.
Once again, they were not civilians. Weapons were seen ON THE VIDEO, and the ground forces that came up later found several weapons, including AKs and RPGs within reach of pretty much all the bodies. This is all in the report that you don't want to read.
Assuming they were armed, and going to attack a convoy, why was it that NOT ONE OF THEM got a shot off at the chopper? COMMON FUCKING SENSE would seem to dictate that they would probably SHOOT BACK.
First, except for the cameramen, they were armed. Secondly, they were about to attack an approaching convoy on the ground, and that is where they were focusing. Third, the helicopter was engaging from a long, long way off. You can tell this by the long delay from the time you hear gunfire to the impact of the helicopter's fire. The helicopter was hundreds of meters away, circling the area. If they noticed it at all, they could not have known that the helicopter was targeting them. Had they seen it and wanted to shoot at it, they would have realized it was out of range for their weapons.
People like you are such morons that even when the truth is on fucking film, right in front of you, you'll try to find ways to not believe it.
People like you are quick to believe a biased and sensationalist presentation of the video, while refusing to do any investigation into the facts. Way to not read the report I linked. Since you haven't bothered to look at the facts even when I laid them out, I'm not sure why I even bother.
It was a tragedy that the journalists died, but the US soldiers were not blame. The journalists were embedded, without any identification and without telling their news-bosses, in an insurgent group about to attack. They put themselves in harms way, and harm found them.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender