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
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 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!
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
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.
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.
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
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
I disagree. It's really easy to increase key sizes (2048-bit, 4096-bit...) making brute forcing exponentially harder. Adding more GPUs in linear, same as increased speed.
Weak encryption (e.g. 512-bit RSA) can be cracked, and 1024-bit in theory (last I heard), but 2048-bit is still in the "not in the forseeable future".
The only way to change this is to create better algorithms, not faster hardware.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
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.
Yeah...get back to me when you manage to bruteforce a 128-bit AES key on your GPU farm. Only then can you claim that "Encryption is far behind the current power of hardware these days."
"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.
Whoever gave them that time, if they are an American, is a Patriot. If they are not, they are a true friend of Freedom and Truth and Justice.
And if it was the Intelligence Arm of either Russia or China, it's fucking hilarious.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
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.
Interesting. The only thing I'd disagree with at that linked site is that journalists are fair game if they are embedded with enemy forces. You can't shoot journalists just because you don't like the side they are reporting from.
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.
How many civilians do you know that carry RPGs around with them around town?
Whoever gave them that time, if they are an American, is a Patriot. If they are not, they are a true friend of Freedom and Truth and Justice.
Agreed. It is a symbol of our weakness if we are unwilling/unable to restrain our power if we cannot exercise such power without this level of "collateral damage."
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
So when people carry weapons in public, we immediately assume they are enemy combatants? I know there was fighting in the area: you still have ZERO proof these were insurgents.
I would assume that most Iraqi civilians are armed for self defense. There are plenty of stories about Iraqis using their own guns -- even AK-47s -- to fend of insurgents trying to kidnap them or plant bombs. The "RPG" you keep pointing out looks a lot like a pro camera lens to me. And there is zero evidence that these people were engaged in any warfare, or about to fire an RPG: the pilots made that shit up.
Finally, this quote from your link: "But you drive your van into an active military engagement?" As I understand it, most of Baghdad in 2007 was pretty dangerous. A passing family would have little idea of how recently a group of people were shot. For all we know, they were in the process of fleeing an active engagement elsewhere, saw wounded Iraqis in a scene that appeared calm at the moment, and attempted to rescue them. The link says "You are stupid. Innocent, but stupid. You're asking to be killed." -- you might as well call all Iraqi civilians that, then. Why live in Iraq at all? Let's move them to the U.S.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
such as, the FACT that the "civilians" were actually enemy combatants. For more details: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php
What disturbs me is how quickly people judge a video when they were two airships meaning you're only seeing one view from one of the apaches. Other people are calling in RPGs and AK47s ... and those that were pulling the triggers were acting on that information. Personally, from watching the video, I saw very unfortunate movement by a photographer with a very large camera (405-415 on the wikileaks site) that at first looks exactly like an insurgent with an RPG trying to get an unseen angle on a gunship. Only after I was told that they were photographers was my imagination allowed to see that as a very large lens camera (and you conveniently can't see those frames where the RPG looks more like a camera at the site you linked to). And even then, with the low resolution Youtube footage, who's to say what it looked like to those there? Missing something like that could cost not only your life but also the lives of people flying with you.
I'm not trying to excuse what happened but I am saying that a series of mistakes were most likely made in those videos that lead to the unfortunate deaths of at least a couple innocent people.
And this is war.
If you're a United States citizen, you paid for that gunship. You paid for that scenario. Don't get me wrong, you also paid for the scenario when real insurgents trying to kill innocent people were stopped. That scenario just isn't interesting to us though. You see it as a byline on a newspaper but those stories are just something to yawn at these days. I was for the war in Afghanistan and I knew that things like this video would happen. I was not for the Iraq war because these scenarios were not worth ousting Saddam. Friendly fire happened in Desert Storm and probably every large scale conflict before that as long as guns have been involved. Do you think a reporter was never killed accidentally by United States forces in Vietnam or even World War II (commonly viewed as one of the few 'justified' war)?
I'm glad everyone got to see one of the faces of war. I'm sad that these people wrongfully died but I'm glad that this rightful outrage might cause us to really reconsider what half or more of us had decided when our elected Commander in Chief brought us into both these wars. I don't get it. I was ~20 years old during our invasion of Afghanistan and people just seemed humdrum "Hey, let's go to war, I won't be dying in it" and I'm still a little bit confused about that sentiment. How many of these conflicts must we have before we realize that declaring war means that civilians -- not just soldiers but women and children -- will die as some direct result of this war?
War is war. At some point the US populace just decided that war is different today. And then once we started two wars, we forgot about them. Just declared victory and tucked them away. Our soldiers are still dying, this is still happening. Wake up.
And lastly, I would like to point out that like soldiers, these reporters did know what they were entering when they entered a war zone. Again, not to absolve the Coalition forces but to quote Reuter's official word on the footage:
There is no better evidence of the dangers each and every journalist in a war zone faces at any time.
And as Newsweek added:
These newsmen knew what they were getting into; it's the public watching the video now that has been caught unawares.
My work here is dung.
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.
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
I think they were pretty justified in firing, then.
And how about when they lit up the "bongo truck?" The one with the locals trying to give aid to the people that were shot.
You know, the one with the kids in it.
Lemme guess... [crickets]
That editor states that it appears that one of the people killed in the video was carrying an AK-47 while another was carrying an RPG
That's funny, the people that were murdered while giving aid in the truck didn't appear to have any RPGs.
Oh, did FOX fail to mention that small detail in their quest to cover the complete story?
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.
No, fucking hilarious would be if it was the Iranian revolutionary guard. More probable too.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
Followed up by http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034 a few months back
"Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs."
I was under the impression that they sniffed a satellite feed, and created a BOINC project to crack the key.
You are correct, I did pay for that gunship with my tax dollars. I also paid for the training of those soldiers. Finally, the world opinion of America and Americans (including me) is affected by how we fight in Iraq.
So I feel I am justified in seeking an answer to this question:
What policy is in place that considers shooting an obvious makeshift ambulance a good idea?
Everything up to that point is a terrible misunderstanding. Having watched the video, if I were looking for AK47s and RPGs instead of cameras, I would have seen them. I'm not even going to second guess if the way to build a healthy Iraq is to destroy a group of people standing in a street with gunfire from a mile away, though I don't think that's the decision I would make.
But as for the van: everyone on the radio is clear that the van is picking up wounded. Very seriously wounded. Permission to fire was still asked for, and still given. Why? Even if everyone involved was 100% convinced those were bad guys, why? If this kind of conflict could be won purely by being the meanest guy on the block, Algeria would still be French.
Except for the guy with the AK-47 (3:43 in the video) and the guy with the RPG (3:35 in the video). The guy with the RPG ducks behind the building, and then someone (could be the same guy or maybe the cameraman -- it's hard to tell) points *something* around the corner of the building at the approaching Bradley vehicles that had just been engaged in a firefight minutes before (necessitating calling in the air support).
I'm sorry you can't see it, but the rules of engagement were followed. Two Reuters reporters decided to embed themselves with a group of people who were armed in a combat zone. Bad things happened. In retrospect, it was a sad situation. Hindsight being 20-20 and all.
In the heat of the moment, everything they did was checked and re-checked by their command chain to coincide with the rules of engagement. The audio shows they were repeatedly requesting permission up the command chain for the clear to fire. Commanders reviewed the information available against the rules of engagement, and determined they should be allowed to fire. That's why they were determined to have complied with those rules in this situation.
Just because Wikileaks can now review the video in "super-zoom" and "super-slo-mo" and determine that the pilots and gunners might have been able to discern whether the reporters were carrying cameras on straps instead of guns on straps does not make them liable for murder. It doesn't change the fact that these were people walking in a combat zone, with other people who had weapons, and were standing in a position waiting for a column of American vehicles to come into range.
Occam's razor does not say, "These were murderous thugs," Occam's Razor says, "This was a sad situation that occurred in the 'fog of war'."
Or, more succinctly, "War Sucks."
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
No, he did not say bruteforce. He said "going through the most probable passwords...several million--millions of passwords."
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.
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
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?"
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.
A van, racing into a combat zone, with two men coming from the courtyard they were in to meet the van and pull a suspected terrorist into the van, while the van is quickly maneuvering to make a getaway. In a city where such "bongo" trucks are often used by insurgents to gather up weapons, and ammo, and other incriminating evidence from bodies at an attack site to create the illusion that "civilians" were massacred.
Yes, I can't imagine why these pilots would think that someone driving into a courtyard, with the dust still settling from the two Apaches pouring fire into it, would be anything but an innocent civilian. I mean, I'm sure if you were driving, and you saw a helicopter mow down an entire group of people in front of you and repeatedly pound the area with machine gun fire, that you would look over at your two kids and say, "You know, I should really stop and see if I can help the guys the helicopter was shooting at, even though he's still circling the area."
Sorry, most people would stomp the accelerator down and be gone. I'm not risking my kids in a combat zone.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
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.
Apropos of anything else, I laughed.
I seem to recall our soldiers swearing oaths on statements made to military investigators, courts martial, and so on, that nothing untoward or unprofessional happened at Abu Ghraib.
A little while later, some of those soldiers were revealed as posing in some photos that gained quite a bit of infamy...
I'm probably on the other side of the fence on this - I support the actions of the troops in the helicopter and on the ground, and think they made the correct decision given what they knew - and I'll agree with that. Knowledge is always better than ignorance.
Learn about Photography Basics.
What they initially took to be an RPG was actually the camera. I can't find the original news article I read, but it quoted a US military source as admitting as much.
And as for military procedure, they behaved like a bunch of trigger happy cowboys playing a video game. They were itching to fire and blast away, and were just looking for a reason to do it. There was no desire for clear information; they made assumptions that favoured the desire for action. Instead of verifying that there was an RPG, they immediately decided it was. The van that rocked up to take away the bodies could have been a makeshift ambulance - there was no signs of its occupants being armed - but they just immediately assumed it was hostile, and shot. They were urging the wounded Iraqi to pick up a weapon so they could kill him. Later, when they fired the first missile into the building, it was quite clear that a civilian had come into frame before firing, yet he shot anyway. The second missile was fired even though again, quite clearly, you can see civilians gathering outside the building to try help the wounded. Again, they fired without any consideration to innocents being nearby.
They demonstrate a callous disregard for the very human lives that they were supposedly trying to help/save, and clearly wanted to any excuse to open fire. And I doubt the fog of war really applies here since they weren't being fired on, so they could've taken their time to make good judgements.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
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.
What they initially took to be an RPG was actually the camera.
No, the point I cited in the video clearly shows a loaded RPG. It's even clearer in the full size MP4 unedited version.
And the cameraman was found by the soldiers lying on top of an RPG round. But that doesn't fit your view.
Were the pilots a bit gung-ho? Yes, they were. That's how you get a soldier past the fact that they're chopping up other human beings. It's a part of soldiering.
As for the van? Once again, you miss the context. Insurgents in Iraq often arrived in vans to collect wounded, weapons, and ammo to make any dead appear to be innocent civilians. This was well known to the Apache pilot, the gunner, and their chain of command. They didn't just "fire wildly" at the van. If you listen to the unedited video, they repeatedly ask their chain of command for a clear to fire. Their commanders were watching the video from two Apache helicopters and a UAV and made the decision that this appeared to be an insurgent group retrieving their wounded and weapons, and gave the order to fire.
The two men who attempt to load the guy into the van came from the same place the other insurgents had come from, not from the van itself. The guy in the van clearly knew who they were, knew he was in a combat zone (watch him trying to move the van to line it up for a getaway once they were loaded, almost running one of them over) and he made the choice to be there and to put his kids in danger.
Once the soldiers arrive, they continue to come under small arms fire, even while trying to rescue the wounded.
It's a war, hard decisions are made, and "under fire" doesn't necessarily mean they're shooting at you but it could mean your friends are taking fire.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
First of all, this wasn't a war zone. It was a neighborhood. They hadn't cleared all the civilians out, and had no reasonable assumption that everyone still on the streets was an enemy. Also, this part of the raid, during the surge, was a complete surprise. They intended to flush out insurgents, and knew full well that they would be intermixed with civilians. They should have been MORE cautious, not less.
So you're saying the chopper needs to have an RPG shot at it before it can engage the enemy?
That's actually what the Rules of Engagement say as well. Shots have to be fired, or at least threatened, before PID is possible and engagement is legal. Wikileaks has them, go read them for yourself.
In my opinion...
Light them all up is the last thing that would go through any sane persons mind.
Watch the rest, then go back and put the first part in context. Look at the 'bongo truck' situation. Or that poor bastard walking in front of the building when it takes a missile. Or all the rubber-neck-ers who bite it when the next two missiles hit. Did they deserve to die as well? Boondoggle, from start to finish.
If this were the entirety of the video, your position might be deemed rational.
What about the poor bastard on the sidewalk when that building takes a missile hit? Or all the lookie-loo's who die after the second and third missiles. Or the six families that allegedly lived there at the time?
And of course the 'bongo truck'. You know, the one that never demonstrated intent to pickup anything but wounded? The one that was utterly destroyed, and all those surrounding it slaughtered - both against the Rules of Engagement, I might add.
In the entire context, please defend your position:
Occam's razor does not say, "These were murderous thugs," Occam's Razor says, "This was a sad situation that occurred in the 'fog of war'."
Because to me it looks like willful blindness, at a minimum. They lied to Bushmaster Seven to get permission to fire on that truck. They only suggested going to missile fire when they ran out of normal rounds. And you're going to tell me these men are neither 'murderous' nor 'thugs'?
I'm not bashing them because they used to be military, by the way. I'm bashing them because they lost their honor, disobeyed orders, and made all the good and decent fighting men and women around them complicit in their crimes.
And in that light, why the hell would you, or anyone, want to defend them?
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.
I disagree with you, but it is easy to be an armchair chaingunner so I am not going to argue that point. But, that point is secondary point. I think the coverup is the worst part about this leak. The family and Reuters had a right to know how the people died. The family for closure. Reuters because it allows them to better assess the risks they are asking their employees to take.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
It's fucking hilarious that these same idiots claiming that the possible presence of a rifle justified the massacre will also jump up and down in the US demanding the right to carry guns openly at schools, churches, bars, and airplanes.