Wikileaks Video Hits The New York Times !!!

[WillyT]

Video Shows American Killing of Photographer
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: April 5, 2010

<snip>

WASHINGTON—The Web site Wikileaks.org released a graphic video on Monday showing an American helicopter shooting and killing a Reuters photographer and driver in a July 2007 attack in Baghdad. A senior American military official confirmed that the video was authentic.

Reuters had long pressed for the public release of the video, which consists of 17 minutes of black-and-white aerial footage and conversations between pilots in two Apache helicopters as they open fire on people on a street in Baghdad. The attack killed 12, among them the Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and the driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.

At a news conference at the National Press Club, Wikileaks said that it had acquired the video from whistleblowers in the military and had been able to view it after breaking the encryption code.

David Schlesinger, the editor in chief of Reuters news, said in a statement that the video was “graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result.”

On the day of the attack, United States military officials in Baghdad said that the helicopters had been called in to help American troops who had been hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades during a raid. “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad, said at the time.

But the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them, according to Wikileaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh. The pilots believe them to be insurgents, and mistake Mr. Noor-Eldeen’s camera for a weapon. They aim and fire at the group, then revel in their kills.

“Look at those dead bastards,” one pilot says. “Nice,” the other responds.

A wounded man can be seen crawling on a curb and the pilots impatiently hope that he will try to fire at them so that under the rules of engagement they can shoot him again. “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon,” one pilot says.

A short time later a van arrives to pick up the wounded and the pilots open fire on it as well, wounding two children inside. “Well it’s their fault for bring their kids into a battle,” one pilot says. At another point, an American armored vehicle arrives on the scene and appears to roll over one of the dead.

“I think they just drove over a body,” one of the pilots says, chuckling a little.

<snip>

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html

:shrug:

[Oregone]

1. This one isn't going away real quick

Look. Quick. Feign outrage. Hold a congressional hearing. Then satisfied, sweep it under a rug

[malaise]

2. Remember this incident the next time

a Western journalist is kidnapped or murdered. Freedom of the press is only for Westerners.

[tavalon]

3. Not that the NYT is a standard bearer but it's good that the story is getting legs

[tekisui]

4. Good.

Throw it in everyone's faces.

Let's see some drone strike videos while we're at it.

[CreatureFeature]

5. Notice what is NOT included in the NYT article

There is no mention of the coverup, or the way that the Pentagon attempted to intimidate Wikileak staff.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. nice first post, welcome to DU

and I agree

[CreatureFeature]

9. Thank you

I have been reading articles here for a long time but had to speak up about this.

[BunkerHill24]

6. "But the video does .......

"But the video does not show hostile action. Instead, it begins with a group of people milling around on a street, among them according to Wikileaks, Mr. Noor-Eldeen and Mr. Chmagh."

'nuff said.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. IMO attacking the van was the worst. Clearly there were no weapons,

Not even cameras

They were just trying to save someone who was wounded.

It was the same as attacking an ambulance.

[BunkerHill24]

10. Your quite right...the attack on the van was deliberate and merciless.

[TorchTheWitch]

15. in requesting permission to shoot that turd said they were picking up

bodies and WEAPONS. Knowing full well there were NO weapons and no one picked up anything but the wounded man (who was Saad - the journalist's driver). Permission to engage was given because in requesting permission that shit claimed they were picking up weapons. This was the same asshole that was hoping that the wounded man (Saad) would pick up a weapon not even in evidence so he could shoot him again.

There was absolutely no reason whatsoever to shoot up that van. That indeed was the worst.

[CreatureFeature]

11. Next Question

How many other times has this same thing happened?

[Motown_Johnny]

12. without journalists involved so nobody with any influence ever investigated it?

we will never know


I guess we need people to file freedom of information requests for every video taken of every shooting incident and then post them on line so we can all filter through them.


Lotsa luck with that one.

[TexasObserver]

13. The standard defenses are already being heard in media and elsewhere.

"Don't attack the troops."

or

"Just troops doing their jobs."

or

"May have overdone it, but were basically troops taking out what they thought were hostiles."

or

"Inside the parameters of their rules of engagement."

or

"How could they know the guys were journalists holding cameras, not weapons?"

or

"If the journalists were there, the people they were with were likely hostiles."



If war teaches us anything, it is that the capacity for rationalization of those who support it is virtually limitless.

[intheflow]

14. "How could they know the guys were journalists holding cameras, not weapons?"

I like how the article states the military as saying that the reporter made no attempt to identify himself as a reporter. Like they were going to take the time to read his press credentials if they couldn't even take the time to distinguish between a camera and a gun. :eyes:

[TorchTheWitch]

16. he couldn't identify himself as a journalist because he was already DEAD

How the hell is he supposed to identify himself as a journalist to dudes in a helioptor while he's walking around holding nothing but a CAMERA? He probably figured the dumbasses circling above them were bright enough to see they didn't have weapons, that he was holding a big ass journalist's camera that looks nothing like an AK-47 or an RPG and were clearly no threat.

This "how could they know" crap really chaps my ass! They're professionals! They know what weapons look like! It's their damn JOB to make sure there's an actual threat before engaging! They KNOW the rules of engagement forbid shooting wounded non-threatening people and the people doing nothing but helping that wounded non-treatening person!

SICK. These shits in the copter just wanted to kill people and further get their jollies by blowing up the building afterwards (as seen in the 39 minute long version).