from JMA
Now sitting on the other side of the world and viewing the release of the video in isolation where those shot were clearly not armed and the attempts of the military to duck and dive on the matter and refuse to release the video makes this an acceptable whistle blowing act IMHO.
These matters cannot be simplistically viewed "in isolation" (that is, without considering all material evidence). An argument so limited lacks credence and is very likely to be demolished in court.

The 2007 Apache video was discussed very fully in another Whole News thread, 2007 Apache Engagement on Video: Appears Incriminating (10 pages) (in which, you first appear here, Rules of Engagement?).

In considering that event from a legal standpoint, I took the time to look at the complete videos (not just the cherry-picked snips), the written US Army reports and ROEs, and the various media accounts. I also looked at maps of the neighborhood and its history (primarily from 2003 on). In short, I looked at all of the evidence available online that I considered material to the matter (and yes, without a judge deciding it, "materiality" is a subjective decision).

My legal opinion as to all the shoots (there are three shown in the complete vids): Good shoots all; no UCMJ violations; no "war crimes" were committed (e.g., my posts #103, #125, #133, #155, and #163).

A more succinct comment on the Apache Shoot was offered by Polarbear1605 in this post, Monday Morning Quarterbacks?:

I am a little surprised by the general comments on this one. I think most of you should go back and read the Rules of War (FM27-10) and then the ROEs. (You might also want to get jmm99 involved in this one.) If I am a civilian and pickup a weapon on the battle field I become a combatant and btw, if I drop the weapon, I do not become a non-combatant again. This group of Iraqi "civilians" engaged our troops with AK-47s and RPGs. They were then treated like insurgents. They were tracked down and they were killed. If they are not tracked down and killed, they will return to kill you (or Iraqi civilians, usually the ones on our side) later. The war crime was not US soldiers killing civilians but the war crime was insurgents using civilians as shields.
I stand with the Great Bear in his summary.

Now, I'm not going to launch into a discussion of the "Whistleblower Defense" (if one exists in this case) because it's too early. I may or may not chime in if there is a court-martial and if that defense is asserted.

You all (if you want) can get educated about the Pentagon Papers and Ellsberg complex of cases - here is a start, Daniel Ellsberg; please remember that the Pentagon Papers case was a prior restraint on publication case, not a prosecution for what you take or pass on (the later Ellsberg trial). Speculate all you want.

Regards

Mike