The Wikileaks collection

[stanleywinthrop]

WikiLeaks has posted a 17-minute clip shot from an Apache helicopter in July 2007. I just watched it and, frankly, was amazed. I cannot rationalize any justification for the actions of this Apache crew.

The link is here: http://collateralmurder.com/

If anybody can figure out a way to explain this, please weigh in. It appears, to me, that some guys with a 30mm wanted to shoot something so badly that they were able to convince themselves that no more than three individuals with items that kind of, maybe, resembled weapons somehow justified firing into a group of people with 30mm. As for their justification for shooting the unarmed individuals who arrived on scene to evacuate a wounded individual who clearly posed no threat to anybody - wow. If this is as bad as it looks, I hope these guys don't get away with this.

Added: fast forward to about the 2-minute mark to go directly to the video shot from the Apache.

If you look closely you will see some guys who LOOK like they have AK-47s. Specifically look at 3:44 to 3:50 in the video. The two guys standing next to the pole in the upper/middle part of the screen. I'm about 95% sure that the objects they are holding are not cameras. Too long. The two people identified in the video as journalists both have something slung over their shoulders....probably cameras. However the aircrew believe that they have weapons slung over a shoulder. A critical point is where the guy is peering around the corner with what might be a camera; the aircrew identify it as a RPG. They also claim that he is shooting...it is possible that they saw muzzle flashes with the naked eye that were blocked in the sensor. To be honest, things like this are going to happen when aircraft are allowed to make the PID of hostile forces. You just can't see enough detail in the air to make extremely close distinctions between big ass cameras and RPGs. So to me the biggest culprit if one must be identified is the decision maker who gave PID power to aircraft over dense urban terrain. Things like this were bound to happen to be frank.

The most damning thing about the video was the decision to engage the van picking up bodies and wounded. The JTAC Bushmaster 7 shares full responsiblity for that; the aircrew saw no weapons associated with the van nor did they relay to Bushmaster 7 that any weapons were present. Couple that with the fact that ground troops were apparently moments away and I question very strongly the decision to engage the van.

Three more points:
1. Dont read the subtitles alot of them are wrong, just listen to the radio.
2. There are obviously some missing portions of the video: I want to know what was cut, there could be some critical dialouge missing.
3. I also want to know whether the patrol that arrived on scene actually found weapons.

I want to know those last two points before fully making up my mind whether anything criminal took place.

[Schmedlap]

To be honest, things like this are going to happen when aircraft are allowed to make the PID of hostile forces. You just can't see enough detail in the air to make extremely close distinctions between big ass cameras and RPGs. So to me the biggest culprit if one must be identified is the decision maker who gave PID power to aircraft over dense urban terrain. Things like this were bound to happen to be frank.

For the most part, I agree. But I would just add that if I'm given the power to PID and engage, then I'm not going to blame the guy who gave me that authority when I don't PID. But, yes, that certainly is a problem. I learned it the hard way a few years ago when an Apache pilot asked permission to 30mm a "suspected VBIED" after he had just fired hellfires for us at a target that we directed him to. The "suspected VBIED" that he spotted was not within our view but when he asked to shoot at something that he said he thought was a VBIED when we're under fire - yeah, kill it. I later saw the video and was furious. The vehicle was clearly not a VBIED (though it thankfully had nobody inside - so no civilian casualties). To make matters worse, the 30mm badly damaged a newly paved road that we had spent months trying to get repaired. It's tough to step back in the heat of the moment and say, "wait a minute - I have no idea what this pilot is looking at" but, as you observed, it is problematic if you don't.

Agree with all other points, too.

Added: Good comments here: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/0...ateral-murder/

Added: 15-6 and supporting documents: http://bit.ly/bLlCEi

Added: Not great comments, but handy still photos here: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

[efraker]

2. There are obviously some missing portions of the video: I want to know what was cut, there could be some critical dialouge missing.

Good eye! I'm not sure I would have noticed without reading Wikileak's documentation.

This video is about 14 minutes @ YouTube resolution of a 38 minute high-resolution video. Wikileaks created a Torrent for the full 616 megabyte (purportedly) unedited file. If you are set up to download Torrent files, click here.

To get a program to let you download Torrent files, click here. Note: many corporate/institutional firewalls block the use of this file type.

[efraker]

I don't have a lot to say about this video; I don't have the background to contribute.

It turned my stomach to see it, and I'm kind of ashamed by that. I didn't feel the same way when I've watched similar videos on LiveLeak and other sites, wherein I 'knew' that the targets were legitimate. Statistically speaking, this probably wasn't the first time I watched an American gunship fire on a civilian.

[braun]

The (reasonably) complete video is available here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&aia=true

It cuts to the "triangular building" towards the end.

[Starbuck]

I put my thoughts up at my blog, but there's so much in here that's completely wrong. Do the Apache pilots not even acknowledge the figures walking in front of the triangle-shaped building that are clearly unarmed? Why do they shoot a second missile into the building, especially when they see more unarmed figures running into the burning building? Did they pose a threat?

[pjmunson]

The 5-16 investigation and the pictures enclosed in it give the most complete picture, providing context you can't see in the video.
First, the ground unit had declared TIC and the Apaches were on station to support them. The guy peering around the corner was actually one of the journalists taking pictures of a HMMWV just 100 meters down the alley. Given the TIC, his actions, and the close proximity to the TIC unit, you can see why the pilots were spring loaded to attack. They felt they were defending the ground unit that was already taking fire.

I won't get into the engagement of the van, but would be interested to hear from people who actually know the legal aspect as to whether that was a bad shoot or not.

[Wargames Mark]

The 5-16 investigation and the pictures enclosed in it give the most complete picture, providing context you can't see in the video.
First, the ground unit had declared TIC and the Apaches were on station to support them. The guy peering around the corner was actually one of the journalists taking pictures of a HMMWV just 100 meters down the alley. Given the TIC, his actions, and the close proximity to the TIC unit, you can see why the pilots were spring loaded to attack. They felt they were defending the ground unit that was already taking fire.

I won't get into the engagement of the van, but would be interested to hear from people who actually know the legal aspect as to whether that was a bad shoot or not.

Thanks for that additional information. I don't know what to make of this incident yet (and I have no legal knowledge to speak of) but I sure don't trust the video by itself.

Regardless of what was happening on the ground, the effects of this video on public perceptions in the west and on the perceptions held by Muslim populations targeted as audiences by radicals will be detrimental. Information like this is a weapon.

LOW violations in COIN are obviously extremely harmful. Video and photography magnify the effects and often lack complete context. As a result, leaking something like this is not a trivial act and should not dealt with as such. This leak is essentially an attack. It might or might not have been intended as such, but that's what it ends up being.

[Cavguy]

Was giving benefit of the doubt on the initial engagement, given the TIC and info coming from the ground, and the inability to distinguish weapons from cameras clearly. The second half is what bothers me and others. Couldn't see how to justify engaging the van providing CASEVAC and the Hellfire strike.

On the mitigation side, if a journalist decides to embed w/an insurgent group during an attack, he is placing himself in jeopardy, so some of the outrage is overstated. Also noteworthy is the lack of anyone else on the streets - clearly a fight was going on and the locals knew it. I also haven't figured out why a van with kids in it would be picking up wounded insurgents given the fight nearby. Still doesn't justify the latter half of the video, but is curious.