The Wikileaks collection

[Schmedlap]

Moderator's Note

Today I have merged three threads on Wikileaks and re-named the thread accordingly. I have not merged the thread on Bardley Manning's (alleged) torture (ends).

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.

[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.

[PeaceOutE]

Since when is it against the rules to have an AK-47 in Iraq? This is not a justified ground to attack an Iraqi as it is their legal right as Iraqis to own one AK-47 per household. Granted, if the AK-47s where directed at an incoming host nation or other MNC-I combat troops the Apaches would be justified in their attacks.

As far as the camera, the telephoto lens of the cameraman is amazingly huge and at first caught my eye. Then I saw an image of the photographer with a massive telephoto lens. Regardless, the object in the video is smaller than an RPG.

With all of this identified, US Army CID will have one massive job. Also, certain SOPs will possibly be created such as what proper chatter to be used for conversations over the radio. Professionalism can go a long way, even when possible wrongs occur. Second, this may already have been established put proper Rules of Engagement. To my knowledge every combat zone I have been in has issued ROEs prior to boots on the ground. This will most likely be part of the CID investigation.

With regards to the children and the location where they were to go. No one is aware of the nearest hospital, the time it will take for a Blackhawk to arrive versus the IPs medical teams. There are too many unknown variables that resulted in the decision made by the chain of command for the appropriate action for the children.

There is more to the situation than all the self-professed experts identify. I'm in no way an expert and will eagerly wait for the CID report findings. All I am able to do is put my 2 cents in based of my experience in Iraq during the surge.

[motorfirebox]

A policeman also needs to do snap judgments sometimes and may be tired.
Nevertheless, we expect him not to kill without a reason that withstands a judge's curiosity - or else he faces and deserves serious problems.

I'd like to note, here, that the Apache pilots' reasoning did withstand (the equivalent to) a judge's curiosity.

Since when is it against the rules to have an AK-47 in Iraq? This is not a justified ground to attack an Iraqi as it is their legal right as Iraqis to own one AK-47 per household. Granted, if the AK-47s where directed at an incoming host nation or other MNC-I combat troops the Apaches would be justified in their attacks.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe private citizens in Iraq are allowed to own any number of RPGs. There was at least one RPG-7 visible in the gunsight video, and an RPG-7 and rounds were discovered by the ground troops who arrived to secure the scene.

As far as the camera, the telephoto lens of the cameraman is amazingly huge and at first caught my eye. Then I saw an image of the photographer with a massive telephoto lens. Regardless, the object in the video is smaller than an RPG.

I would point out that I know several people who know what to look for, who had to double-check to make sure the object in the video was a camera. If you got it right the first time, good for you--but you did so with advantages that the Apache crew did not have. Namely, the leisure to focus on the video exclusively; and the headlines that forewarned you that a guy with a camera got blowed up.

[Massengale]

Since when is it against the rules to have an AK-47 in Iraq? This is not a justified ground to attack an Iraqi as it is their legal right as Iraqis to own one AK-47 per household. Granted, if the AK-47s where directed at an incoming host nation or other MNC-I combat troops the Apaches would be justified in their attacks.

As far as the camera, the telephoto lens of the cameraman is amazingly huge and at first caught my eye. Then I saw an image of the photographer with a massive telephoto lens. Regardless, the object in the video is smaller than an RPG.

With all of this identified, US Army CID will have one massive job. Also, certain SOPs will possibly be created such as what proper chatter to be used for conversations over the radio. Professionalism can go a long way, even when possible wrongs occur. Second, this may already have been established put proper Rules of Engagement. To my knowledge every combat zone I have been in has issued ROEs prior to boots on the ground. This will most likely be part of the CID investigation.

With regards to the children and the location where they were to go. No one is aware of the nearest hospital, the time it will take for a Blackhawk to arrive versus the IPs medical teams. There are too many unknown variables that resulted in the decision made by the chain of command for the appropriate action for the children.

There is more to the situation than all the self-professed experts identify. I'm in no way an expert and will eagerly wait for the CID report findings. All I am able to do is put my 2 cents in based of my experience in Iraq during the surge.

Iraqi households are not allowed RPGs. Also, the presence of weapons in certain neighborhoods during certain periods by not-uniformed personnel could be considered hostile intent. Determinations of hostile intent are subjective and given great deference. We are not police.

The children were taken to a MTF. Full stop. Wikileaks was simply incorrect.

To the trained eye the telephoto was a 70-200L (can't tell if it was the 2.8 or the 4.0). But I can certainly understand how it was seen as something else. In addition, they spotted the real RPG in the group.

There will be no CID investigation.

[Lorraine]

By now, most everyone has read about WikiLeak's release of 92,000 reports from operations in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010 -- some of them classified. Over the last month, three news organizations: the New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel had access to the documents. Today, they published stories based on their analysis, simultaneously with WikiLeaks release of the source documents.

All three news organizations make promises that "little or no harm" will come from their reporting.

I've only begun to wade through this mess. But initially, the hair is raised on my back. I'm wary of such easy promises.

The gravest concern is the classified information. There is simply no way that WikiLeaks or the news outlets can predict the outcome of releasing classified information -- even if names have been redacted. Classified information is protected for a reason. Lives, operations, negotiations, partnerships may perish when it's not.

I'm also concerned how easily the Rule of Law has been discarded in favor of "transparency." And how it's likely that these documents will be misinterpreted and/or distorted because they lack context and authentication. And how both these things will impact progress in Afghanistan and how we conduct ourselves as a society.

Anyways, back to reading.

[jmm99]

when I briefly reported the Manning case, Yes, appears incriminating .... , to 92K actually published. So, Wikileaks' denial of the 260K log entries may be technically accurate - unless there are to be 2nd and 3rd installments.

In any event, if someone cannot make something out of 92K classified log entries (that is, something that they shouldn't be able to make out otherwise), I'd be very surprised. Consider the Venona intercepts (The Rosenberg Case Resurrected) - not exactly gems of clarity and incomplete; but they filled in many blanks.

Regards

Mike

[huskerguy7]

In my opinion, I think the release of these classified reports is inappropriate and unnecessary. Even though much of the names are deleted, it still compromises relationships, tactics, operations, and strategy. I do agree with transparency to an extent, but 92,000 documents from an ongoing war is disappointing. As a citizen, I know that some facts about ongoing conflicts are going to be hidden, and understand. I'm ok with that because I trust the people in office and in command. What's really frustrating is that the mass media is going to capitalize on a couple of these documents to paint their own picture of the war. I think that this may cause unnecessary panic and several misunderstandings about the war. Don't get me wrong, I am taking advantage of this event to learn more about the war. However, I would rather have preferred that this leak did not happen; the effects are not worth it. Nevertheless, anybody could oppose this assertion with legitimate points.

As for the content of the documents, I've had the chance to examine some (I'm the kind of person that prefers to avoid relays when receiving information). There is a substantial amount of interesting information that confirms some of my opinions, proves some wrong, and surprises me. After reading a certain amount, I feel that my understanding is better.

[Red Rat]

I have only seen the UK's 'Guardian' newspaper coverage.

From the perspective of an informed observer there appears to be little new in the material released. Most was 'known of' in the public domain, even if it was not widely reported or acknowledged. The sheer amount of material published does IMHO mean that an analysis of it will reveal stuff relating to our intelligence structure, efforts and effectiveness that we just do not want people to know. It will damage us. The Guardian acknowledges (link given elsewhere in thread) that they had too much material and not enough time to process it, so they used a word search facility to home in an areas of interest (search 'blue on blue', 'casualties', 'Iran' etc). This methodology means IMHO that they are simply unable to say truthfully or accurately that its release will not put lives at risk or damage national interests. Overall I found the analysis disappointingly superficial which reinforced my feeling that they were overloaded with information and have not been able to look at it properly in the time they had.

The coverage is interesting too. The 'Guardian' is a left of centre liberal newspaper. The narrative it appeared to be trying to build was that the war was messier (morally and physically) then we think and we cannot trust what we are being told about the situation out there:

• More civilian casualties
• SF taskforces killing targets under dubious legal grounds
• Issues over Afghan government effectiveness (and moral worth), Pakistan and Iranian involvement.

This will strike a chord with the 'why are we there and what are we achieving' component in the UK.

[John T. Fishel]

As a former national level Army analyst, my experience was that there was an awful lot of stuff classified that had no business being classified.
A little background for those who don't know:
1. There are only 3 levels of classification in the US, confidential, Secret, and Top Secret with Secret being the middle level (contrary to the NYT story). They are established and defined by Executive Order, not by legislation. There are also compartments within each category where access is granted based on "need to know."
2. Level of classification is chosen by the"degree of harm" to US national security based on unauthorized release.
3. Most classified documents are classified because they are based on previouslly classified documents - called "derivative classification authority."

IMO documents are legitimately classified when they relate to war plans (writ large), intel sources and methods, and perishable friendly and enemy information, as well as non-perishable stuff. Generally, once a plan has been executed, there is no longer a need to keep it classified although there may be some parts that should remain so. Generally, intelligence information is perishable and becomes part of the public domain fairly quickly so there is usually no longer a need to keep the INFORMATION itself classified. Sources and methods need to stay classified fro a very long time.

My experience has been that once classified it is unusaul for declassification to take place. An exception was OPORD BLIND LOGIC, my plan for the post-conflict reconstruction of Panama which my boss deliberately declassified after it had been executed. But, it is generally too difficult to take the time to declassify plans and information while retaining as classified what should be retained. So, people don't bother. There are also plenty of examples of the improper use of classification. When the opening to China took place, my organization ran a curren intel article on Ping Pong Dipolmacy that the author classified as Confidential even though he had taken it directly from the CBS Morning News on the grounds that if it were UNCLAS the generals would not believe it! In other cases, things have been classified only because they would embarrass public officials if released - this was IMO the primary reason the Nixon Administration sought to block the release of the Pentagon Papers.

Despite some cases of improper classification, the general problem of overclassification and lack of declassification is the all too human response that doing what is right is simply in the "too hard" box. That brings on its own problems such as Wikileaks and the Pentagon Papers (which should simply have been declassified and released).

Cheers

JohnT

[Yank in Germany]

Just as large amounts of unclassified data put together can provide intelligence, I am sure 92,000 pages will provide the enemy information on or TTP's and other operations.

Sadly such leakers haven't been prosecuted.

[jmm99]

You forgot Top Secret BBO.[*]

So I agree about excessive classification and also the difficulty in prosecuting beyond the initial leaker (espionage networks excepted). Ultimately, you have to come down to the people involved. If all that goes on in the "office" stays in the "office", obviously there will be no problems.

It is funny how terms mean different things in different contexts. E.g., "Confidential" (lowest security level) means to me (re: proper lawyer-client information) absolute secrecy.

Red Rat summed the present blowup well:

From the perspective of an informed observer there appears to be little new in the material released. Most was 'known of' in the public domain, even if it was not widely reported or acknowledged. The sheer amount of material published does IMHO mean that an analysis of it will reveal stuff relating to our intelligence structure, efforts and effectiveness that we just do not want people to know. It will damage us.

from a larger picture standpoint;

and Shahid:

The other issue, one that I'm personally concerned about, is the impact on the lives of named individuals in these documents. When we signed our agreements concerning the proper use of classified material, it was implied that the government would hold up its end of the bargain and prevent the unauthorized disclosure of our names, identities, activities, etc. The fact that US individuals are named in these documents and NOT redacted by the media is disturbing. This could have significant personal and professional ramifications for those who are not career, active-duty intelligence personnel. In some cases, the perception of involvement in 'covert' or 'special forces' raids could make us unhireable in certain professional disciplines.

from the standpoint of the individual who is ID'd - which may be a larger problem than the governmental aspect.

One note re: "...it was implied that the government would hold up its end of the bargain ... " Ain't no sure thing in an "implied contract" with the government. Rule 1: get the government's end of the bargain in writing. Rule 2: confirm the authority of the government official to make the bargain in writing from his superior.

Regards

Mike

* For the uninitiated (re: Top Secret BBO), BBO = Burn Before Opening.

[John T. Fishel]

No, I didn't forget BBO or its twin BBR. They are among those "need to know" compartments.

There is another part of the "get it in writing from the govt" which is, that if a certain intel agency verbally tells a military person to do somethin that person had better get the order from his commander and, if there is any doubt about its legitimacy, in writing.

Cheers

JohnT

[huskerguy7]

The White House has condemned the release of the reports along with other NATO governments. I doubt that the administration will publicly go after Wikileaks; Wikileaks has to much public support.

As I try to access Wikileak's main website (which is terribly slow and won't load), another thought came to my mind. The intelligence community despises Wikileaks and wishes that it would cease its actions. Since legal action seems unlikely, do you think that Wikileaks will be the victim of a cyber attack (stolen data or DDOSed)? Whether conducted by US government personal or outsourced to a private firm, I wouldn't rule it out.

So far, I agree with the other comments on here about the leak. Even the current situation of the war was known, the leaks reveal what we know, how we know, and our structure. Repairing this will be difficult.

The way that the media has reported this (specifically the NY Times) is disappointing. They have been picking specific stories to try to describe the whole war. This is wrong and is simply poor reporting.