video of the US killing 2 Reuters employees

g under p

From Democracy now...EXCLUSIVE: One Day After 2007 Attack, Witnesses Describe US Killings of Iraqi Civilians

Those witnesses on the ground paint a different picture from what US forces are saying.

Well, independent journalists Rick Rowley and David Enders were on the scene the very next day in 2007 and filed this exclusive report for Democracy Now!


RICK ROWLEY: We came to the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad one day after a US attack helicopter strike that killed twelve Iraqis, including a journalist and a driver working with Reuters. The US military claimed that they were under attack from rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire and that all of the dead, except for the two Reuters employees, were insurgents. But local residents showed us the remains of a burnt-out van spattered with blood and told us a different story.


WITNESS 1: [translated] The helicopter came yesterday from there and hovered around. Then it came right here where a group of people were standing. They didn’t have any weapons or arms of any sort. This area doesn’t have armed insurgents. They destroyed the place and shot at people, and they didn’t let anyone help the wounded.


WITNESS 2: [translated] I swear to God it was helicopters that attacked us. These people are all witnesses. They attacked us twice, not once.


RICK ROWLEY: Another resident went on to describe what happened to the man who tried to help the wounded.


WITNESS 3: [translated] The driver went to carry the injured, who had been shot in front of his eyes. While he was going to pick them up, the pilot of the helicopter kept flying above, watching the scene. They started firing at the wounded and the dead. The driver and the two children were also there. The helicopter continued shooting until none of the bodies were moving.


RICK ROWLEY: We asked the crowd of people what might have prompted the attack, and they said that when the journalist arrived, residents quickly gathered around him.


WITNESS 2: [translated] The group of civilians had gathered here because people need cooking oil and gas. They wanted to demonstrate in front of the media and show that they need things like oil, gas, water and electricity. The situation here is dramatically deteriorating. The journalists were walking around, and then the Americans started shooting. They started shooting randomly and targeted peaceful civilians from the neighborhood.


WITNESS 3: [translated] There were children in the car. Were they carrying weapons? There were two children.


WITNESS 2: [translated] Do we help the wounded or kill them? They killed all the wounded and drove over their bodies. Everyone witnessed it. And the journalist was among those who was injured, and the armored vehicle drove over his body.


WITNESS 3: [translated] The US forces, who call themselves “friendly” forces, were telling us on speakers that they were here to protect and help us. We heard those words very clearly. But what we saw was the opposite of that. We demand the American Congress and President Bush supervise their soldiers’ actions in Iraq.

Peace

gabers

FYI, the site that first leaked the video has some interesting observations from posters that really haven't been discussed here. Since we're all, ahem, open minded here I think you all should read some comments from supposedly a wife of one of the soldiers involved into the investigation. I don't think anyone can excuse what these Apache pilots did, but a little background cloudies the story a bit. I'm just the messenger here. The supposed last picture of one of the camera men is here at this link too.

http://collateralmurder.wordpress.com/

USE OF CAMERAS: Should also note that a tactic used in battle is to take pictures using high powered lenses to gather intel on troop location, size, and armament. Photos would then be shared with the RPG carrier for more precise target acquisition. Not saying this was the case here, but that does happen. Tragic as it is, one should know better than to aim what looks like a weapon at ground troops with surveilling Apache Copters overhead, especially when standing next to insurgents carrying an RPG and AK-47s.

HERE ARE SOME GREAT POSTS REGARDING PHOTOGRAPHY BEING USED TACTICALLY BY “1Armywife”

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... e.php#more

I just showed my husband this footage. He was there and had a role in reviewing the investigation on this case. His response below might clarify some things.

This footage shows the final engagement of the Reuters field reporters in New Baghdad. Missing is the overwatch video and earlier AH64 footage showing the development of the situation where the two reporters and armed men supported by a van and cars were shadowing a Coalition patrol. These reporters accompanied the armed men who were tracking a Coalition patrol about a city block away. The camera man would peek around corners to shoot a few digital frames of the patrol and then show the pictures to the armed men. If you have all the video footage, you will see this activity happened repeatedly. The operational suspicion was that this was enemy TTP (tactic, technic, or procedure) to help prepare for an attack; the digital photos would be used to quickly evaluate the target — to judge what it looked like, its shape, distance, terrain in between, where to aim, etc. This way, the RPG operator would select the right warhead, he’d preset the mechanical sights (elevation), and fix in his mind a visual picture of the target so he would limit his exposure time when stepping out in the street to fire. The recovered camera showed how the cameral man was aiding the enemy. What you also don’t have is the operational history of RPG attacks in New Baghdad. This was heavy JAM territory. I understand that it is disturbing to see calculated killing, but the engagement was not without cause. The engagement of the van should be understood in the overall context of earlier events. It is obvious the AH64 pilots and the operational commander conferred. This was not a war crime. A Soldier

1ARMYWIFE THEN RESPONDS TO CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

Look, I showed him the video and he had something to say about it that I thought might be of interest and put things in perspective. The most salient facts were that this engagement lasted 40 minutes and not merely eight as is seen here. Footage of the scene was taken from multiple viewpoints, i.e. other helicopters, so you don’t see all of the activity. Finally, whether they were willing partners or not, the cameramen were helping the insurgents by providing them with visual information, and this is on the footage that the leaked film does not include. You can see a bit of this activity when the camera man peeks around the corner, takes some shots and then goes back and all of the other guys gather around him to check out the pictures. Remember, this is a war zone and not a place where sharing photos of the scenery was considered normal. Our soldiers believed this information was going to be used to help aim RPGs, and the camera the cameraman was carrying confirmed this. My husband never said that what happened to the van was right, just that it occurred in a broader context than was shown here. With all the sensationalism in the media, he just thought the extra info might be useful and give a clearer picture of what was happening. These film makers had a story to tell. Unfortunately, they left out the fair and balanced parts.

Happyco, yes, that point was reviewed in the command inquiry. The van, or another like it, was suspected of providing weapon support to the fighters in earlier footage. The van did not display the protected symbols (red crescent or red cross), so the situation depended on a judgment whether the fighter had “fallen out of combat” (as you say per the Law of War and ROE). The command did review the van response to the scene for lessons learned. The gunners reported collection of wounded and weapons and requested authorization to fire. I can’t say the same command authorization based on the information relayed by the gunners would have been made if a commander were personally viewing in real time. It was a terrible consequence that could have been avoided. I understand Reuters subsequently issued a policy to all field reporters to avoid running with armed insurgents.

Model127, There is earlier footage showing armed men going to and from a van and some cars. That conduct produced the suspicion. I’m not aware of any additional evidence like weapons found in the van. It very well could have been – probably(?) – good samaritans reacting to help. No clear way to tell at the time, however. The gunners thought they saw insurgent activity.

michelleelise

^^
I think that's interesting, but it doesn't exactly apply to this particular situation. It's not as if the pilot and gunner identified the journalists correctly and deduced that they were aiding the enemy. They completely misidentified the items they were carrying. I completely expect the misidentification of the weapons and the van to be chalked up to "fog of war".

What's most disturbing to me about the video is the barely-contained glee that they display - in gunning the men down, in hoping that the one guy crawling away does something to allow them to kill him, in shooting up the van and again when the U.S. vehicle runs over one of the victims. It disgusts me that we have men making these decisions who take joy in it - how can you trust someone like that to make the right choices?

he still stands

these guys appear to be sexually aroused by murdering people. They sure are enjoying themselves.

gabers

I'm guessing this poster "1ArmyWife" is actually a soldier involved in the investigation somehow, based on the language used and way the posts were dictated. Sounds too informed to merely be someone's "housewife". But if this is true, if these reporters were actually aiding the insurgents, it's no wonder they ended up in the line of fire. What I'm saying is, without knowing the whole story we shouldn't pass immediate judgement on all of the soldiers involved. I mean the pilots are clearly enjoying their job a bit too much, and made poor decisions in when and who to engage and should be reprimanded, but I know if I was one of the ground troups and these "reporters" were actually helping scout their positions I'd want to take them out too.

michelleelise

gabers wrote:

What I'm saying is, without knowing the whole story we shouldn't pass immediate judgement on all of the soldiers involved.

We do know the story, though, because the military has been all over the news with their version.

Even the military isn't claiming that they ever knew these guys were photographers and it's clear from the videotape that the pilot didn't know either. So this person is making excuses that don't apply to this particular situation at all.

Again, if they'd actually identified the men on the ground as photographers and identified the cameras as cameras rather than as RPGs and determined from that information that they were they were photographing U.S. positions then this excuse would be relevant to what happened. But they didn't and it's not. If it were, the military would be all over the airwaves with that version.

michelleelise

Let me put it this way...

After watching that tape, do you believe that either the pilot or gunner knew that those two guys were photographers?

gabers

michelle822 wrote:

Let me put it this way...

After watching that tape, do you believe that either the pilot or gunner knew that those two guys were photographers?

I haven't watched the entire 30 plus minute tape of the engagement, only most of the 17 or so minute tape. Based on that, I'd say the pilots saw what they wanted to see. No one said anything about cameras. It's hard to say if they flat out knew they had cameras or not based on the footage I watched. I'm not sure if they had a clear look at the video of the crowd as we have. But if they did, if they would have just paused to really look at what these guys were carrying it should have been obvious what the camera guys were carrying.

So going back to your previous statement though about how they supposedly knew they were camera guys and engaged them since they were aiding the enemy, if that was the case, you're right, why didn't that come out of the official report.

But if you watch the video, it does kind of look like these camera guys were doing what this poster had said. Without watching the entire video of the engagement with audio it's hard to say who thought what.