-- By Ron Mazor
[Long Version]
[Short (Edited) Version]
(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)
Introduction
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version of the video.
The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an informal investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions.
When I first saw the short video, about a week after it hit the news, I was scandalized. I was pretty sure that what I saw contravened portions of the Geneva Conventions, and I was shocked that the Army declined to further investigate the matter. Usually, I've bristled at Eben's characterizations of the U.S. military, as I've felt his descriptions were unfair reductions which failed to take into account the difficulty faced by soldiers in making decisions. Yet, my own position only holds water so long as the weight of such choices are seriously considered. What I saw in the video seemed an unjustifiable example of lethal carelessness, and I was angry.
When I brought this topic up with Eben, he suggested I take a closer look at what I didn't know, and not jump to conclusions. Where I saw incontrovertible video footage, Eben saw over-reliance on a single evidentiary source. He was right.
Concerns
When I began to analyze my source more critically, I was shocked by how many things I had taken for granted. I quickly discovered that I could not, for example, draw a straight line from WikiLeaks to the Apache video. Rather than hosting the video outright, the WikiLeaks site was referring viewers to a Youtube video hosted by "sunshinepress," and to a second website entitled CollateralMurder for further info. Off the bat, I needed to assume that "sunshinepress" was accurately hosting the Wikileaks footage, and that WikiLeaks, CollateralMurder, and "sunshinepress" were indeed affiliated with the Wikileaks organization.
I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. While a number of reputable news sources, including Reuters, and the Associated Press, claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid.
Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself contains gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced.
Analysis
The footage itself tells an interesting story. The long video establishes that the Apaches were directed to the area after receiving reports of armed individuals, and in addition to the journalists, early portions of the video feature individuals who seem to be carrying weapons (2:04-2:24). Later on, the footage reflects a discovery by the ground troops of an individual lying on top of an RPG round (19:18), and the subsequent sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered weapons and ammunition among the dead. I was initially under the impression that the Iraqis involved were unarmed--further research and examination of the footage complicated the picture.
At the same time, the written reports provide important context for the events of the video. As an example, the informal investigation revealed that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. This is not clear from the footage alone. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. The written reports clarify important situational considerations influencing the pilots' actions.
Yet, even after reading through the written sources, certain questions remain. The incident involving the van remains troublesome--I do not understand why the van was perceived as a threat or why engagement was authorized. Both the sworn statements and the video reflect that the pilots were aware that the van was picking up wounded, and the van demonstrates no obvious hostile act/intent.
WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be the rules of engagement (ROE) in place--important for contextualizing the pilots' actions--during July 2007. The usual authenticity questions remain. Yet, if the ROE are authentic, I don't understand how the van squares with the requisite procedure for positively identifying a threat before using force. Nor do I understand how the additional bursts of fire (crowd (4:18-4:24), van (9:14-9:30)), comport with the restriction against firing at previously neutralized/incapacitated threats. If the ROE were properly applied, I am bothered by the prospect that the military is not sufficiently considering the welfare of civilians or the injured, and is casting too wide a net in defining combatants.
Conclusion
I remain troubled by the incidents of July 12, 2007. However, I see now that my initial ire –sparked by viewing the short video—was premature. In relying on a single source, I failed to exercise critical judgment and left myself closed to other interpretations of the event.
A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David This article came out in the New York Times today and involved a discussion of the use of video evidence in the incidents involving NYPD officers pushing Critical Mass riders of bicycles. One of the assertions is that the video evidence was key in securing the charges against/conviction of Patrick Pogan. Not exactly on point, but related both to Ron's original paper and my rewrite, so I figured I'd post it for all who are interested. Best, -David
Ron, ever since reading your paper, I've been following this story. I don't know if you saw this article in the New York Times today, but the saga continues. Look like the leaks go beyond this video. Hope the summer is treating you well, and please keep updating the MagCourt page - I really enjoyed the first "installment". It reminds me of my experience working in arraignments in Queens a few years back. Best, -David
When I began to analyze my source more critically, I was shocked by how many things I had taken for granted. I quickly discovered that I could not, for example, draw a straight line from WikiLeaks to the Apache video. Rather than hosting the video outright, the WikiLeaks site was referring viewers to a Youtube video hosted by "sunshinepress," and to a second website entitled CollateralMurder for further info. Off the bat, I needed to assume that "sunshinepress" was accurately hosting the Wikileaks footage, and that WikiLeaks, CollateralMurder, and "sunshinepress" were indeed affiliated with the Wikileaks organization.
Changed:
< <
I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. While a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press, claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid.
> >
I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. While a number of reputable news sources, including Reuters, and the Associated Press, claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid.
Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself contains gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced.
I remain troubled by the incidents of July 12, 2007. However, I see now that my initial ire –sparked by viewing the short video—was premature. In relying on a single source, I failed to exercise critical judgment and left myself closed to other interpretations of the event.
Deleted:
< <
When I first saw the Wikileaks images, I thought I knew all I needed--ignoring important gaps of knowledge deeply relevant to the events of July 12. I would have been better served to recall the words of Zhuangzi on certainty:
“Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David This article came out in the New York Times today and involved a discussion of the use of video evidence in the incidents involving NYPD officers pushing Critical Mass riders of bicycles. One of the assertions is that the video evidence was key in securing the charges against/conviction of Patrick Pogan. Not exactly on point, but related both to Ron's original paper and my rewrite, so I figured I'd post it for all who are interested. Best, -David
A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David This article came out in the New York Times today and involved a discussion of the use of video evidence in the incidents involving NYPD officers pushing Critical Mass riders of bicycles. One of the assertions is that the video evidence was key in securing the charges against/conviction of Patrick Pogan. Not exactly on point, but related both to Ron's original paper and my rewrite, so I figured I'd post it for all who are interested. Best, -David
Added:
> >
Ron, ever since reading your paper, I've been following this story. I don't know if you saw this article in the New York Times today, but the saga continues. Look like the leaks go beyond this video. Hope the summer is treating you well, and please keep updating the MagCourt page - I really enjoyed the first "installment". It reminds me of my experience working in arraignments in Queens a few years back. Best, -David
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version of the video.
Changed:
< <
The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions. Reuters' requests for a more substantial investigation have not been granted.
> >
The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an informal investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions.
Changed:
< <
When I first saw the short video, about a week after it hit the news, I was scandalized. I had taken a class on the laws of war and American military intervention in college, and I was pretty sure that what I had seen contravened portions of the Geneva Conventions. I was further shocked that the Army had declined to further investigate the matter. Usually, I've bristled at Eben's characterizations of the U.S. military, as I've felt his descriptions were unfair reductions which failed to take into account the difficulty faced by soldiers at wartime in making decisions with imperfect information and with lives hanging in the balance. Yet, my own position only holds water so long as the people making the decisions are taking the weight of their choices seriously. What I saw in the video seemed an unjustifiable example of lethal carelessness, and I was angry.
> >
When I first saw the short video, about a week after it hit the news, I was scandalized. I was pretty sure that what I saw contravened portions of the Geneva Conventions, and I was shocked that the Army declined to further investigate the matter. Usually, I've bristled at Eben's characterizations of the U.S. military, as I've felt his descriptions were unfair reductions which failed to take into account the difficulty faced by soldiers in making decisions. Yet, my own position only holds water so long as the weight of such choices are seriously considered. What I saw in the video seemed an unjustifiable example of lethal carelessness, and I was angry.
Changed:
< <
When I brought this topic up with Eben, along with my idea of analyzing the footage for war crimes violations, Eben suggested I take a closer look and not jump to conclusions. Where I saw incontrovertible video footage, he saw over-reliance on a single evidentiary source. He was right.
> >
When I brought this topic up with Eben, he suggested I take a closer look at what I didn't know, and not jump to conclusions. Where I saw incontrovertible video footage, Eben saw over-reliance on a single evidentiary source. He was right.
Concerns
Changed:
< <
When I began to analyze my source more critically, I was shocked by how many things I had taken for granted. I quickly discovered that I could not, for example, draw a straight line from WikiLeaks to the Apache video. Rather than hosting the video outright, the WikiLeaks site was referring viewers to Youtube to view a video hosted by "sunshinepress," and to a second website entitled CollateralMurder for further info. Off the bat, I needed to assume that "sunshinepress" was accurately hosting the Wikileaks footage, and that WikiLeaks, CollateralMurder, and "sunshinepress" were indeed affiliated with the Wikileaks organization.
> >
When I began to analyze my source more critically, I was shocked by how many things I had taken for granted. I quickly discovered that I could not, for example, draw a straight line from WikiLeaks to the Apache video. Rather than hosting the video outright, the WikiLeaks site was referring viewers to a Youtube video hosted by "sunshinepress," and to a second website entitled CollateralMurder for further info. Off the bat, I needed to assume that "sunshinepress" was accurately hosting the Wikileaks footage, and that WikiLeaks, CollateralMurder, and "sunshinepress" were indeed affiliated with the Wikileaks organization.
Changed:
< <
I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. And while a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid.
> >
I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. While a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press, claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid.
Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself contains gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced.
Analysis
Changed:
< <
The footage itself tells an interesting story. The long video establishes that the Apaches were directed to the area after receiving reports of armed individuals, and in addition to the journalists, early portions of the video feature individuals who seem to be carrying weapons (2:04-2:24). Later on, the footage reflects a discovery by the ground troops of an individual lying on top of an RPG round (19:18), and the subsequent sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered weapons and ammunition among the dead. I was initially under the impression that the Iraqis involved were unarmed--further research and examination of the footage complicates the picture.
> >
The footage itself tells an interesting story. The long video establishes that the Apaches were directed to the area after receiving reports of armed individuals, and in addition to the journalists, early portions of the video feature individuals who seem to be carrying weapons (2:04-2:24). Later on, the footage reflects a discovery by the ground troops of an individual lying on top of an RPG round (19:18), and the subsequent sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered weapons and ammunition among the dead. I was initially under the impression that the Iraqis involved were unarmed--further research and examination of the footage complicated the picture.
Changed:
< <
At the same time, the written reports provide important context for the events of the video. As an example, the informal investigation revealed that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. This is not clear from the footage alone. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. The written reports clarify important emotional and situational considerations influencing the pilots' actions.
> >
At the same time, the written reports provide important context for the events of the video. As an example, the informal investigation revealed that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. This is not clear from the footage alone. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. The written reports clarify important situational considerations influencing the pilots' actions.
Changed:
< <
Yet, even after reading through the written sources, certain questions remain. The incident involving the van remains troublesome--I do not understand why the van was perceived as a threat or why engagement was authorized. Both the sworn statements and the video reflect that the pilots were aware that the van was picking up wounded, and the van does not seem to pose any threat. However, the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under--important for contextualizing the pilots' actions--are not publicly available.
> >
Yet, even after reading through the written sources, certain questions remain. The incident involving the van remains troublesome--I do not understand why the van was perceived as a threat or why engagement was authorized. Both the sworn statements and the video reflect that the pilots were aware that the van was picking up wounded, and the van demonstrates no obvious hostile act/intent.
Changed:
< <
WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. The usual authenticity questions remain. Yet, if the ROE are authentic, I don't understand how the van squares with the requisite procedure for positively identifying a threat before using force. Nor do I understand how the additional bursts of fire (crowd (4:18-4:24), van (9:14-9:30)), comport with the restriction against firing at previously neutralized/incapacitated threats. If the ROE were properly applied, I am bothered by the prospect that the military is not sufficiently considering the welfare of civilians or the injured, and is casting too wide a net in defining combatants.
> >
WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be the rules of engagement (ROE) in place--important for contextualizing the pilots' actions--during July 2007. The usual authenticity questions remain. Yet, if the ROE are authentic, I don't understand how the van squares with the requisite procedure for positively identifying a threat before using force. Nor do I understand how the additional bursts of fire (crowd (4:18-4:24), van (9:14-9:30)), comport with the restriction against firing at previously neutralized/incapacitated threats. If the ROE were properly applied, I am bothered by the prospect that the military is not sufficiently considering the welfare of civilians or the injured, and is casting too wide a net in defining combatants.
Changed:
< <
Zhuangzi
> >
Conclusion
I remain troubled by the incidents of July 12, 2007. However, I see now that my initial ire –sparked by viewing the short video—was premature. In relying on a single source, I failed to exercise critical judgment and left myself closed to other interpretations of the event.
Changed:
< <
"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see."
> >
When I first saw the Wikileaks images, I thought I knew all I needed--ignoring important gaps of knowledge deeply relevant to the events of July 12. I would have been better served to recall the words of Zhuangzi on certainty:
Changed:
< <
Zhuangzi did not write about analyzing evidence. He wrote about what it means to live a harmonious life. Nevertheless, a couple of ideas struck me as particularly relevant to this topic. There is the notion of relativity and perspective: what seems natural to a fish seems wrong to a snake, yet who is qualified to judge which is more correct? There is the error of intellectual overconfidence--believing unknowable things to be knowable, or, in a more basic sense, believing that one knows anything at all. Finally, there is the example of the perfect man--an individual who, among other attributes, does not struggle against the facts of life but embraces things as they are, good and bad.
These ideas interrelate. For example, do we know that death is a bad thing, or that the dead are less happy than the living? If one can dream of being a butterfly, is it not possible that one is a butterfly dreaming of being a man? Is not uselessness a virtue, given that the useless live life unmolested by outside pressures? Zhuangzi likes existential questions, and uses them to challenge assumptions.
"Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
(My reading of Zhuangzi brought home the need to maintain an open and critical perspective.)
Work in progress...
> >
“Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David
(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)
Changed:
< <
Introduction and Background
> >
Introduction
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version of the video.
The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions. Reuters' requests for a more substantial investigation have not been granted.
Line: 35 to 35
Analysis
Changed:
< <
These are just two of the many issues with the videos posted. Given, however, that we can't verify the authenticity of the video and that it appears as though even the "full" video may have been altered, the next step is to consider what we know about the incident after the leak. We know that at least eleven people died on July 12, 2007 as a result of the incident in question. We know that among the dead were Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, two Reuters employees. Beyond this, however, the videos WikiLeaks revealed add little to our knowledge of the events surrounding the incident in question.
> >
The footage itself tells an interesting story. The long video establishes that the Apaches were directed to the area after receiving reports of armed individuals, and in addition to the journalists, early portions of the video feature individuals who seem to be carrying weapons (2:04-2:24). Later on, the footage reflects a discovery by the ground troops of an individual lying on top of an RPG round (19:18), and the subsequent sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered weapons and ammunition among the dead. I was initially under the impression that the Iraqis involved were unarmed--further research and examination of the footage complicates the picture.
Changed:
< <
As lawyers, part of our training involves learning to be skeptical and scrutinize evidence closely. This is vital - all too often, people lie. Moreover, given technological developments, more and more people have access to programs that allow us to alter videos and photos. Adobe Photoshop is one example - people with minimal computer skills are able to convincingly alter photographs.
> >
At the same time, the written reports provide important context for the events of the video. As an example, the informal investigation revealed that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. This is not clear from the footage alone. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. The written reports clarify important emotional and situational considerations influencing the pilots' actions.
Changed:
< <
This is problematic for U.S. citizens trying to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Journalists have only partial access to much of what is taking place. Moreover, when things go wrong, as they did on July 12, 2007, the information that we have is even more limited. There are military reasons for this - full access would compromise the security of members of the military. At the same time, however, these actions are being taken on behalf of U.S. citizens. We should be able to demand some level of accountability, but given the lack of concrete evidence of what is taking place and the unreliable nature of that which does make it to the media, it is very hard to do so.
> >
Yet, even after reading through the written sources, certain questions remain. The incident involving the van remains troublesome--I do not understand why the van was perceived as a threat or why engagement was authorized. Both the sworn statements and the video reflect that the pilots were aware that the van was picking up wounded, and the van does not seem to pose any threat. However, the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under--important for contextualizing the pilots' actions--are not publicly available.
Added:
> >
WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. The usual authenticity questions remain. Yet, if the ROE are authentic, I don't understand how the van squares with the requisite procedure for positively identifying a threat before using force. Nor do I understand how the additional bursts of fire (crowd (4:18-4:24), van (9:14-9:30)), comport with the restriction against firing at previously neutralized/incapacitated threats. If the ROE were properly applied, I am bothered by the prospect that the military is not sufficiently considering the welfare of civilians or the injured, and is casting too wide a net in defining combatants.
I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. And while a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid.
Changed:
< <
Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself seemed to contain gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced.
> >
Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself contains gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced.
I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. And while a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid.
Changed:
< <
Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left the longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself seemed to contain gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced.
> >
Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left their longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself seemed to contain gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced.
Analysis
Line: 46 to 46
"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see."
Changed:
< <
"Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
> >
Zhuangzi did not write about analyzing evidence. He wrote about what it means to live a harmonious life. Nevertheless, a couple of ideas struck me as particularly relevant to this topic. There is the notion of relativity and perspective: what seems natural to a fish seems wrong to a snake, yet who is qualified to judge which is more correct? There is the error of intellectual overconfidence--believing unknowable things to be knowable, or, in a more basic sense, believing that one knows anything at all. Finally, there is the example of the perfect man--an individual who, among other attributes, does not struggle against the facts of life but embraces things as they are, good and bad.
These ideas interrelate. For example, do we know that death is a bad thing, or that the dead are less happy than the living? If one can dream of being a butterfly, is it not possible that one is a butterfly dreaming of being a man? Is not uselessness a virtue, given that the useless live life unmolested by outside pressures? Zhuangzi likes existential questions, and uses them to challenge assumptions.
Changed:
< <
Over the past week, I decided to revisit some favorite readings. Zhuangzi, a Daoist philosopher, was among the authors I read. A couple of ideas struck me as particularly relevant to this topic. There is the notion of relativity and perspective: what seems natural to a fish seems wrong to a snake, yet who is qualified to judge which is more correct? There is the error of intellectual overconfidence--believing unknowable things to be knowable, or, in a more basic sense, believing that one knows anything at all. Finally, there is the example of the perfect man--an individual who, among other things, does not struggle against the facts of life but embraces all things as they are, good and bad.
> >
"Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
Changed:
< <
My reading of Zhuangzi brought home the need to maintain an open and critical perspective towards evidence.
> >
(My reading of Zhuangzi brought home the need to maintain an open and critical perspective.)
Work in progress...
A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David
When I brought this topic up with Eben, along with my idea of analyzing the footage for war crimes violations, Eben suggested I take a closer look and not jump to conclusions. Where I saw incontrovertible video footage, he saw over-reliance on a single evidentiary source. He was right.
Deleted:
< <
Zhuangzi
"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see."
"Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
Over the past week, I decided to revisit some favorite readings. Zhuangzi, the Daoist philosopher, was among the authors I read.
Work in progress...
Concerns
Changed:
< <
There is no conclusive evidence that this is actual Apache gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement conforming, or denying, that this is legitimate. A number of news sources claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity through military sources. None have identified their sources. The video also does comport with the statements of the pilots regarding the events on the day in question. That said, without verification, we cannot know that the video is what it is claimed to be. We are left to trust the news organizations, which is unwise.
> >
When I began to analyze my source more critically, I was shocked by how many things I had taken for granted. I quickly discovered that I could not, for example, draw a straight line from WikiLeaks to the Apache video. Rather than hosting the video outright, the WikiLeaks site was referring viewers to Youtube to view a video hosted by "sunshinepress," and to a second website entitled CollateralMurder for further info. Off the bat, I needed to assume that "sunshinepress" was accurately hosting the Wikileaks footage, and that WikiLeaks, CollateralMurder, and "sunshinepress" were indeed affiliated with the Wikileaks organization.
Changed:
< <
Equally troubling are the alterations made to the videos, both in the long and the short versions. Of specific concern is the lack of a video which can be considered chronologically accurate. The short video is edited to emphasize certain events, so I will focus on the "full" video. It isn't clear to what extent this has been edited. There are multiple instances where the video fades to a black screen and shifts to a new scene (such as at 4:42). There are also instances where there appear to be cuts and shifts to new scenes that are much less obvious (3:33 and 23:27 are two of the many examples). Granted, we cannot expect perfect footage, but the combination of these shifts suggests that the "full" video isn't a true chronological record of the entire situation. Even if it is, we cannot know this definitively. It is impossible to tell how extensively the video has been edited.
> >
I was further surprised to discover that I could not verify the validity of the gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement confirming the validity of the footage. And while a number of reputable news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity, all relied on unnamed sources. Thus, I could not point to incontrovertible evidence that the footage is valid.
Further issues cropped up. Wikileaks significantly edited the short video, playing with the chronology of the events and emphasizing certain scenes to heighten the emotional impact. Having already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with facts, could I really trust that Wikileaks had left the longer version "unedited?" Moreover, the source itself seemed to contain gaps in footage, as recently recognized by Wikileaks (Gawker, CNN at 1:20). My faith that the video was a clear and sufficient source of evidence was misplaced.
Analysis
Line: 48 to 41
This is problematic for U.S. citizens trying to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Journalists have only partial access to much of what is taking place. Moreover, when things go wrong, as they did on July 12, 2007, the information that we have is even more limited. There are military reasons for this - full access would compromise the security of members of the military. At the same time, however, these actions are being taken on behalf of U.S. citizens. We should be able to demand some level of accountability, but given the lack of concrete evidence of what is taking place and the unreliable nature of that which does make it to the media, it is very hard to do so.
Deleted:
< <
Conclusions
Changed:
< <
Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions - either for this specific situation or for the more general problem of demanding accountability from our military while they are overseas.
> >
Zhuangzi
Changed:
< <
As for the July 12, 2007 incident, perhaps a second investigation, or a more in depth investigation is in order. Perhaps it is not - there are limited investigatory resources and need to be cognizant of the incentives that a second investigation would have - it would encourage the posting of unverified and potentially altered videos to obtain more in depth investigations, which isn't what we want.
> >
"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see."
Changed:
< <
In relation to the broader issue of accountability, especially since we don't have good evidence of what is happening, we must make our voices heard. We want ethical behavior by our military, and when things go wrong, we want full impartial investigations. Perhaps we should take Eben's advice, and do this the old fashioned way, by protesting. Perhaps we should try something new - online petitions and email campaigns are two quick examples. But if we want to prevent incidents like these in the future, we need to make it clear to the U.S. government that we won't stand by idly after one takes place.
> >
"Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
Over the past week, I decided to revisit some favorite readings. Zhuangzi, a Daoist philosopher, was among the authors I read. A couple of ideas struck me as particularly relevant to this topic. There is the notion of relativity and perspective: what seems natural to a fish seems wrong to a snake, yet who is qualified to judge which is more correct? There is the error of intellectual overconfidence--believing unknowable things to be knowable, or, in a more basic sense, believing that one knows anything at all. Finally, there is the example of the perfect man--an individual who, among other things, does not struggle against the facts of life but embraces all things as they are, good and bad.
My reading of Zhuangzi brought home the need to maintain an open and critical perspective towards evidence.
Work in progress...
A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David
Video Evidence and the July 12, 2007 Apache Controversy
> >
The Dao of Not Knowing
Changed:
< <
-- By Ron Mazor, rewritten by David Goldin
> >
-- By Ron Mazor
Line: 17 to 17
(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)
Introduction and Background
Changed:
< <
The use of video evidence presents a number of problems. We cannot simply accept videos at face value - they are very easy to alter, cut and stage. This is a given. In this paper, I will briefly analyze two videos pertaining to a particular incident. My goal will be to determine what I can, and can't, know given the above videos. I will then discuss the broader implications this has.
> >
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version of the video.
The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions. Reuters' requests for a more substantial investigation have not been granted.
Changed:
< <
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version of the video. If they are true depictions of the events, the videos cast a shadow of doubt upon the results of the U.S. investigation into the incident.
> >
When I first saw the short video, about a week after it hit the news, I was scandalized. I had taken a class on the laws of war and American military intervention in college, and I was pretty sure that what I had seen contravened portions of the Geneva Conventions. I was further shocked that the Army had declined to further investigate the matter. Usually, I've bristled at Eben's characterizations of the U.S. military, as I've felt his descriptions were unfair reductions which failed to take into account the difficulty faced by soldiers at wartime in making decisions with imperfect information and with lives hanging in the balance. Yet, my own position only holds water so long as the people making the decisions are taking the weight of their choices seriously. What I saw in the video seemed an unjustifiable example of lethal carelessness, and I was angry.
When I brought this topic up with Eben, along with my idea of analyzing the footage for war crimes violations, Eben suggested I take a closer look and not jump to conclusions. Where I saw incontrovertible video footage, he saw over-reliance on a single evidentiary source. He was right.
Zhuangzi
"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see."
"Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument...Forget the years; forget distinction. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"
Over the past week, I decided to revisit some favorite readings. Zhuangzi, the Daoist philosopher, was among the authors I read.
Work in progress...
In relation to the broader issue of accountability, especially since we don't have good evidence of what is happening, we must make our voices heard. We want ethical behavior by our military, and when things go wrong, we want full impartial investigations. Perhaps we should take Eben's advice, and do this the old fashioned way, by protesting. Perhaps we should try something new - online petitions and email campaigns are two quick examples. But if we want to prevent incidents like these in the future, we need to make it clear to the U.S. government that we won't stand by idly after one takes place.
A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David
\ No newline at end of file
Added:
> >
This article came out in the New York Times today and involved a discussion of the use of video evidence in the incidents involving NYPD officers pushing Critical Mass riders of bicycles. One of the assertions is that the video evidence was key in securing the charges against/conviction of Patrick Pogan. Not exactly on point, but related both to Ron's original paper and my rewrite, so I figured I'd post it for all who are interested. Best, -David
Video Evidence and the July 12, 2007 Apache Controversy
Line: 24 to 22
The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions. Reuters' requests for a more substantial investigation have not been granted.
Changed:
< <
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version. Both videos cast a shadow of doubt upon the results of the U.S. investigation into the incident.
> >
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version of the video. If they are true depictions of the events, the videos cast a shadow of doubt upon the results of the U.S. investigation into the incident.
Concerns
Changed:
< <
There is no conclusive evidence that this is actual Apache gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement conforming, or denying, that this is legitimate. A number of news sources claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity through unnamed military sources. None have identified their sources. The video also does comport with the statements of the pilots regarding the events on the day in question. That said, without verification, we cannot know that the video is what it is claimed to be. We are left to trust the news organizations, which is unwise.
> >
There is no conclusive evidence that this is actual Apache gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement conforming, or denying, that this is legitimate. A number of news sources claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity through military sources. None have identified their sources. The video also does comport with the statements of the pilots regarding the events on the day in question. That said, without verification, we cannot know that the video is what it is claimed to be. We are left to trust the news organizations, which is unwise.
Changed:
< <
Equally troubling are the alterations made to the videos, both in the long and the short versions. Of specific concern is the lack of a video which can be considered chronologically accurate. The short video is edited to emphasize certain events, so I will focus on the "full" video. It isn't clear to what extent this has been edited. There are multiple instances where the video fades to a black screen and shifts to a new scene (such as at 4:42). There are also instances where there appear to be cuts and shifts to new scenes that are much less obvious (3:33 and 23:27 are two of the many examples). Granted, we cannot expect perfect footage, but the combination of these shifts strongly suggests that the "full" video isn't a true chronological record of the entire situation. Moreover, it is impossible to tell how clear extensively the video has been edited.
> >
Equally troubling are the alterations made to the videos, both in the long and the short versions. Of specific concern is the lack of a video which can be considered chronologically accurate. The short video is edited to emphasize certain events, so I will focus on the "full" video. It isn't clear to what extent this has been edited. There are multiple instances where the video fades to a black screen and shifts to a new scene (such as at 4:42). There are also instances where there appear to be cuts and shifts to new scenes that are much less obvious (3:33 and 23:27 are two of the many examples). Granted, we cannot expect perfect footage, but the combination of these shifts suggests that the "full" video isn't a true chronological record of the entire situation. Even if it is, we cannot know this definitively. It is impossible to tell how extensively the video has been edited.
Analysis
Changed:
< <
These are just two of the many issues with the videos posted. Given, however, that we can't verify the authenticity of the video and that it appears as though even the "full" video may have been altered, the next step is to consider what we know, both about the videos and about the incident. We know that at least eleven people died on July 12, 2007 as a result of the incident in question. We know that among the dead were Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, two Reuters employees. Beyond this, however, the videos WikiLeaks revealed add little more to our knowledge of the events surrounding the incident in question.
> >
These are just two of the many issues with the videos posted. Given, however, that we can't verify the authenticity of the video and that it appears as though even the "full" video may have been altered, the next step is to consider what we know about the incident after the leak. We know that at least eleven people died on July 12, 2007 as a result of the incident in question. We know that among the dead were Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, two Reuters employees. Beyond this, however, the videos WikiLeaks revealed add little to our knowledge of the events surrounding the incident in question.
Changed:
< <
As lawyers, part of our training involves learning to be skeptical and scrutinize evidence closely. This is vital; all too often, people lie. Moreover, given technological developments, more and more people have access to programs that allow us to alter videos and photos. Adobe Photoshop is one example - people with minimal computer skills can convincingly alter photographs.
> >
As lawyers, part of our training involves learning to be skeptical and scrutinize evidence closely. This is vital - all too often, people lie. Moreover, given technological developments, more and more people have access to programs that allow us to alter videos and photos. Adobe Photoshop is one example - people with minimal computer skills are able to convincingly alter photographs.
Changed:
< <
This is problematic for U.S. citizens trying to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Journalists have only partial access to much of what is taking place. Moreover, when things go wrong, as they did on July 12, 2007, the information that we have is even more limited. There are military reasons for this - full access would compromise the security of members of the military. At the same time, however, these actions are being taken on behalf of U.S. citizens. We should be able to demand some level of accountability, but given the lack of evidence of what is taking place and the unreliable nature of that which does make it to the media, it is very hard to do so.
> >
This is problematic for U.S. citizens trying to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Journalists have only partial access to much of what is taking place. Moreover, when things go wrong, as they did on July 12, 2007, the information that we have is even more limited. There are military reasons for this - full access would compromise the security of members of the military. At the same time, however, these actions are being taken on behalf of U.S. citizens. We should be able to demand some level of accountability, but given the lack of concrete evidence of what is taking place and the unreliable nature of that which does make it to the media, it is very hard to do so.
Conclusions
Changed:
< <
Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions - either for this specific situation or for the more general problem of demanding accountability from our military while they are taking actions overseas.
> >
Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions - either for this specific situation or for the more general problem of demanding accountability from our military while they are overseas.
As for the July 12, 2007 incident, perhaps a second investigation, or a more in depth investigation is in order. Perhaps it is not - there are limited investigatory resources and need to be cognizant of the incentives that a second investigation would have - it would encourage the posting of unverified and potentially altered videos to obtain more in depth investigations, which isn't what we want.
Changed:
< <
As for the July 12, 2007 incident, perhaps a second investigation, or a more in depth investigation is in order. Perhaps it is not - there are limited investigatory resources and need to be cognizant of the incentives that a second investigation would have - it would encourage the posting of unverified and potentially altered videos to obtain more in depth investigations. This isn't what we want.
> >
In relation to the broader issue of accountability, especially since we don't have good evidence of what is happening, we must make our voices heard. We want ethical behavior by our military, and when things go wrong, we want full impartial investigations. Perhaps we should take Eben's advice, and do this the old fashioned way, by protesting. Perhaps we should try something new - online petitions and email campaigns are two quick examples. But if we want to prevent incidents like these in the future, we need to make it clear to the U.S. government that we won't stand by idly after one takes place.
Changed:
< <
In relation to the broader issue of accountability, especially since we don't have good evidence of what is happening, we must make our voices heard. Perhaps we should take Eben's advice, and do this the old fashioned way, by protesting. Perhaps we should try something new - online petitions and email campaigns are two quick examples. But if we want to prevent incidents like these in the future, we need to make it clear to the U.S. government that we won't stand by idly after one takes place.
> >
A quick note - Ron: after our discussion, I reconsidered my earlier comments and have taken another approach to editing your paper. Please don't hesitate to contact me - either on this page or by email - if you have concerns about the direction I have taken this paper in or if you have additional tips. Many thanks for the explanation, and congratulations on completing the school year. Best wishes for a great summer! -David
(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)
Added:
> >
Introduction and Background
Added:
> >
The use of video evidence presents a number of problems. We cannot simply accept videos at face value - they are very easy to alter, cut and stage. This is a given. In this paper, I will briefly analyze two videos pertaining to a particular incident. My goal will be to determine what I can, and can't, know given the above videos. I will then discuss the broader implications this has.
Changed:
< <
Can video be trusted?
> >
The videos pertain to a helicopter strike by U.S. forces on July 12, 2007 in Iraq. The strike killed two Reuters employees, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, as well as nine other individuals. The U.S. conducted an investigation into the incident (AR 15-6, Pilot Sworn Statements, Legal Review) (explanation of AR 15-6). The conclusion was that the pilots had acted appropriately, and the U.S. declined to take further actions. Reuters' requests for a more substantial investigation have not been granted.
Changed:
< <
Background
> >
On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks posted the above short video on its site. They also linked to Collateral Murder, which had a second, "full" version. Both videos cast a shadow of doubt upon the results of the U.S. investigation into the incident.
On April 5th, 2010, WikiLeaks made headlines by posting a 17-minute video purporting to be the gun camera footage of one of the Apaches involved in the strike. The footage is graphic and disturbing, and has raised questions for some as to whether the investigation and its conclusions were correct.
> >
There is no conclusive evidence that this is actual Apache gun camera footage. The Pentagon has not released an official statement conforming, or denying, that this is legitimate. A number of news sources claim to have confirmed the video's authenticity through unnamed military sources. None have identified their sources. The video also does comport with the statements of the pilots regarding the events on the day in question. That said, without verification, we cannot know that the video is what it is claimed to be. We are left to trust the news organizations, which is unwise.
Changed:
< <
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
> >
Equally troubling are the alterations made to the videos, both in the long and the short versions. Of specific concern is the lack of a video which can be considered chronologically accurate. The short video is edited to emphasize certain events, so I will focus on the "full" video. It isn't clear to what extent this has been edited. There are multiple instances where the video fades to a black screen and shifts to a new scene (such as at 4:42). There are also instances where there appear to be cuts and shifts to new scenes that are much less obvious (3:33 and 23:27 are two of the many examples). Granted, we cannot expect perfect footage, but the combination of these shifts strongly suggests that the "full" video isn't a true chronological record of the entire situation. Moreover, it is impossible to tell how clear extensively the video has been edited.
Changed:
< <
WikiLeaks is not hosting either video itself, but provides an embedded link to the shorter Youtube video. The site stipulates that those who desire further information should visit CollateralMurder. Reuters reported that WikiLeaks originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder.
> >
Analysis
Changed:
< <
At CollateralMurder, one finds embedded Youtube links to two videos--the short version also found at WikiLeaks and the longer video, purported to be the full version of what WikiLeaks obtained. I have watched both versions side-by-side, and found the two to be similar. Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress."
> >
These are just two of the many issues with the videos posted. Given, however, that we can't verify the authenticity of the video and that it appears as though even the "full" video may have been altered, the next step is to consider what we know, both about the videos and about the incident. We know that at least eleven people died on July 12, 2007 as a result of the incident in question. We know that among the dead were Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, two Reuters employees. Beyond this, however, the videos WikiLeaks revealed add little more to our knowledge of the events surrounding the incident in question.
Changed:
< <
Conclusion: Though much circumstantial evidence exists, I cannot draw a straight line from Youtube user "sunshinepress" to WikiLeaks or CollateralMurder. However, both sites seem to endorse the "sunshinepress" videos.
> >
As lawyers, part of our training involves learning to be skeptical and scrutinize evidence closely. This is vital; all too often, people lie. Moreover, given technological developments, more and more people have access to programs that allow us to alter videos and photos. Adobe Photoshop is one example - people with minimal computer skills can convincingly alter photographs.
Changed:
< <
Is the video the actual Apache gun camera footage?
> >
This is problematic for U.S. citizens trying to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Journalists have only partial access to much of what is taking place. Moreover, when things go wrong, as they did on July 12, 2007, the information that we have is even more limited. There are military reasons for this - full access would compromise the security of members of the military. At the same time, however, these actions are being taken on behalf of U.S. citizens. We should be able to demand some level of accountability, but given the lack of evidence of what is taking place and the unreliable nature of that which does make it to the media, it is very hard to do so.
Changed:
< <
The Pentagon has not released an official, attributable statement confirming the validity of the footage. However, Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Britain's Daily Telegraph all claim to have verified the video's authenticity via unnamed military sources. Additionally, the events described in the pilot statements and the AR 15-6 investigation reflect portions of the WikiLeaks video.
> >
Conclusions
Changed:
< <
Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations.
> >
Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions - either for this specific situation or for the more general problem of demanding accountability from our military while they are taking actions overseas.
Changed:
< <
Did WikiLeaks edit or alter the footage in a way which reduces its evidentiary value?
> >
As for the July 12, 2007 incident, perhaps a second investigation, or a more in depth investigation is in order. Perhaps it is not - there are limited investigatory resources and need to be cognizant of the incentives that a second investigation would have - it would encourage the posting of unverified and potentially altered videos to obtain more in depth investigations. This isn't what we want.
Deleted:
< <
Quite possibly. The short video differs from the "full" version in troubling ways. On a basic level, the short segment adds subjective analysis to the footage. These additions are a subtle taint, as they remove the viewer from the events as seen by the pilots. Additionally, I found WikiLeak's labels do draw the eye and distract the viewer, as noted by Fox News.
More damagingly, the video plays with chronology. The short video skips the first 1:25 of the long video. As such, it isn't clear that the Apaches were directed to the area after reports of people with weapons. The short video cuts out the pilots' initial reaction of regret to the news that a child was wounded at 17:19, and omits the ground report that an individual was found on top of an RPG round at 19:18. The short video plays with the chronology of the rescue of the children, weaving between footage separated by as much as five minutes and playing segments out of order to make the events appear seamless. It also utilizes some of the more disturbing radio chatter out of chronological order to increase shock value (15:27 in short vid, jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long).
As such, questions exist about the integrity of the "full" video. On multiple occasions, both videos fade to black and shift to a new scene (example--4:42 long). This creates an impression that the film has been edited. This impression is troublesome given that both videos seem to be incomplete records of the events, omitting a number of intermediate events described in multiple sworn pilot statements.
Conclusion: WikiLeaks showed a willingness to edit the short video in a subjective manner. Neither set of footage completely reflects the pilot statements and the videos seem to contain time lapses. I cannot say that the footage was not altered.
Is the video an accurate reflection of the events?
The AR 15-6 investigation brings facts to light which are not clear from the video. The sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered RPG launchers, at least one AK-47, and a wounded individual lying on top of a RPG round. If accurate, it seems the reporters were in the company of combatants. At the same time, the investigation reveals that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. Additionally, the investigation makes clear that the ground troops were consistently taking RPG and AK fire in that area during the operation, and that the Apaches were flying a Troops In Contact (TIC) air support mission.
There are a number of disturbing scenes in the video. The most damning footage is that of the van's destruction. The investigations, sworn statements, and the video all seem to establish that the pilots knew the people in the van were picking up the wounded, and I did not find a clear vocalization of a threat which the van posed. There are also additional bursts of fire, both at the crowd (4:18-4:24 (long)) and the van (9:14-9:30 (long)), after radio chatter implies the threat seems neutralized. As such, I would like to better understand the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under.
WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. I cannot verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if there was a requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, as defined by the Wikileaks documents. If so, I would like to know how the van's behavior satisfied the requirement. I would also like to know if the actual ROE included a proscription against firing at the injured/neutralized, as implied by Wikileaks.
Conclusion: The video, on its own, lacks necessary context. The footage provides a single perspective, and sometimes has a poor view of the events (ex: 4:18-4:24). Moreover, without the official ROE, one cannot place the pilots' behavior in context.
\ No newline at end of file
Added:
> >
In relation to the broader issue of accountability, especially since we don't have good evidence of what is happening, we must make our voices heard. Perhaps we should take Eben's advice, and do this the old fashioned way, by protesting. Perhaps we should try something new - online petitions and email campaigns are two quick examples. But if we want to prevent incidents like these in the future, we need to make it clear to the U.S. government that we won't stand by idly after one takes place.
On April 5th, 2010, WikiLeaks made headlines by posting a 17-minute video purporting to be the gun camera footage of one of the Apaches involved in the strike. The footage is graphic and disturbing, and has raised questions for some as to whether the investigation and its conclusions were correct.
> >
On April 5th, 2010, WikiLeaks made headlines by posting a 17-minute video purporting to be the gun camera footage of one of the Apaches involved in the strike. The footage is graphic and disturbing, and has raised questions for some as to whether the investigation and its conclusions were correct.
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
Line: 40 to 40
The Pentagon has not released an official, attributable statement confirming the validity of the footage. However, Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Britain's Daily Telegraph all claim to have verified the video's authenticity via unnamed military sources. Additionally, the events described in the pilot statements and the AR 15-6 investigation reflect portions of the WikiLeaks video.
Changed:
< <
Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree to which I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations.
> >
Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations.
Did WikiLeaks edit or alter the footage in a way which reduces its evidentiary value?
Quite possibly. The short video differs from the "full" version in troubling ways. On a basic level, the short segment adds subjective analysis to the footage. These additions are a subtle taint, as they remove the viewer from the events as seen by the pilots. Additionally, I found WikiLeak's labels do draw the eye and distract the viewer, as noted by Fox News.
Changed:
< <
More damagingly, the video plays with chronology. The short video skips the first 1:25 of the long video. As such, it isn't clear that the Apaches were directed to the area after reports of people with weapons. The short video cuts out the pilots' initial reaction of regret to the news that a child was wounded at 17:19, and omits the ground report that an individual was found on top of an RPG round at 19:18. The short video plays with the chronology of the rescue of the children, weaving between footage separated by as much as five minutes and playing segments out of order to make the events appear seamless. It also utilizes some of the more disturbing radio chatter out of chronological order to increase shock value (15:27 in short vid video , jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long).
> >
More damagingly, the video plays with chronology. The short video skips the first 1:25 of the long video. As such, it isn't clear that the Apaches were directed to the area after reports of people with weapons. The short video cuts out the pilots' initial reaction of regret to the news that a child was wounded at 17:19, and omits the ground report that an individual was found on top of an RPG round at 19:18. The short video plays with the chronology of the rescue of the children, weaving between footage separated by as much as five minutes and playing segments out of order to make the events appear seamless. It also utilizes some of the more disturbing radio chatter out of chronological order to increase shock value (15:27 in short vid, jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long).
As such, questions exist about the integrity of the "full" video. On multiple occasions, both videos fade to black and shift to a new scene (example--4:42 long). This creates an impression that the film has been edited. This impression is troublesome given that both videos seem to be incomplete records of the events, omitting a number of intermediate events described in multiple sworn pilot statements.
Line: 61 to 61
WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. I cannot verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if there was a requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, as defined by the Wikileaks documents. If so, I would like to know how the van's behavior satisfied the requirement. I would also like to know if the actual ROE included a proscription against firing at the injured/neutralized, as implied by Wikileaks.
Conclusion: The video, on its own, lacks necessary context. The footage provides a single perspective, and sometimes has a poor view of the events (ex: 4:18-4:24). Moreover, without the official ROE, one cannot place the pilots' behavior in context.
Deleted:
< <
I'll begin with the general commentary and then discuss specific elements of your paper and give some suggestions. I'm going to discuss how I would have written this paper differently - the way I would have done it is not necessarily the correct way, so feel free to ignore whatever I say. I'm not going to sugarcoat my comments here. Overall, however, I think that your paper is well written, thought provoking and convincingly argued.
My main issue with this paper is that it is difficult for me to understand what your overall goal is. You begin by asking whether video can be trusted. Ashley Simpson asked a similar question in class (or rather, suggested that videos were a good type of evidence) and Eben made it pretty clear that videos can be easily manipulated. Not only can they be manipulated, but they can be edited in ways that affect the viewer's understanding of the events. They can also be played out of context, or can be cut at inappropriate points. In short, it seems like we've already established that videos can't be trusted. You don't need 1000 words to tell us this.
That said, it seems like you are trying to do something different. You appear to be analyzing various elements of these specific videos: where the videos came from, whether they are actually Apache footage, whether they are inappropriately edited and whether they reflect the events accurately. Each of these questions is a valid one. Given that you have so little space, however, it seems like it may have made more sense to have discussed a single one of these topics - while breadth has its value, you certainly sacrifice depth and none of the points are argued very convincingly. I would have started the paper by signaling that there are a lot of potential issues with these videos, including the ones that you mentioned, and chose one to focus on.
Specifically, your analysis of whether the video is actual Apache gun camera footage is particularly lacking. You barely scratch the surface of a topic that could be the subject of a much longer paper. You don't do the topic justice, and I think it would be far more effective for you to mention that this is another potential issue, but that you won't explore it in this paper. I am of the belief that it is better to not discuss something than to do so in a lacking way.
I think that the last section is the most convincingly argued by far. You address many of the problems that come with using videos for evidence, namely the lack of context, poor views and only one perspective, and you give concrete examples to back this up. I know that we're all short on time, but if this is something that really interests you, I'd recommend expanding this one section and giving a bit more in-depth analysis as opposed to trying to touch on so many issues (perhaps post finals). I'd definitely read it.
Don't know if you encountered it in Civ Pro, but the Supreme Court grappled with similar issues recently in Scott v. Harris.~Shawn
Shawn - that was one of the issues in Scott v. Harris, but I think the big issue was whether the justices of the Supreme Court could definitively state that the Scott's actions were reasonable. From what I understand, the concerns weren't about whether the video could be trusted, rather, they were about whether the justices should be reviewing video evidence given their role and their disconnect from the "real" world.
Ron - I have saved this as a new revision. I'm happy to talk about this, feel free to write back to me in another color.
Line: 73 to 73
I think that the last section is the most convincingly argued by far. You address many of the problems that come with using videos for evidence, namely the lack of context, poor views and only one perspective, and you give concrete examples to back this up. I know that we're all short on time, but if this is something that really interests you, I'd recommend expanding this one section and giving a bit more in-depth analysis as opposed to trying to touch on so many issues (perhaps post finals). I'd definitely read it.
Don't know if you encountered it in Civ Pro, but the Supreme Court grappled with similar issues recently in Scott v. Harris.~Shawn
\ No newline at end of file
Added:
> >
Shawn - that was one of the issues in Scott v. Harris, but I think the big issue was whether the justices of the Supreme Court could definitively state that the Scott's actions were reasonable. From what I understand, the concerns weren't about whether the video could be trusted, rather, they were about whether the justices should be reviewing video evidence given their role and their disconnect from the "real" world.
Ron - I have saved this as a new revision. I'm happy to talk about this, feel free to write back to me in another color.
Line: 71 to 71
Specifically, your analysis of whether the video is actual Apache gun camera footage is particularly lacking. You barely scratch the surface of a topic that could be the subject of a much longer paper. You don't do the topic justice, and I think it would be far more effective for you to mention that this is another potential issue, but that you won't explore it in this paper. I am of the belief that it is better to not discuss something than to do so in a lacking way.
I think that the last section is the most convincingly argued by far. You address many of the problems that come with using videos for evidence, namely the lack of context, poor views and only one perspective, and you give concrete examples to back this up. I know that we're all short on time, but if this is something that really interests you, I'd recommend expanding this one section and giving a bit more in-depth analysis as opposed to trying to touch on so many issues (perhaps post finals). I'd definitely read it.
Added:
> >
Don't know if you encountered it in Civ Pro, but the Supreme Court grappled with similar issues recently in Scott v. Harris.~Shawn
On April 5th, 2010, WikiLeaks made headlines by posting a 17-minute video purporting to be the gun camera footage of one of the Apaches involved in the strike. The footage is graphic and disturbing, and has raised questions for some as to whether the investigation and its conclusions were correct.
> >
On April 5th, 2010, WikiLeaks made headlines by posting a 17-minute video purporting to be the gun camera footage of one of the Apaches involved in the strike. The footage is graphic and disturbing, and has raised questions for some as to whether the investigation and its conclusions were correct.
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
Line: 38 to 40
The Pentagon has not released an official, attributable statement confirming the validity of the footage. However, Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Britain's Daily Telegraph all claim to have verified the video's authenticity via unnamed military sources. Additionally, the events described in the pilot statements and the AR 15-6 investigation reflect portions of the WikiLeaks video.
Changed:
< <
Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations.
> >
Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree to which I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations.
Did WikiLeaks edit or alter the footage in a way which reduces its evidentiary value?
Quite possibly. The short video differs from the "full" version in troubling ways. On a basic level, the short segment adds subjective analysis to the footage. These additions are a subtle taint, as they remove the viewer from the events as seen by the pilots. Additionally, I found WikiLeak's labels do draw the eye and distract the viewer, as noted by Fox News.
Changed:
< <
More damagingly, the video plays with chronology. The short video skips the first 1:25 of the long video. As such, it isn't clear that the Apaches were directed to the area after reports of people with weapons. The short video cuts out the pilots' initial reaction of regret to the news that a child was wounded at 17:19, and omits the ground report that an individual was found on top of an RPG round at 19:18. The short video plays with the chronology of the rescue of the children, weaving between footage separated by as much as five minutes and playing segments out of order to make the events appear seamless. It also utilizes some of the more disturbing radio chatter out of chronological order to increase shock value (15:27 in short vid, jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long).
> >
More damagingly, the video plays with chronology. The short video skips the first 1:25 of the long video. As such, it isn't clear that the Apaches were directed to the area after reports of people with weapons. The short video cuts out the pilots' initial reaction of regret to the news that a child was wounded at 17:19, and omits the ground report that an individual was found on top of an RPG round at 19:18. The short video plays with the chronology of the rescue of the children, weaving between footage separated by as much as five minutes and playing segments out of order to make the events appear seamless. It also utilizes some of the more disturbing radio chatter out of chronological order to increase shock value (15:27 in short vid video , jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long).
As such, questions exist about the integrity of the "full" video. On multiple occasions, both videos fade to black and shift to a new scene (example--4:42 long). This creates an impression that the film has been edited. This impression is troublesome given that both videos seem to be incomplete records of the events, omitting a number of intermediate events described in multiple sworn pilot statements.
Line: 59 to 61
WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. I cannot verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if there was a requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, as defined by the Wikileaks documents. If so, I would like to know how the van's behavior satisfied the requirement. I would also like to know if the actual ROE included a proscription against firing at the injured/neutralized, as implied by Wikileaks.
Conclusion: The video, on its own, lacks necessary context. The footage provides a single perspective, and sometimes has a poor view of the events (ex: 4:18-4:24). Moreover, without the official ROE, one cannot place the pilots' behavior in context.
Added:
> >
I'll begin with the general commentary and then discuss specific elements of your paper and give some suggestions. I'm going to discuss how I would have written this paper differently - the way I would have done it is not necessarily the correct way, so feel free to ignore whatever I say. I'm not going to sugarcoat my comments here. Overall, however, I think that your paper is well written, thought provoking and convincingly argued.
My main issue with this paper is that it is difficult for me to understand what your overall goal is. You begin by asking whether video can be trusted. Ashley Simpson asked a similar question in class (or rather, suggested that videos were a good type of evidence) and Eben made it pretty clear that videos can be easily manipulated. Not only can they be manipulated, but they can be edited in ways that affect the viewer's understanding of the events. They can also be played out of context, or can be cut at inappropriate points. In short, it seems like we've already established that videos can't be trusted. You don't need 1000 words to tell us this.
That said, it seems like you are trying to do something different. You appear to be analyzing various elements of these specific videos: where the videos came from, whether they are actually Apache footage, whether they are inappropriately edited and whether they reflect the events accurately. Each of these questions is a valid one. Given that you have so little space, however, it seems like it may have made more sense to have discussed a single one of these topics - while breadth has its value, you certainly sacrifice depth and none of the points are argued very convincingly. I would have started the paper by signaling that there are a lot of potential issues with these videos, including the ones that you mentioned, and chose one to focus on.
Specifically, your analysis of whether the video is actual Apache gun camera footage is particularly lacking. You barely scratch the surface of a topic that could be the subject of a much longer paper. You don't do the topic justice, and I think it would be far more effective for you to mention that this is another potential issue, but that you won't explore it in this paper. I am of the belief that it is better to not discuss something than to do so in a lacking way.
I think that the last section is the most convincingly argued by far. You address many of the problems that come with using videos for evidence, namely the lack of context, poor views and only one perspective, and you give concrete examples to back this up. I know that we're all short on time, but if this is something that really interests you, I'd recommend expanding this one section and giving a bit more in-depth analysis as opposed to trying to touch on so many issues (perhaps post finals). I'd definitely read it.
On April 5th, 2010, WikiLeaks made headlines by posting a 17-minute video purporting to be the gun camera footage of one of the Apaches involved in the strike. The footage is graphic and disturbing, and has raised questions for some as to whether the investigation and its conclusions were correct.
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
Changed:
< <
WikiLeaks is not hosting either video itself, but provides an embedded link to the shorter Youtube video. The site stipulates that those who desire further information should visit CollateralMurder. At CollateralMurder, one finds embedded Youtube links to two videos--the short version also found at WikiLeaks and the longer video, purported to be the full version of what WikiLeaks obtained. I have watched both versions side-by-side, and found the two to be similar.
> >
WikiLeaks is not hosting either video itself, but provides an embedded link to the shorter Youtube video. The site stipulates that those who desire further information should visit CollateralMurder. Reuters reported that WikiLeaks originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder.
Changed:
< <
Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress." Wikileaks.org implies that Sunshine Press is synonymous with Wikileaks, and a number of documents found on CollateralMurder assert that the Sunshine Press is the publisher of WikiLeaks. In further support, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder.
> >
At CollateralMurder, one finds embedded Youtube links to two videos--the short version also found at WikiLeaks and the longer video, purported to be the full version of what WikiLeaks obtained. I have watched both versions side-by-side, and found the two to be similar. Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress."
Conclusion: Though much circumstantial evidence exists, I cannot draw a straight line from Youtube user "sunshinepress" to WikiLeaks or CollateralMurder. However, both sites seem to endorse the "sunshinepress" videos.
Line: 54 to 54
The AR 15-6 investigation brings facts to light which are not clear from the video. The sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered RPG launchers, at least one AK-47, and a wounded individual lying on top of a RPG round. If accurate, it seems the reporters were in the company of combatants. At the same time, the investigation reveals that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. Additionally, the investigation makes clear that the ground troops were consistently taking RPG and AK fire in that area during the operation, and that the Apaches were flying a Troops In Contact (TIC) air support mission.
Changed:
< <
The most damning footage is that of the van's destruction. The investigations, sworn statements, and the video all seem to establish that the pilots knew the people in the van were picking up the wounded, and I did not find a clear vocalization of a threat which the van posed. As such, I would like to better understand the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under. WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. Though they look convincing, I have no way to verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if the requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, would generally include picking up wounded enemy combatants. I would also like to know if there was a proscription against firing at the injured, and if the ROE during TIC missions differed.
> >
There are a number of disturbing scenes in the video. The most damning footage is that of the van's destruction. The investigations, sworn statements, and the video all seem to establish that the pilots knew the people in the van were picking up the wounded, and I did not find a clear vocalization of a threat which the van posed. There are also additional bursts of fire, both at the crowd (4:18-4:24 (long)) and the van (9:14-9:30 (long)), after radio chatter implies the threat seems neutralized. As such, I would like to better understand the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under.
Changed:
< <
I would also like a better understanding of how clearance to engage is issued--does the clearer have visual access to the scene? Is he actually involved in the battle? Can a pilot run afoul of the ROE by describing a situation inaccurately or asking for clearance to engage inappropriate targets? To what extent is a pilot culpable if granted clearance?
> >
WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. I cannot verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if there was a requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, as defined by the Wikileaks documents. If so, I would like to know how the van's behavior satisfied the requirement. I would also like to know if the actual ROE included a proscription against firing at the injured/neutralized, as implied by Wikileaks.
Changed:
< <
Conclusion: The video, on its own, lacks necessary context to allow one to come to a decision about the events depicted.
> >
Conclusion: The video, on its own, lacks necessary context. The footage provides a single perspective, and sometimes has a poor view of the events (ex: 4:18-4:24). Moreover, without the official ROE, one cannot place the pilots' behavior in context.
More damagingly, the video plays with chronology. The short video skips the first 1:25 of the long video. As such, it isn't clear that the Apaches were directed to the area after reports of people with weapons. The short video cuts out the pilots' initial reaction of regret to the news that a child was wounded at 17:19, and omits the ground report that an individual was found on top of an RPG round at 19:18. The short video plays with the chronology of the rescue of the children, weaving between footage separated by as much as five minutes and playing segments out of order to make the events appear seamless. It also utilizes some of the more disturbing radio chatter out of chronological order to increase shock value (15:27 in short vid, jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long).
Changed:
< <
As such, questions exist about the integrity of the "full" video. On multiple occasions, the video fades to black and shifts to a new scene (example--4:42). This creates an impression that the film has been edited. This impression is troublesome given that both videos seem to be incomplete records of the events, omitting a number of intermediate events described in multiple sworn pilot statements.
> >
As such, questions exist about the integrity of the "full" video. On multiple occasions, both videos fade to black and shift to a new scene (example--4:42 long). This creates an impression that the film has been edited. This impression is troublesome given that both videos seem to be incomplete records of the events, omitting a number of intermediate events described in multiple sworn pilot statements.
Conclusion: WikiLeaks showed a willingness to edit the short video in a subjective manner. Neither set of footage completely reflects the pilot statements and the videos seem to contain time lapses. I cannot say that the footage was not altered.
Is the video an accurate reflection of the events?
Changed:
< <
The AR 15-6 investigation brings facts to light which are not clear from the video. The sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered RPG launchers, at least one AK-47, and a wounded individual lying on top of a RPG round. As such, it seems the reporters were in the company of combatants. At the same time, the investigation reveals that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. Additionally, the investigation makes clear that the ground troops were consistently taking RPG and AK fire in that area during the operation, and that the Apaches were flying a Troops In Contact (TIC) air support mission.
> >
The AR 15-6 investigation brings facts to light which are not clear from the video. The sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered RPG launchers, at least one AK-47, and a wounded individual lying on top of a RPG round. If accurate, it seems the reporters were in the company of combatants. At the same time, the investigation reveals that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. Additionally, the investigation makes clear that the ground troops were consistently taking RPG and AK fire in that area during the operation, and that the Apaches were flying a Troops In Contact (TIC) air support mission.
The most damning footage is that of the van's destruction. The investigations, sworn statements, and the video all seem to establish that the pilots knew the people in the van were picking up the wounded, and I did not find a clear vocalization of a threat which the van posed. As such, I would like to better understand the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under. WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. Though they look convincing, I have no way to verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if the requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, would generally include picking up wounded enemy combatants. I would also like to know if there was a proscription against firing at the injured, and if the ROE during TIC missions differed.
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
An Analysis of What I Do and Do Not Know Regarding the July 12, 2007 Apache Controversy
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
Though this may seem an obvious matter at first glance, the issue is not so simple. In short, there exist three separate entities who claim ties to the videos, and their relation is not immediately apparent. WikiLeaks is not hosting either video itself, but provides an embedded link to the shorter, 17 minute long Youtube video. The site stipulates that those who desire further information should visit CollateralMurder. At CollateralMurder, one finds embedded Youtube links to two videos--the short 17 minute version found at WikiLeaks and the longer video, purported to be the full version of what WikiLeaks obtained. I have watched both versions side-by-side, and found the two to be substantially similar (see below for analysis).
Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress." The contact page of CollateralMurder lists a number of emails linked to sunshinepress.org, and includes the phone number for Julian Assange, a founder/spokesperson of Wikileaks. WikiLeaks? also has links with associations to the domain name sunshinepress.org. In further support, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks?originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder? . Further, the original wikileaks video is also hosted by sunshinepress, and sunshinepress.org seems to be a mirror of WikiLeaks.
> >
Changed:
< <
Conclusion: It is possible that the youtube video hosted by sunshinepress and linked from CollateralMurder is not the full video that Wikileaks obtained, despite CollateralMurder's claims. It is also possible that the address wikileaks.org is not the website of Wikileaks, that Reuters was wrong in asserting that Wikileaks hosted its video on CollateralMurder? , and that the embedded video provided on CollateralMurder? is not the correct video. However, I have found no information that would support such conclusions. As such, I am willing to assume that the videos I posted above reflect two similar versions of the video Wikileaks claims to have obtained.
> >
[Short (Edited) Version]
Changed:
< <
Is the video the actual Apache gun camera footage, as WikiLeaks/CollateralMurder claim?
> >
(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)
Deleted:
< <
It needs to be established that the video being displayed is the actual footage of the event. However, some questions exist. The Pentagon has not released an official, attributable statement confirming the validity of the footage. However, Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Britain's Daily Telegraph all claim to have verified the video's authenticity via unnamed military sources. Additionally, the events described in the records of the pilot testimonies and the recently released content of the AR 15-6 informal investigation closely resemble the footage. In further support, the still gun camera images contained in the Army reports seem identical to portions of the WikiLeaks? video, and the documentation of the aftermath conducted by ground troops resembles the location shown in the video. At the same time, though, some news sources have reported information which raises doubt about the veracity, with a few reports of a Capt. Jack x stating that the Army can no longer find its gun camera footage (seattle), and stating to Fox News that ""It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Whether this can be taken as an admission from the pentagon that the video is accurate is unclear from the context, and as stated earlier, I have not unconvered any confirmation that the Pentagon has gone on record verifying the events.
Deleted:
< <
According to the New York Times, on April 5th, "Navy Capt. Jake Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said U.S. forces in Iraq recognize many of the images in the video posted at Wikileaks.org and have no reason to believe it is a fake. However, he said, they were still comparing the video and audio to see if it matched their own."
Whether or not WikiLeaks? has been honest in its display of the video is a separate matter. The short version clearly differs from the "full" version, and does so in some troubling ways. As such, it remains to be seen whether or not the longer version is itself uneditted, or if liberties have been taken of which the viewer cannot judge.
1:25 above video starts.
> >
On April 5th, 2010, WikiLeaks made headlines by posting a 17-minute video purporting to be the gun camera footage of one of the Apaches involved in the strike. The footage is graphic and disturbing, and has raised questions for some as to whether the investigation and its conclusions were correct.
Changed:
< <
12:28--difference. cuts from 10:54.
> >
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
Changed:
< <
12:48 video resumes. Has cut to around 18:51.
> >
WikiLeaks is not hosting either video itself, but provides an embedded link to the shorter Youtube video. The site stipulates that those who desire further information should visit CollateralMurder. At CollateralMurder, one finds embedded Youtube links to two videos--the short version also found at WikiLeaks and the longer video, purported to be the full version of what WikiLeaks obtained. I have watched both versions side-by-side, and found the two to be similar.
Changed:
< <
At 13:02, cuts audio and replays from around 12:48. Cuts from bottom video at 19:01, and video resumes at 21:18. Video omits information regarding the discovery of an rpg round beneath one of the dead 19:18. Jump from 22:08 (14:33) to 21:09 (14:34) regarding injured child. At 14:34 jumps to 23:05 to show wounded child and soldier running. 23:34 (15:03) to 27:57 (15:04) to talk about rejection regarding evacuation of child to rustamaya and to local hospital instead. Cut at 28:20 (15:27) to 18:07 to catch quote of them saying it was enemy's fault for bringing kid. Misses the dejected "Ah damn. oh well." from the pilot as soon when they hear the news at (17:19). This comment comes almost a minute later, after a long silence. Cuts at 18:18 (15:37). At 15:54 replays footage of firing on van. Claims to show children after artificially zooming in. Cuts at 16:19 before firing starts again.
> >
Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress." Wikileaks.org implies that Sunshine Press is synonymous with Wikileaks, and a number of documents found on CollateralMurder assert that the Sunshine Press is the publisher of WikiLeaks. In further support, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder.
Added:
> >
Conclusion: Though much circumstantial evidence exists, I cannot draw a straight line from Youtube user "sunshinepress" to WikiLeaks or CollateralMurder. However, both sites seem to endorse the "sunshinepress" videos.
Added:
> >
Is the video the actual Apache gun camera footage?
Changed:
< <
Is the video an accurate reflection of the events which transpired?
> >
The Pentagon has not released an official, attributable statement confirming the validity of the footage. However, Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Britain's Daily Telegraph all claim to have verified the video's authenticity via unnamed military sources. Additionally, the events described in the pilot statements and the AR 15-6 investigation reflect portions of the WikiLeaks video.
Added:
> >
Conclusion: The question rides upon the degree I'm willing to trust the reporting of various news organizations.
Changed:
< <
Subsub 2
> >
Did WikiLeaks edit or alter the footage in a way which reduces its evidentiary value?
Added:
> >
Quite possibly. The short video differs from the "full" version in troubling ways. On a basic level, the short segment adds subjective analysis to the footage. These additions are a subtle taint, as they remove the viewer from the events as seen by the pilots. Additionally, I found WikiLeak's labels do draw the eye and distract the viewer, as noted by Fox News.
Added:
> >
More damagingly, the video plays with chronology. The short video skips the first 1:25 of the long video. As such, it isn't clear that the Apaches were directed to the area after reports of people with weapons. The short video cuts out the pilots' initial reaction of regret to the news that a child was wounded at 17:19, and omits the ground report that an individual was found on top of an RPG round at 19:18. The short video plays with the chronology of the rescue of the children, weaving between footage separated by as much as five minutes and playing segments out of order to make the events appear seamless. It also utilizes some of the more disturbing radio chatter out of chronological order to increase shock value (15:27 in short vid, jumping from 28:20 to 18:07 of long).
Changed:
< <
Section II
> >
As such, questions exist about the integrity of the "full" video. On multiple occasions, the video fades to black and shifts to a new scene (example--4:42). This creates an impression that the film has been edited. This impression is troublesome given that both videos seem to be incomplete records of the events, omitting a number of intermediate events described in multiple sworn pilot statements.
Changed:
< <
Subsection A
> >
Conclusion: WikiLeaks showed a willingness to edit the short video in a subjective manner. Neither set of footage completely reflects the pilot statements and the videos seem to contain time lapses. I cannot say that the footage was not altered.
Changed:
< <
Subsection B
> >
Is the video an accurate reflection of the events?
Added:
> >
The AR 15-6 investigation brings facts to light which are not clear from the video. The sworn statements of the ground troops assert they discovered RPG launchers, at least one AK-47, and a wounded individual lying on top of a RPG round. As such, it seems the reporters were in the company of combatants. At the same time, the investigation reveals that there were a number of humvees at the opposite end of the street where 'Namir' was crouching. The sworn pilot statements reflect that this was a major concern, and that they interpreted 'Namir's' actions as preparing to fire an RPG toward the vehicles. Additionally, the investigation makes clear that the ground troops were consistently taking RPG and AK fire in that area during the operation, and that the Apaches were flying a Troops In Contact (TIC) air support mission.
Changed:
< <
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
> >
The most damning footage is that of the van's destruction. The investigations, sworn statements, and the video all seem to establish that the pilots knew the people in the van were picking up the wounded, and I did not find a clear vocalization of a threat which the van posed. As such, I would like to better understand the rules of engagement (ROE) the pilots were operating under. WikiLeaks provides a number of documents which purport to be copies of the rules of engagement in place during July 2007. Though they look convincing, I have no way to verify their authenticity. As such, I would like to know if the requirement of positive identification of a threat, either by recognizing hostile action or hostile intent, would generally include picking up wounded enemy combatants. I would also like to know if there was a proscription against firing at the injured, and if the ROE during TIC missions differed.
I would also like a better understanding of how clearance to engage is issued--does the clearer have visual access to the scene? Is he actually involved in the battle? Can a pilot run afoul of the ROE by describing a situation inaccurately or asking for clearance to engage inappropriate targets? To what extent is a pilot culpable if granted clearance?
Changed:
< <
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list
> >
Conclusion: The video, on its own, lacks necessary context to allow one to come to a decision about the events depicted.
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
An Analysis of What I Do and Do Not Know Regarding the July 12, 2007 Apache Controversy
-- By RonMazor - 18 Apr 2010
[Short Version]
[Long Version]
(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)
Are the Youtube videos found above those which were obtained by WikiLeaks?
Though this may seem an obvious matter at first glance, the issue is not so simple. In short, there exist three separate entities who claim ties to the videos, and their relation is not immediately apparent. WikiLeaks is not hosting either video itself, but provides an embedded link to the shorter, 17 minute long Youtube video. The site stipulates that those who desire further information should visit CollateralMurder. At CollateralMurder, one finds embedded Youtube links to two videos--the short 17 minute version found at WikiLeaks and the longer video, purported to be the full version of what WikiLeaks obtained. I have watched both versions side-by-side, and found the two to be substantially similar (see below for analysis).
Both videos are hosted by a user named "sunshinepress." The contact page of CollateralMurder lists a number of emails linked to sunshinepress.org, and includes the phone number for Julian Assange, a founder/spokesperson of Wikileaks. WikiLeaks? also has links with associations to the domain name sunshinepress.org. In further support, Reuters reported that WikiLeaks?originally posted their video(see last sentence) at CollateralMurder? . Further, the original wikileaks video is also hosted by sunshinepress, and sunshinepress.org seems to be a mirror of WikiLeaks.
Conclusion: It is possible that the youtube video hosted by sunshinepress and linked from CollateralMurder is not the full video that Wikileaks obtained, despite CollateralMurder's claims. It is also possible that the address wikileaks.org is not the website of Wikileaks, that Reuters was wrong in asserting that Wikileaks hosted its video on CollateralMurder? , and that the embedded video provided on CollateralMurder? is not the correct video. However, I have found no information that would support such conclusions. As such, I am willing to assume that the videos I posted above reflect two similar versions of the video Wikileaks claims to have obtained.
Is the video the actual Apache gun camera footage, as WikiLeaks/CollateralMurder claim?
It needs to be established that the video being displayed is the actual footage of the event. However, some questions exist. The Pentagon has not released an official, attributable statement confirming the validity of the footage. However, Reuters, the New York Times, the Associated Press and Britain's Daily Telegraph all claim to have verified the video's authenticity via unnamed military sources. Additionally, the events described in the records of the pilot testimonies and the recently released content of the AR 15-6 informal investigation closely resemble the footage. In further support, the still gun camera images contained in the Army reports seem identical to portions of the WikiLeaks? video, and the documentation of the aftermath conducted by ground troops resembles the location shown in the video. At the same time, though, some news sources have reported information which raises doubt about the veracity, with a few reports of a Capt. Jack x stating that the Army can no longer find its gun camera footage (seattle), and stating to Fox News that ""It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Whether this can be taken as an admission from the pentagon that the video is accurate is unclear from the context, and as stated earlier, I have not unconvered any confirmation that the Pentagon has gone on record verifying the events.
According to the New York Times, on April 5th, "Navy Capt. Jake Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said U.S. forces in Iraq recognize many of the images in the video posted at Wikileaks.org and have no reason to believe it is a fake. However, he said, they were still comparing the video and audio to see if it matched their own."
Read more: http://dailyme.com/story/2010040500002881/ap-source-confirms-video-baghdad-firefight.html#ixzz0lQFJAeyg
Did WikiLeaks? edit or alter the footage in a way which reduces its evidentiary value?
Whether or not WikiLeaks? has been honest in its display of the video is a separate matter. The short version clearly differs from the "full" version, and does so in some troubling ways. As such, it remains to be seen whether or not the longer version is itself uneditted, or if liberties have been taken of which the viewer cannot judge.
1:25 above video starts.
12:28--difference. cuts from 10:54.
12:48 video resumes. Has cut to around 18:51.
At 13:02, cuts audio and replays from around 12:48. Cuts from bottom video at 19:01, and video resumes at 21:18. Video omits information regarding the discovery of an rpg round beneath one of the dead 19:18. Jump from 22:08 (14:33) to 21:09 (14:34) regarding injured child. At 14:34 jumps to 23:05 to show wounded child and soldier running. 23:34 (15:03) to 27:57 (15:04) to talk about rejection regarding evacuation of child to rustamaya and to local hospital instead. Cut at 28:20 (15:27) to 18:07 to catch quote of them saying it was enemy's fault for bringing kid. Misses the dejected "Ah damn. oh well." from the pilot as soon when they hear the news at (17:19). This comment comes almost a minute later, after a long silence. Cuts at 18:18 (15:37). At 15:54 replays footage of firing on van. Claims to show children after artificially zooming in. Cuts at 16:19 before firing starts again.
Is the video an accurate reflection of the events which transpired?
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, RonMazorNote: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.