| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | 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... | | | Concerns | |
<
< | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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 | | | 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 | | | | |
<
< | 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 | | | | |
<
< | 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." | | | | |
<
< | 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 |
|