Video Evidence and the July 12, 2007 Apache Controversy

-- By Ron Mazor, rewritten by David Goldin

[Long Version]

[Short (Edited) Version]

(Video being utilized for academic purposes, with the intention of fair use.)

Introduction and Background

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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