Columbia Journalism Review Reports on Wikileaks Iraq Killing Video Release

This is the ONLY media coverage I have located on this as of 12:45 p.m. It notes New York Times reporter seems to be working on story. Am still looking, so will update with NYT, maybe.

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/wikileaks_releases_video_showi.php

The Kicker, Transparency — April 05, 2010 10:37 AM

WikiLeaks Releases Video Showing Death of Reuters Staff
By Clint Hendler

This morning at an event at the National Press Club, WikiLeaks screened a video depicting a missile strike on a van in Baghdad that killed a Reuters driver and photographer in 2007.

- snip -

Wikileaks promises to have the video more widely available this afternoon. In the meanwhile, its contents have been described by former New York Times reporter Jennifer 8. Lee, who saw the video at the conference and offered some tweets, including this one:

Wikileaks video offers unusual view of casual banter of attack pilots when killing people: “sweet” “look at that bitch go” “nice missile.”
This was not the video depicting a 2009 air strike in Afghanistan that may have killed approximately 1000 civilians, which Lee reports WikiLeaks has but is not yet prepared to release.

In the run up to the release of this video, WikiLeaks principal Julian Assange claimed that his organization had come under “an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation,” charges that CJR found the Icelandic media have been unable to substantiate. WikiLeaks later signaled it might no longer fully stand behind elements of the alleged surveillance stemming from the arrest of a Icelandic teenager who had volunteered with the site.

The WikiLeaks Twitter account offered this warning on March 23: “If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible.”

Update: And the video is now available on YouTube, in short and long versions.

Further update: I’d like to warn you that this footage has a relatively tight field of vision, and is quite a bit more graphic than some bombs-bursting style aerial attack video you may have seen before. Also seems worth noting that the pilots, if WikiLeak’s annotations are correct, confused the camera held by Namir Noor-Eldeen, the 22-year-old photographer killed that day, for an rocket propelled grenade.

MORE

at least I cancelled out one ONE unrec :mad:

I guess they're all busy with Tiger Woods.

They aren't owned by the MIC.

aren't grenade launchers or rocket launchers a little longer than a video camera? Those poor people had no idea they were not safe, the chopper made a number of circles in the area, all of a sudden death rains down on innocent HUMAN BEINGS.

According to God they killed my brothers and sisters. For no fucking reason at all.

And the guy laughing after driving over a body, you want these murderers living next to you and your kids, I sure as hell dont!

this is a nightmare.

They may have been confused about what the journalists were carrying, but others were carrying automatic weapons.

when in doubt dont kill. Net Net, I dont buy it for a second.

There is yet more to this story. The Wikileaks video is a big part of the story, but it's not the whole truth.

BullShit

Our forces did everything by the book in this video. Killing journalists and wounding kids is wrong.

interrogate wounded "insurgents" instead of blowing them up?

It was a legitimate target.

John Yoo, is that you?

Interesting interpretation of the Geneva Convention.

It was an ambulance.

You saw the video. Making excuses for it is... inexcusable.

it was scrubbing an attack site of the reasons for engagement.

It's not apparent now, much less right then.

We don't have privileged information, we don't have the benefit of hindsight, all we have is the subset of incriminating video that they could no longer hide.

Even if "scrubbing" is a legitimate reason for killing, the fact that civilians were scrubbing it of other injured civilians renders the distinction meaningless.

Inexcusable.

And besides, the reasons for engagement were clear from the video. A camera and possibly one rifle was mistaken for "6 or 7 AK-47's".

You need to back off your Cap Locks.

And you are incorrect. Those are weapons. Those are not the journalists.

apparently didn't even warrant a warning.
:grr:

but it is described interchangeably as "RPG's" or "AK-47's".

The observer lied to command to get authorization to shoot someone.

I was wrong about the scooter, an idiot mistake, but there are two people with weapons.

Why else would the journalists be there? There was a story there, wasn't there? What was the story? Why were they there?

No one wants to deal with that yet.

If those were the journalists, you might have a case. But you don't. The journalists are clearly identified in the video and those two men are not them. You have made a mistake yourself in this video and you refuse to admit your identification is wrong.

My mistake, I admitted to. Your mistake, you persist in.

carry their equipment and get them safely into places to find their stories?

Answer: You don't. Unless of course you have access to intel that the rest of us don't. Until there is proof those men were armed with guns, and as long as they are known to be associated with photo-journalists in this video, they were carrying camera TRIPODS.

It's an RPG.

Those aren't journalists. There were only two Reuters employees there. They're clearly identified. Your mistake, and you persist in it. My mistake, I admit as soon as I see it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If it was an RPG, how come the person carrying the supposed RPG did not fire at the circling helicopter? He had many opportunities to take out that helicopter.

How come the guy carrying the supposed AK-47 did not open fire on the helicopter? Or someone else who could have grabbed the gun?

How come the so-called insurgents did not take cover earlier?

Why did the so-called insurgents stay bunched together as the helicopter flew around them in circles?

even during the day time. Possible those guys never saw it fire.

Yet it appeared they looked at the helicopter before it fired (i.e. the guy peeking around the corner with the camera), yet were not concerned.

What concerns me is the killing of wounded and civilian rescuers, and the blatant joy expressed by the shooters. :puke:

they thought they had armed guys and killed them. Thats their job. Politicians, civilians issue the orders and sign the checks. We have 2 ways to stop this but do not. No responsibility falls to soldiers on the ground for this.

Soldiers DO have responsibility for their conduct on the battlefield, no matter what orders they receive from the command. The Nuremberg Defense (just following orders) will not suffice.

The video clearly shows the murder of wounded people, and the glee of the shooters.

murder or war crime would not apply if the vehicle picking them up had a single armed person, or if they retrieved weapons. The responsibility of war lies with the men in suits, not those in uniforms.

Lack of markings and lack of clarity pretty much absolve those involved of a crime. The guys who order and pay for the war are a different story.

My camera tripod when expanded and legs collapsed inward while carrying - and most I have seen - are longer than your average RPG/rocket launcher. More or less full person height.
They sort of have to be, to bring the camera up to eyeheight when the legs are folded outwards, you know.

Would be a very impratical RPG that was as long as that.

a "banana clip" before.

But no reasonable person could believe that the civilian with children in the car picking up the wounded unarmed journalist was in any way a threat. Ground troops were en route. The helicopter could have tracked the minivan to allow ground forces to stop them. Wouldn't you?

The only reason I can think that I wouldn't would be if I thought this was fun.

Soldiers don't have the luxury of "beyond a shadow of a doubt". But neither can they invent "reasonable suspicion" out of whole cloth.

The video shows what could be a weapon, twice. It does not "show two weapons".

said it was six and blew it up.

Wtf.

However 'the official story' has both small arms and rpgs found at the scene. How convenient.

Lots of people carry weapons in Baghdad.

For some reason, that particular square was being watched.

For some reason, the journalists felt that was a good place to get a story during the surge.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You will not win.

Part one: A group of Iraqi civilian men was killed, including two Reuters journalists. Two children were wounded. The U.S. military released an utter fabrication about a battle with insurgents, and said that it has no idea how the journalists were killed, or how the children were injured. It told a story to explain the events, in some detail.

Part two: We see on the video that there was no battle, only a massacre. No hostile activity was apparent. We see the gun ships deliberately target the group of men who are simply walking in the street. The only clear weapon was a rifle, and it was carried down, presumably by a bodyguard. But whether there were more weapons present or not, it's absolutely clear that the story the U.S. military told was a lie and that subsequent additions and machinations were part of a cover-up. You can see that with your own eyes. You can also see that the military knew precisely how those men died, even while it was lying about it.

How much more do we need? And why should we trust ANY information that the U.S. military offers?

have been a camera tripod also.

...it's difficult to tell. And it is clear that most of the men were walking empty-handed, while the gun platforms were radioing about "AK-47s and RPGs." At the very least, the guys in the helicopters were a bit too enthusiastic with their threat assessments.

We don't know why this particular square was being watched. However, I think we could say that why the square was being watched and why the journalists were there are related to one another.

There were at least two automatic weapons I saw in the video. This was definitely an offensive maneuver, although there are reports of gunfire on the ground (something the other video would clear up, I think).

Yes, there were lies told about this incident. But the video shows no rules of engagement being broken.

this was an offensive maneuver by those on the ground.

One more thing, why do you think you know so much more about this than anyone else?

If the military told the truth there wouldn't be any story. It is patently clear that they lied and tried to cover this up. What more do you need to learn? Would it make any difference to learn that there was some other action happening nearby? Would that justify the lies and cover up? This was clearly a fuck-up of the first order-- you can see that yourself-- and a blatant attempt to lie about it.

No amount of other information will change the circumstance that two non-combatant journalists were murdered without hesitation, two civilian men were killed trying to assist a wounded man and their children were injured, AND THE MILITARY LIED ABOUT THE WHOLE SORRY AFFAIR. That IS the story now. The pig bastards lie reflexively to cover their crimes.

There was no knowledge of journalist on the video at all, much less intent to murder them. You're overreaching.

The van was attacked because the insurgents did indeed scrub attack sites.

There were some lies about the incident, yes. But the video shows a great deal of the story, and what you're claiming isn't on the videotape.

I am pretty sure that the target has to present a threat of a hostile act or be performing a such for it to be a valid target.

The guys in the van did nothing of the sort.

The people in the choppers where sent up to find people with guns - and you get the clear picture that anything remotely resembling anything more than a shopping bag would have been identified as such. They saw what they wanted to see and not what was.

The RPG was a camera and even if there was a rifle perhaps a body guard for the journalist.

Saddam's Statue, Jessica lynch story, Pat Tillman

Lies.

The camera was a camera. The RPG was an RPG.

there are two people on it, the driver and a passenger behind him. They move off as the video pans away from them. There is NO RPG in that image.

However, this is an RPG.



Not a camera tripod. The guy he's with has an AK-47.

crew working for Reuters! Jesus Christ! What the hell would they be doing with weapons? They are carrying photography equipment and photographing a war zone.

Two Reuters employees. The people I'm identifying are not them.

Your screen shot is quite blurry and it is certainly possible that the item circled are tripods. The certainty with which you declare them RPGs is not warranted.

I sure wish I had your righteous indignation.

And you accuse me of over-reaching. That's a scooter. I do not see any weapons at all in that photo.

This, however, is an RPG.



And this is an AK-47.

Look at your top screen cap again. Look carefully. There are four men in that cluster. The one on the far left is wearing a plaid or striped shirt, for reference.

The man next to him, under your red circle, wears a light colored shirt. At a glance, he appears to be holding what you say is an RPG. Look again-- his hands are visible and well above the object. He is not holding anything. Closer to the viewer, there is a man partly beneath the cross hairs holding his arms outstretched. The object appears to actually be clasped by his outstretched hand, and it looks more like an umbrella or something of that nature than an RPG. It is too short to be an RPG-- compare it to the man's outstretched arm-- and if it was an RPG, that would be an incredibly awkward way to hold it. We see it again in the lower image when the man has completed his turn-- it's a small dark object just near the intersection of the cross-hairs.

The "AK-47" in the lower image is just too indistinct. It looks as much like a fixed object being revealed behind the man in the plaid shirt as it looks like something he's carrying.

as reported at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html

The two Reuters staff members, both of them Iraqis, were killed when troops on an American helicopter shot into the area where the two had just gotten out of their car, said witnesses who spoke to an Agence France-Presse photographer who arrived at the scene shortly after their bodies were taken away.

The Reuters employees were Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, a photographer, and Saeed Chmagh, 40, a driver.

“When we reached the spot where Namir was killed, the people told us that two journalists had been killed in an air attack an hour earlier,” said Ahmad Sahib, the Agence France-Presse photographer, who had been traveling in a car several blocks behind Mr. Noor-Eldeen but was delayed by the chaos in the area. He said he was in touch with Mr. Noor-Eldeen by cellphone until his colleague was killed.

“They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered,” Mr. Sahib said. “It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover.”

But now, we see that that report was all lies.

You did read the Military's version of this didn't you? I doubt they can come up with a NEW 'full story' version now and expect to be taken seriously.

But, keep trying to defend our presence there by focusing on semantics. The whole war is a crime.

Here, let me explain it to you very simply:

An armed robber goes into a house where there are women and children and some stuff he wants to steal. He shoots several of them, grandma, grandpa and a few of the children.

Then dad pulls out a weapon and shoots back. From reading in the gun forum here, that dad is a hero, no? Then the robber shoots the mom and the dad because HE feels threatened

Later, in an interview on behalf of the armed robber, his attorney claims that the people in the house attacked him. He claims that his life was endangered because they had weapons. Naturally, he leaves out the fact that he invaded their home in the first place. A few not-too-bright TV viewers, 'get' his point, too lazy to figure out the real facts.

Around the country there is generally outrage, and some laughter that he actually believes he could be taken seriously in claiming his shooting of the father was 'self defense'.

End of story, in THIS country, he gets the death penalty. His only defenders are other criminals.

If U.S. troops are in danger from Iraqi guns, it is because they are in a place, killing and stealing from and torturing its lawful residents, that they should not be.

Is that simple enough for you? No excuses, the war is a crime.

defending this action. Are you?

I watched the video, Subdivisions. I saw at least two automatic weapons. Why else were the journalists there, Subdivisions? There was some kind of story in that location. The helicopters were watching that area for a reason.

I am defending this action to a point. I don't think the journalists should have been killed, far from it. However, there's no evidence the military knew they were journalists. There's certainly no evidence they were targeted because they were journalists.

I don't think the kids should have been in the fire zone, either. There's no evidence the soldiers knew there were kids in the van, though. The only people that appear to have known there were kids in the van were the people that drove them into the fire zone.

I don't defend the lies told about the incident at all.

Watch the video from 3:15 to 4:15, the 30 seconds before the engagement starts. The soldiers verify weapons, verify preparations to fight by insurgents, get permission to engage, get into position to fire, and then do so.

ETA: By the way, the guy peeking around the corner is different from the other guy with an RPG. But the soldiers see that he has one, too.

EATA: OK, OK, the first two are a scooter I misidentified. I got it. Mistake, not a lie. Mistake. Everybody can make them.

The person holding the RPG is not one of the journalists. The two journalists are clearly identified by the Wikileaks notation. That's an insurgent.

Former pro photographer here. An RPG is too heavy to carry as the man in the photo is carrying that object.

It is either a tripod or a rifle IMO. And under the circumstances journalists may have been escorted by an armed bodyguard.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You can see that with your own eyes. The guy "peeking around the corner" has stopped at the corner and looks into the alley. Not an unreasonable thing to do in a dangerous place. It looks like there might be a body guard or two, maybe not, but again, that's not an unreasonable expectation under the circumstances.

You keep wanting to make the circumstances somehow justify the crime, but you're ignoring that even if they do, the military lied and covered up what really happened. Nothing that they say or do will change that. Surely you don't think they lied to conceal proper behavior?

They might be mistaken. I don't think they are. But to say they are lying is assuming knowledge you don't have.

"Oh I just drove over a body HAHAHAHA" says the Bradley driver. this is what war is people! You kill who is ever in front of you women children old people & Canadains.

The services call this BUG SPLAT meaning dead Humans! I am deleting the evil portion of my post.

They sure were.

Soldiers often indulge in sick, grisly humor. They sure do. Stop the presses.

Wow! :wow:

Better stick to the 911 forum or folks will figure out the mystery. ;)

any better BTW.

get deleted. You defend the devil and thats my opinion, alert if you see fit!

good for you!

I adopt a couple of unpopular opinions here. Not all, and actually not many.

But I do speak up on my unpopular opinions here. And I get attacked against the rules.

;)

:D

Just so you know, there are lots of folks who do NOT fall for red herrings, etc.

The word 'murder' has variations of meaning. I was using the word 'murder' in reference to its approximate 800-year-old meaning (you know, the version most civilised people use): to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

But you knew that. ;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:D YAAY!! I win!! :party:

Thank you for the continued support. :D

A discussion of this video is most appropriate. I'd prefer it to be based on the facts. You?

Let's discuss the video:

Why were the so-called insurgents bunched together and not taking cover as the helicopter circled overhead many times? After all, they should be very paranoid of any and all U.S. military, since they are the enemy.

Why didn't they fire on the helicopter after so many opportunities? After all, they are insurgents/enemy combatants, who spend their lives shooting at and attempting to kill Americans.

Why did the U.S. fire on injured people crawling on the ground? After all, not one of the so-called insurgents fired on the helicopter.

Why did the U.S. helicopter fire on the van and the passengers who were obviously trying to help the wounded? After all, not one of them fired on the helicopter nor at any U.S. troops.

See what I did there?

You can see an extended gap between shots fired from the helicopter and shots landing in frame. The helicopter was not "overhead".

You don't know they had any opportunity to take a shot at the helicopter. From the reaction of the soldiers, they thought the people were setting up to shot them from behind the building.

I need to go back and watch the video again on this one.

The soldiers didn't know this was a good Samaritan. It could have easily been insurgents cleaning up the site, removing the soldiers' reasons for having engaged them. That's why they fired on the van.

The key word: "deliberately."

Yes, they helicopter was overhead. So you are wrong again.

"Overhead" defined:

1. Located, functioning, or originating from above.

2. Situated or operating above head height or some other reference level.

3. Over or above head height, esp in the sky.

"You don't know they had any opportunity to take a shot at the helicopter." - I saw them looking at the helicopter many times before they were attacked. The supposed RPG carrier (and the guy carrying the AK-47) had ample opportunity to take a shot.

"From the reaction of the soldiers, they thought the people were setting up to shot them from behind the building." - No, the reaction of the soldiers was to kill them no matter what they were doing. The video's audio track is proof of this.

"The soldiers didn't know this was a good Samaritan." - Yes they did, but they ignored it and killed the injured and the civilians who were only trying to help them. Plus, they LIED about the behavior of the Iraqis and number of arms.

"It could have easily been insurgents cleaning up the site, removing the soldiers' reasons for having engaged them." - No way. Insurgents would have fled or engaged the U.S. forces in those few minutes after the initial attack.

"That's why they fired on the van." - No one knows why they fired on the van, but you are doing well to prop up the Pentagon propaganda. From the video and audio evidence, I suspect they just wanted to kill people for fun.

What are we arguing about?

:wtf:

Did I stutter?

Maybe something happened for you.

Swamp Rat is one of the least ideological posters to this board.

Maybe it's time to do something else for a while.

Peace, Bolo

I don't necessarily see "ideological" as a bad thing, but Swamp Rat is the "least ideological" on this website? I don't think you understand what that word means.

People who push pro-war propaganda, especially if couched as an attempt to 'seek the truth', get a major Swamp Rat red-ass. :spank:

Especially not this war.

Pro-soldier, yes. Pro-war, depends on the war. Not pro-this war.

So keep your red-ass for someone that deserves it, and your Photoshop ideology.

I just don't agree with your fire-with-fire methods.

That was fun. :hi:

...because what you have to say will never be worth knowing.

BTW there wasnt one single scrap of identifiable aircraft on the pentagon grounds on 9/11, I was there right after, I lived there. work on that one for a while.

In the middle of the surge, July 2007, why were reporters in Iraq there?

Why were the soldiers watching that area?

Why will NO ONE deal with these two questions?

Why were the journalists there?

DUH!!!1 :dunce:

Hint: You're off script.

Your slip is showing. :D

Swamp Rat you old provocateur you! :rofl:

nt

Being at the wrong place at the wrong time is a part of the job of journalists. Yes. I agree 100%.

Being there for the right reason, however, isn't a magic shield against bullets.

And even if our rules were more sane, there would still be civilian deaths.

There are no rules of engagement that can make shooting up cities safe, are there? It's a farce, a set up for both our service people and for civilians.

We need to stop this now.

The Military likes to keep a tight leash on reporters. They have also been known to target reporters that don't play along.

Who were the first civilians killed and where were the reporters when the first burst hit?

There were no 'friendlies' in the area when the approval was given to fire.

If you count the seconds between the sound of the 30mm cannon and the impact of the rounds, it's quite apparent that, even with an RPG, the civilians were no threat to the Apache. The Apache was well out of range.

Won't be answered. But basically, the military has already responded to this instance way back when they told Reuters the story about a firefight with insurgents. Ridiculous. Who would believe them now. "Well, if you no longer believe our first story, how about this..."

It does not gel with the video. The commander who issued the report, I have read, is the same one who covered up the Pat Tillman affair.

There was fighting in that area before this event. The helicopters were circling the area because of that according to what I have read. The press was there for the same reason.

There was no effort to determine who the people were, just shoot now ask questions later. And if their actions were not wrong, why did the military try to cover them up?

That's something that would be very useful.

HuffPo link about the story. Here is the excerpt from that story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-exposes-video-o_n_525569.html

Washington Post reporter David Finkel described the incident -- and the video -- in great detail in his September 2009 book, "The Good Soldiers". A summary can be found here.

Finkel also described a review session after Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, commander of the Army's 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment and his soldiers returned to base, which "concluded that everyone had acted appropriately." (Kauzlarich was also involved in the Army's Pat Tillman cover-up, and later told ESPN that the reluctance of Tillman's parents to accept the military's story that he was killed by enemy action, rather than friendly fire, was the unfortunate result of their lack of Christian faith.)

Very good to know. These guys are the ones to knock here.

themselves. All reports I have read now say there may have been 'one gun' at the scene. But no shots were fired at the helicopters, and if they felt they were in danger, all they had to do was leave the area. Clearly they felt no threat, or they would have said so.

Every American has the right to carry a gun, 2nd Amendment in case you didn't know, I see lots of defense of that amendment here. And in Iraq, considering the nightmare that is only imagined here, justifying not disarming the population, Iraq is living that nightmare.

The only way anyone can defend this, is if they believe that the occupation of Iraq is just. Otherwise, ever killing of an Iraqi citizen is a crime. And there are no excuses.

:loveya: :hug:

I will probably watch the longer version later, if I can stand it ~

Bingo!

Yeah well, they were just a bunch of Hajjis, not a blond in the bunch, it's not like this was a real crime or anything.
:puke:

Have you seen the video? What's in it? ...... I really do not want to see people getting killed, and would prefer just to know what happened and how damning is the video.

:hi:

no real blood or guts just people standing and then lying on the ground, the conversation on the tape tells more IMO. And the video was shot from the chopper so its a fair distance away from the targets.

You see more blood on Tuesday Nights NCIS program than the vid shows. To me its the extent of the tragedy, the needlessness of it all.

I think you should see it.

then it shows the people coming to get the survivor and the bodies getting killed

I had to watch it in order to prove something to myself regarding this thread. ;)

:hug:

We've lost Iraq. And this will be freeper porn. I hope a lot of people with brains and consciences watch it, though. :hug:

But on your advice and because there are people actually defending this, I'm going in. I guess i need to see for myself...

The guys with the guns are not in the same universe as the people on the street, the women on the rooftops.

EFerrari, I've often disagreed with you but we are in agreement on this:


"We've lost Iraq... I hope a lot of people with brains and consciences watch it, though."

:)

this has to stop. death is not an unuasual outcome of life, however murder is an unnatural death.

I wasn't talking to the general public. I was talking to Swamp Rat. Is that clear now?

ma va fon culo!

:)

Namir Noor-Eldeen


http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/13/namir-noor-eldeen-and-saeed-chmagh/
Memories of them from their co-workers

It didnt have to happen,

after the incident and took a few days before returning them to Reuters:

Reuters Says Killed Photographer's Cameras Returned; Seeks Full Investigation Into Deaths

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/07/reuters02.html

(July 17, 2007) - The two missing digital cameras of killed Reuters photojournalist Namir Noor-Eldeen have been returned to the news service, they report from Iraq, and the last pictures he took before dying in Baghdad do not show any gunmen, or people running for cover, or clashes between militants and U.S. forces.

Reuters has asked the United States to conduct a "full and objective investigation" into last week's deaths of Noor-Eldeen, 22, a photographer, and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, who were killed in what witnesses have said was a U.S. helicopter attack and what Iraqi police have labeled as a "random American bombardment."

Army statements have said the two were killed as bystanders to a firefight with insurgents, and that their deaths were being investigated. The military also says nine insurgents were killed in the skirmish by U.S. troops.

Reuters views that lack of any photographs on Noor-Eldeen's cameras of insurgents, firefights, or battle as evidence that casts doubt on the military's explanation of their deaths. "Our preliminary investigation raises real questions about whether there was fighting at the time the two men were killed," said David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters. "For the sake of their memory and for the sake of all journalists in Iraq we need a thorough and objective investigation that will help us and the military learn lessons that will improve the safety of journalists in the future."

but they ransacked the cameras.

The cameras were confiscated within 20 minutes and not returned for 3-4 days.

They show:
The reason the photographers were there, to document "the aftermath of an earlier shooting incident."
That the people in that group were civilians. As Reuters notes, there weren't any pictures of "insurgents, firefights, or battle" all the reasons the Army initially claimed as justification. Yet, they categorized most of the people killed as insurgents even though they had both the video from the air and the pictures from the ground in their possession.
And they had the physical evidence that these were cameras, not RPG's.

For these to be returned, they had to have been passed up the chain of command, then back to Reuters.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8092853

:wow:

:hi:

Via Twitter:

US mil releases Iraq massacre investigation doc; note the tone. its junk http://bit.ly/cP9eoN
about 2 hours ago via bit.ly

Lots of people avoiding talking murderous attack on the van/wounded; strawmanning camera/rpg confusion as the issue
about 3 hours ago via bit.ly

:hi:

of the guys he called with guns that would be a bradley. Odd to use cover like that, peek around the corner. People die in war. If you are going to fund and fight them this is the consequence.

Sick bastards. Their love for death is gross and disturbing.