Since apaprently no one is talking about this

[la_vie_noire]

Iraq video sets off renewed protests

Journalist advocacy groups called for the reopening of an investigation into the 2007 killing of a Reuters photographer and his driver after the WikiLeaks website released classified video footage on Monday of a 2007 helicopter attack in Baghdad which killed 12 people.

"This footage is deeply disturbing," said Joel Simon, executive director of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists.

"The video also confirms our long-held view that a thorough and transparent investigation into this incident is urgently needed," Simon added.

The video shows the camera feed from an Apache helicopter



gunship as it performs an air strike on a group of men milling around an empty Baghdad street.

The video also shows the helicopter firing on a van that arrived at the scene and was attempting to evacuate the only visible survivor of the first attack. The attack wounded two children who were inside the vehicle. Among those killed were Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.


[...] But after US ground forces arrive and find wounded children in the van the helicopter attacked, the helicopter pilots blame the Iraqis.

"Well it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle," says one.

"That's right," says another.

"I know that two children were hurt, and we did everything we could to help them. I don't know how the children got hurt," Major Brent Cummings, the executive officer of the battalion who launched the attack, told the Washington Post after the incident.

Priceless. That's all I can say.

Killings of Iraqi journalists: US says they were not war crimes

Oh. "The problems of journalism" I see. If this were the case of American civilians killed mindlessly by Iraqi soldiers...

U.S. Military Releases Redacted Records on 2007 Apache Attack, Questions Linger

The conclusions? According to an investigation by the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, the aircrew “accurately assessed that the criteria to find and terminate the threat to friendly forces were met in accordance with the law of armed conflict and rules of engagement.” The report concluded that the attack helicopters positively identified the threat, established hostile intent, conducted appropriate collateral damage assessment and received clearance to fire.

What’s more, the military indirectly blamed the reporters for being in the company of “armed insurgents” and making no effort to identify themselves as journalists. An investigating officer with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 2nd Infantry Division, concluded that “the cameramen made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives” and added that “their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the Coalition Ground Forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.” A long telephoto lens, the officer says, could have been mistaken for a rocket-propelled grenade.

It’s also clear, however, that the military quickly figured out that they had inadvertently killed two Reuters employees, and that two children had been seriously wounded in the incident. During “sensitive site exploitation,” members of the ground unit recovered cameras and media cards from the scene, and were able to identify pictures shot by a Reuters employee at a coalition news conference.

Comments

[yeloson]

I saw this yesterday.

It's also worth noting:

1) Apache Helicopters have 30 mm machine guns- these are designed to take out TANKS.

2) RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) are ideally used against ground troops or humvees- they're sorta last ditch against helicopters.

The Afghanis used modified RPGs to take on Soviet helicopters using metal strips to tangle the rotors... which kinda tells you that they're not ideal as raw weapons vs. helicopters.

3) AK-47's were pretty common for folks in rural areas to carry, and since civil order has fallen apart, people generally carry them since they may have to pass between several areas controlled by different groups. So, that alone is not a good cause to fire upon folks.

4) Notice how, aside from the camera-man, no one else takes cover?

This is why we normally split military and police forces- military assumes hostile intent, police forces are supposed to be trained to discern the difference. Occupations (which aren't going to be full on suppressions) need the latter much more than the former.

[la_vie_noire]

The thing is an incredibly disturbing mess.

Because I think the initial report was that the civilians attacked them? I don't know if I read that correctly in some place because my mind isn't that lucid right now.

Something I just can't let pass in the covering and downright lying up that went here for... three years.

Because USA is such a world power, you know. If they want to cover something, they will. And the truth will die with the other side.

[yeloson]

You can hear the pilots claiming they're under fire in the video. Which, clearly, they're not.

[la_vie_noire]

*attacked them first. And they reacted.