Wikileaks Apache Vid

[JingleBells]

Wikileaks have just leaked a video from an Apache Helicopter gunship, which apparently shows a missile strike on a crowded square in a Baghdad neighbourhood in July 2007:

Al Jazeera story
WikiLeaks twitter

I'm not going to directly link to the video, but this is the tweet with it in.

I've not watched the video, but if it's showing what it says it's showing then I'd love to see the US's reaction to it!

 

[Nate]

I watched the video, not all of it mind but it looks like one guy is hiding behind a wall looking at the apache with something long and round in his hands. They call RPG. Then they open fire. Why would these guys stand near someone with the idea of taking on an Apache if they weren't in on it? Says in the small clip that 2 of the guys were reuters so explains a little but getting that close. Can't understand it.

 

[Zenith]

If you really think they would act like that "to take on an apache"? I am not qualified to see if that is a RPG, but Im doubting it.

The whole movie freaks me out, esp. the fucked up comments and reactions of the soldiers.

And the fact they started fire on the van.

 

[JingleBells]

The whole movie freaks me out, esp. the fucked up comments and reactions of the soldiers.

And the fact they started fire on the van.

Yeah I've watched the edited video now and these bits are the worst for me. The comments are sort of what you'd expect from a teenager playing CoD, not a professional soldier and as for firing on the van they claim they're collecting weapons - I couldn't see any of that.

I can possibly accept the mistaking of cameras for weapons - especially when he is peering round the corner, but the shooting of the van seems to me to be a reprehensible act.

 

[ECA]

Small arms fire won't down an Apache, the men were in broad daylight with two Apaches hovering over them - how are they meant to act?

They took no incoming fire at any point, and hit two children as well.

>.>

 

[old.user4556]

Any innocent person that dies in a war is a tragic loss; man, child or woman.

But this is war in a warzone, people get killed, all the time. Besides, the taliban would blow their women and children up without thinking twice about it.

When they shouted 'RPG', it might have been but an RPG also looked very much like a medium length telephoto zoom.

 

[ECA]

Any innocent person that dies in a war is a tragic loss; man, child or woman.

But this is war in a warzone, people get killed, all the time. Besides, the taliban would blow their women and children up without thinking twice about it.

When they shouted 'RPG', it might have been but an RPG also looked very much like a medium length telephoto zoom.

It wasn't a warzone though, it was 2007 - four years after the invasion.

 

[old.user4556]

Ok I'm confused; if there was no warzone / war, why are the army and Apache helicopters on patrol? To make sure people don't steal sweets?

 

[ECA]

Ok I'm confused; if there was no warzone / war, why are the army and Apache helicopters on patrol? To make sure people don't steal sweets?

Major Combat Operations were declared over on May 1st 2003.

 

[old.user4556]

Oh come on, but we all knew that was nonsense .

 

[ECA]

Oh come on, but we all knew that was nonsense .

Iraq had it's first democratic elections post-invasion in 2005 where they elected their government.

We were clearly not at war at that point.

This footage was allegedly shot in 2007.

 

[old.user4556]

Again; so why are the US Army still there?

 

[Ch3tan]

Again; so why are the US Army still there?

They are there as a peacekeeping force, and to support the Iraqi government and police. It's not a warzone.

 

[ECA]

Again; so why are the US Army still there?

There are 33,000 US troops in Japan.
There are 56,000 US troops in Germany.
There are 28,500 US troops in South Korea.

Can we have some gunship massacres there and justify it because "it sorta looked like they had guns on a grainy video"?

 

[old.user4556]

They are there as a peacekeeping force

Thanks Chet, that answers my question.

 

[yaruar]

And the fact they started fire on the van.

that's a clear breach of the first and second geneva conventions and constitutes a clear war crime as the man they were firing on was wounded and people were clearly just trying to help them.

"The first Geneva Convention ("for the Amelioration of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces and Field") and the second Geneva Convention ("for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea") are similar, covering land and sea respectively. They embody the main idea which led to the founding of the Red Cross: if a member of the armed forces is wounded or sick, and therefore in no condition to take an active part in the hostilities, he is no longer part of the fighting force and becomes a vulnerable person in need of protection and care."

of course you wouldn't expect the US to follow international law....

 

[old.user4556]

I think the Yanks fucked up big time, the more times I watch the vid the more I'm convinced the crouching guy had a camera.

 

[ECA]

I think the Yanks fucked up big time, the more times I watch the vid the more I'm convinced the crouching guy had a camera.

Maybe because two of them were from reuters?

Reuterslink - Reuters journalists killed in Baghdad

 

[old.user4556]

Yes, I watched the video, but thanks for pointing it out again.

 

[00dave]

Looks to me like the guys in the copter were far too eager to engage and they were getting permission from a guy who didn't have enough information to be giving that permission. Notice how apart from a "it looks like they have weapons" there are no questions asked.
And when the gunner claims they were being fired upon sounds unlikely as when they circled again none of the men were facing the copter. And they can't have been in much danger themselves as it takes quite a lot to bring an apache down, an important factor being luck when all you have is ak47s and RPGs. For example In black hawk down it appears that the black hawks are taken down by and RPG each, in reality the sky was littered with RPGs going into the air and more than two black hawks were hit, but only two came down.

 

[mr.Blacky]

that's a clear breach of the first and second geneva conventions and constitutes a clear war crime as the man they were firing on was wounded and people were clearly just trying to help them.

"The first Geneva Convention ("for the Amelioration of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces and Field") and the second Geneva Convention ("for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea") are similar, covering land and sea respectively. They embody the main idea which led to the founding of the Red Cross: if a member of the armed forces is wounded or sick, and therefore in no condition to take an active part in the hostilities, he is no longer part of the fighting force and becomes a vulnerable person in need of protection and care."

of course you wouldn't expect the US to follow international law....

well 1.2 was never signed by the US not seen the vid caus I am not registered but were they cleary marked as being part of the press?

 

[yaruar]

well 1.2 was never signed by the US not seen the vid caus I am not registered but were they cleary marked as being part of the press?

The first firing was borderline. In the second they clearly see and acknowledge a van coming it occupants picking up casulties/bodies and demand permission to fire on it before blowing it to smithereens including all occupants. There were clearly no combatants involved.

 

[Zenith]

One of the moments where I was very close to shut down the vid was when one guy, allegedly being from reuters, was crawling on the street. The only comment from the soldiers were "come on bud, just pick up a weapon".

 

[mr.Blacky]

The first firing was borderline. In the second they clearly see and acknowledge a van coming it occupants picking up casulties/bodies and demand permission to fire on it before blowing it to smithereens including all occupants. There were clearly no combatants involved.

lo Vae how is it.
err if no combatents involved then is not really about the Geneva convention? as I understand the convention it is about the treatment of combatents. Looking at what you are saying then it would be against the military code of the country, in this case the US code. While leaks and talk on the internet is good to bring it under the attention of people I dont know if the US military undertook any action against the crew of the helicopter, which should happen imho, reading what you typed.

 

[JingleBells]

The BBC and the Guardian have picked up this too (finally)

 

[ECA]

Even fox picked it up.

 

[tierk]

I just wonder how many more of these types of video's are being kept hidden under secrecy laws. I know i have seen a couple of others similar were they have just opened fire on civilians - from helicopters - without any real proof or clarification being requested.

Another concern is the total lack of responsibility taken by the US military to prosecute people for obvious breaches in their own - so called - codes of conduct and cases were civilians have been killed and then covered up. Its a disgrace.

I know that some people will say that its a war and civilians will get killed or point to the actions of Al Qaida or the Taliban as if they are some sort of benchmark for how people humans should be treated. Sorry but that just doesn't wash with me at all.

We sit and preach to all the world about human rights and try and take the high moral ground with countries, groups and organizations world wide about how we are trying to bring a better world. Yet we keep finding out cases were clearly crimes have been committed and they are covered up or just simply ignored.

This is neither the first

BBC News Online | World | Middle East | Charges dropped in Haditha trial

nor the last case we will hear.

Another thing that this video highlights so clearly is the totally callous mentality of the people in the helicopter and the troops on the ground. Just listen to the chatter and see how calm and casual it all is for them. Sick plain and simple.

 

[Chilly]

Another thing that this video highlights so clearly is the totally callous mentality of the people in the helicopter and the troops on the ground. Just listen to the chatter and see how calm and casual it all is for them. Sick plain and simple.

I wouldnt want any other type of soldier fighting for me.

 

[DaGaffer]

Another thing that this video highlights so clearly is the totally callous mentality of the people in the helicopter and the troops on the ground. Just listen to the chatter and see how calm and casual it all is for them. Sick plain and simple.

I wouldnt want any other type of soldier fighting for me.

I can actually agree with both viewpoints here. Yes they sounded callous and casual, but I wouldn't really expect anything else from soldiers in a combat zone (and as far as they are concerned, its a combat zone). On the other hand, the guy willing the injured man to pick up a "weapon", sounded like he was getting off on the whole opportunity to kill people rather than just doing his job.

As for the rest of it, I couldn't see any evidence of a weapon being carried by anyone in that video, but I'm also not trying to look through a TV monitor on a bouncing attack helicopter over Baghdad while I'm doing it, and I bring none of the "baggage" that troops in a guerilla war have going on. Which, by the way, doesn't mean I condone what they did, and an enquiry/court martial is called for.

 

[Tom]

It isn't the first time I've seen a cameraman holding a camera being mistaken for holding a weapon. I remember one video from many years back, shoulder-mounted videocamera mistaken for a rocket launcher, bang and his arm is gone.

I don't understand why they shot the van though.

I'm not about to start judging the US troops based on this video. If that's the worst of their mistakes, then I'll not lose any sleep. Their enemies do far worse.