How Did Wikileaks Do It? 973
grassy_knoll writes "Related to the Wikileaks video recently released and discussed here, the NY Times reports: 'Somehow — it will not say how — WikiLeaks found the necessary computer time to decrypt a graphic video, released Monday, of a United States Army assault in Baghdad in 2007 that left 12 people dead, including two employees of the news agency Reuters. The video has been viewed more than two million times on YouTube, and has been replayed hundreds of times in television news reports.'
The article is light on details; what encryption algorithm was used? Was this a brute force attack? Did someone pass the decryption keys to Wikileaks along with the video? Something else?"
maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
they got it unencrypted
Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikilieaks have not been playing this up, the media has. And they should. This is what is known as 'an important news story.' The fact that wikileaks is asking for donations is irrelevant. They have always asked for donations, and they don't have control over how popular a leaked document becomes.
It was leaked. (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that whoever leaked the video must have been able to view it, since they knew what was on it. So they would have had the video, as well as the decryption keys. If they're going to leak the video, why not leak the keys too?
How ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Judge White said at the time, “We live in an age when people can do some good things and people can do some terrible things without accountability necessarily in a court of law.”
Obviously, the ability to do some terrible things without accountability should be reserved for the government.
This seems so obvious. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just "how", but "if" they did it (Score:4, Insightful)
WikiLeaks claims they decrypted the material. While that's certainly possible, we have no way to know if this is true. They might have received it unencrypted, but made these assertions (including the Internet posts requesting supercomputer time) to throw investigators off-track.
Re:It was leaked. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because they're not traitors, that's why.
Whistleblowers are some of the most patriotic people in the government because they see the evil that is done in the name of the people and expose it. That doesn't mean they hate the government, quite the opposite.
Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they find who did it and erect a statue in his honor. Sometime breaking the law is the only way to get justice. This video was not classified for any legitimate reason except to cover someone's ass.
Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
Going to war in Iraq is what's putting our soldiers in danger, not exposing their subsequent war crimes.
Re:Not true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not true (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it seems that the angle most of the media has been playing up is "Wikileaks pwns DoD", not "US military massacres unarmed civilians and reporters".
Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (Score:2, Insightful)
No, shooting up a country we don't belong in puts all of our American soldiers in danger. They wouldn't be in danger if we weren't playing "we have the biggest cock in the world."
Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object to (Score:4, Insightful)
So, it is this supposed 'bias' you object to, not the appeals for money. Thanks for clearing that up, now we know your bias.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPU Parallel processing (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. It's really easy to increase key sizes (2048-bit, 4096-bit...) making brute forcing exponentially harder. Adding more GPUs in linear, same as increased speed.
Weak encryption (e.g. 512-bit RSA) can be cracked, and 1024-bit in theory (last I heard), but 2048-bit is still in the "not in the forseeable future".
The only way to change this is to create better algorithms, not faster hardware.
court of law (Score:5, Insightful)
Another early attempt to shut down the site involved a United States District Court judge in California. In 2008, Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the American version of the site shut down after it published confidential documents concerning a subsidiary of a Swiss bank. Two weeks later he reversed himself, in part recognizing that the order had little effect because the same material could be accessed on a number of other "mirror sites."
Judge White said at the time, "We live in an age when people can do some good things and people can do some terrible things without accountability necessarily in a court of law."
yes, Judge, you are obviously doing one of those terrible things without accountability in a court of law when you silence the truth.
Re:GPU Parallel processing (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah...get back to me when you manage to bruteforce a 128-bit AES key on your GPU farm. Only then can you claim that "Encryption is far behind the current power of hardware these days."
You == I haz think of the chidlern! (Score:5, Insightful)
"WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video..."
I hope they find out who leaked this and put them in a locked cell. Releasing classified material puts all of our American soldiers in danger -- not to mention our country.
Explain to me how the release of this particular video puts all of our American soldiers in danger. Do you understand the difference between classified and 'military sensitive'? Do you realize that some (not all) things marked as 'classified' are done so just to cover some ass?
I can understand the difference between leaking, for example, the engineering details (and possible achille's heel) of one of our military pieces of equipment, or security details regarding the protection of our nuclear plants and leaking a video that has no security value beyond PR damage control.
You are just sensationalizing a logical fallacy, in a very highschoolish fashion. Pure hand waving. Not buying it.
Re:It was leaked. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]'s sources section, there was an investigation conducted by United States Central Command, days after the event occurred. It's entirely possible the video was pulled for review, but while the investigation's contents may have been encrypted and not visible, the index would explain what was on it.
I could see how someone charged with filing and safeguarding the actual data would not possess the actual decryption keys.
Re:Not true (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. I've always thought that, if WikiLeaks had a bias, it would be an editorial one along the lines of "We'll publish this, not that". By coming out and saying "This is what this video is showing, it was murder," WikiLeaks is telling us how to interpret the video. I thought the whole point of "leaks" were to get information out there, and let us decide what it means.
Re:supercomputer (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever gave them that time, if they are an American, is a Patriot. If they are not, they are a true friend of Freedom and Truth and Justice.
And if it was the Intelligence Arm of either Russia or China, it's fucking hilarious.
Re:Not true (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares how? The better question is why the bias (Score:4, Insightful)
I fully support the idea of wikileaks. I fully look down on them for the way they released this with an opinionated campaign. They should not be in the job of interpreting their leaks. They should not be in the job of making sites like collateralmurder.com to publicize their leaks. They should be in the business of actually leaking newsworthy items with confidentiality.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting. The only thing I'd disagree with at that linked site is that journalists are fair game if they are embedded with enemy forces. You can't shoot journalists just because you don't like the side they are reporting from.
Re:Not true (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think we have to omit details, I think we could go with "Soldiers laugh while massacring innocents and then cover it up." I really feel for the soldiers, though. Anyone whose empathy has been so destroyed that they can laugh at another person's mortal suffering is too messed up to fit into normal society. These guys are going to be tomorrow's homeless vets who can neither forget nor forgive themselves for what they have done. And neither the military nor the government will shed a tear for the lives they have ruined.
Overpaid geeks: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY [wikileaks.org].
I know Julian Assange slightly. He used to be the sysadmin at Suburbia.net [suburbia.net]. That's where my critic of Scientology [suburbia.net] website lives. He and Mark Dorset of Suburbia have assiduously defended that site against baseless legal threats from Scientology for the past fifteen years. The guy's got balls of titanium.
The newspapers whine about "who's going to do journalism without us around?" The answer is the same as who'll do it with them around, i.e. someone else. So far it's Wikileaks.
I gave 'em GBP50 (~US$100) last pay and will again this pay. So should you.
Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY [wikileaks.org].
Thank you.
Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they find out who leaked this and put them in a locked cell. Releasing classified material puts all of our American soldiers in danger -- not to mention our country.
How? Were we counting on the terrorists thinking they would be completely safe, on base if you will, if they were unarmed, in a van with kids? Or are you implying the bad guys didn't know we had helicopters with guns?
Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object (Score:1, Insightful)
How many civilians do you know that carry RPGs around with them around town?
Re:supercomputer (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoever gave them that time, if they are an American, is a Patriot. If they are not, they are a true friend of Freedom and Truth and Justice.
Agreed. It is a symbol of our weakness if we are unwilling/unable to restrain our power if we cannot exercise such power without this level of "collateral damage."
Did you even watch the footage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody in the group had RPGs or anything that looked remotely like them. Nobody made any kind of threatening move. No one was frightened of US military helicopters, because they were not enemy combatants and probably believed, up until the first bullet hit, that the US were there to help them.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:5, Insightful)
So when people carry weapons in public, we immediately assume they are enemy combatants? I know there was fighting in the area: you still have ZERO proof these were insurgents.
I would assume that most Iraqi civilians are armed for self defense. There are plenty of stories about Iraqis using their own guns -- even AK-47s -- to fend of insurgents trying to kidnap them or plant bombs. The "RPG" you keep pointing out looks a lot like a pro camera lens to me. And there is zero evidence that these people were engaged in any warfare, or about to fire an RPG: the pilots made that shit up.
Finally, this quote from your link: "But you drive your van into an active military engagement?" As I understand it, most of Baghdad in 2007 was pretty dangerous. A passing family would have little idea of how recently a group of people were shot. For all we know, they were in the process of fleeing an active engagement elsewhere, saw wounded Iraqis in a scene that appeared calm at the moment, and attempted to rescue them. The link says "You are stupid. Innocent, but stupid. You're asking to be killed." -- you might as well call all Iraqi civilians that, then. Why live in Iraq at all? Let's move them to the U.S.
Re:Did you even watch the footage? (Score:2, Insightful)
Simply not true. One of the guys had an RPG and is clearly shown in the video with it. In addition, another US unit was under attack one block away.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:4, Insightful)
such as, the FACT that the "civilians" were actually enemy combatants. For more details: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php [mypetjawa.mu.nu]
What disturbs me is how quickly people judge a video when they were two airships meaning you're only seeing one view from one of the apaches. Other people are calling in RPGs and AK47s ... and those that were pulling the triggers were acting on that information. Personally, from watching the video, I saw very unfortunate movement by a photographer with a very large camera (405-415 on the wikileaks site) that at first looks exactly like an insurgent with an RPG trying to get an unseen angle on a gunship. Only after I was told that they were photographers was my imagination allowed to see that as a very large lens camera (and you conveniently can't see those frames where the RPG looks more like a camera at the site you linked to). And even then, with the low resolution Youtube footage, who's to say what it looked like to those there? Missing something like that could cost not only your life but also the lives of people flying with you.
I'm not trying to excuse what happened but I am saying that a series of mistakes were most likely made in those videos that lead to the unfortunate deaths of at least a couple innocent people.
And this is war.
If you're a United States citizen, you paid for that gunship. You paid for that scenario. Don't get me wrong, you also paid for the scenario when real insurgents trying to kill innocent people were stopped. That scenario just isn't interesting to us though. You see it as a byline on a newspaper but those stories are just something to yawn at these days. I was for the war in Afghanistan and I knew that things like this video would happen. I was not for the Iraq war because these scenarios were not worth ousting Saddam. Friendly fire happened in Desert Storm and probably every large scale conflict before that as long as guns have been involved. Do you think a reporter was never killed accidentally by United States forces in Vietnam or even World War II (commonly viewed as one of the few 'justified' war)?
I'm glad everyone got to see one of the faces of war. I'm sad that these people wrongfully died but I'm glad that this rightful outrage might cause us to really reconsider what half or more of us had decided when our elected Commander in Chief brought us into both these wars. I don't get it. I was ~20 years old during our invasion of Afghanistan and people just seemed humdrum "Hey, let's go to war, I won't be dying in it" and I'm still a little bit confused about that sentiment. How many of these conflicts must we have before we realize that declaring war means that civilians -- not just soldiers but women and children -- will die as some direct result of this war?
War is war. At some point the US populace just decided that war is different today. And then once we started two wars, we forgot about them. Just declared victory and tucked them away. Our soldiers are still dying, this is still happening. Wake up.
And lastly, I would like to point out that like soldiers, these reporters did know what they were entering when they entered a war zone. Again, not to absolve the Coalition forces but to quote Reuter's official word [reuters.com] on the footage:
There is no better evidence of the dangers each and every journalist in a war zone faces at any time.
And as Newsweek added [newsweek.com]:
These newsmen knew what they were getting into; it's the public watching the video now that has been caught unawares.
Re:Not true (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Did you even watch the footage? (Score:4, Insightful)
Simply not true. One of the guys had an RPG and is clearly shown in the video with it. In addition, another US unit was under attack one block away.
Which guy, at what point in time in the video? What unit was under attack, one block in which direction exactly? If a unit was under attack, why were the helicopters mowing down civilians instead of helping the unit that was actually receiving fire? Why did none of these supposed enemy combatants try to find cover, if there was gunfire going on? Why did they not react to the presence of US military helicopters?
"Jawa report" not credible (Score:5, Insightful)
They continue to identify the zoom lens being pointed around a corner as an RPG. It was a LENS! In any case, these guys were not taking aim at US troops or the helicopters. They were just standing around. Those guys with AK-47s could be bodyguards for the reporters, for all you know.
If this attack by the Apache helicopter was pre-emptive, then it easily could have been made by ground-interception by nearby US troops. These half-dozen would have had no hope facing Bradley IFVs and their mounted and heavily armed infantry.
Re:Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I may not agree with their interpretation of the issue but what makes them different (and, in my opinion, important) is that, regardless of any editorial they may add to the story, they always post all the original material they receive unedited. As long as they do that, I can view it myself and develop my own opinion. What the mainstream media and the military do is highly limit your direct access to the original evidence then tell you to "trust us" that they are giving you an honest description. As this case, and other such as the death of Pat Tillman, the military has proven that, as an organization, they are pathological liers that cannot be trusted.
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they were pretty justified in firing, then.
And how about when they lit up the "bongo truck?" The one with the locals trying to give aid to the people that were shot.
You know, the one with the kids in it.
Lemme guess... [crickets]
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:4, Insightful)
That editor states that it appears that one of the people killed in the video was carrying an AK-47 while another was carrying an RPG
That's funny, the people that were murdered while giving aid in the truck didn't appear to have any RPGs.
Oh, did FOX fail to mention that small detail in their quest to cover the complete story?
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm extremely disappointed that this was covered up, but I don't understand all the spin. Wikileaks claimed they have video showing the US government murdered someone.
The video is brutal. You see an injured reporter crawl, trying to survive. They shoot him again. But you also clearly see on the video a group with rifles, and an RPG. When the RPG is first visible, it appears to be pointed at the gunship.
The soldiers in question call, describe the situation and request permission to engage. They were told to engage. When they first see the reporter crawl away, they say on the video so long as he doesn't reach for a weapon, they're not going to shoot him again.
They're fighting insurgents who aren't wearing uniforms. The lines between insurgents and civilians isn't very clear.
It is no doubt disturbing to hear people take pleasure in killing others, but that is the reality of warfare. They believed they killed the enemy. After the fact, it is discovered that at least two of those individuals worked for Reuters and may be innocent civilians killed in the incident.
"Collateral damage" happens in every military conflict. It is unfortunate and should not be overlooked. But this isn't a video of people just randomly killing inoocent civilians for no good reason. Murder is unlawful killing. The soldiers in this video followed protocol and opened fire on an armed group when they were ordered to do so.
My problem with the video is two-fold. The US government shouldn't have covered it up. And it is against the Geneva convention to fire those high-caliber weapons at people. It is an odd rule, but apparently it is humane to kill someone with an M-16, but not a 30mm mounted gun. It happens all the time. Someone could make a stink about breaching the Geneva convention, but I really don't understand all the spin I'm reading about random wanton murder of innocents in this video.
Re:supercomputer (Score:3, Insightful)
No, fucking hilarious would be if it was the Iranian revolutionary guard. More probable too.
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
Having actually watched it more than once - I really didn't see any rpg launchers. I heard a bunch of really shellshocked guys flying around in a chopper.
Anyhow if they were carrying rpg's - they were pretty stupid. To illustrate - those guys were walking out in plain daylight, not just daylight, but an area that was completely devoid of buildings on one side of the street. All this while they let two apache gun ships circle around several times.
If that is how "insurgents" carry on - I'm honestly surprised we haven't wiped them out quicker than this.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it is selective editing.
It's pretty thin but pretty much by presenting an abridged version you are showing the facts you want people to see. It is not unjustified to assume that most people would watch the 15m assume that it is the important and relevant bits rather than watch the full 40m video.
Re:Not true (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you're funding them through your tax system (and you're not), what right have you got to tell them what they should and should not do?
If you don't like their site, nobody is preventing you from setting up your own.
Re:supercomputer (Score:5, Insightful)
Followed up by http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034 [twitter.com] a few months back
"Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs."
I was under the impression that they sniffed a satellite feed, and created a BOINC project to crack the key.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct, I did pay for that gunship with my tax dollars. I also paid for the training of those soldiers. Finally, the world opinion of America and Americans (including me) is affected by how we fight in Iraq.
So I feel I am justified in seeking an answer to this question:
What policy is in place that considers shooting an obvious makeshift ambulance a good idea?
Everything up to that point is a terrible misunderstanding. Having watched the video, if I were looking for AK47s and RPGs instead of cameras, I would have seen them. I'm not even going to second guess if the way to build a healthy Iraq is to destroy a group of people standing in a street with gunfire from a mile away, though I don't think that's the decision I would make.
But as for the van: everyone on the radio is clear that the van is picking up wounded. Very seriously wounded. Permission to fire was still asked for, and still given. Why? Even if everyone involved was 100% convinced those were bad guys, why? If this kind of conflict could be won purely by being the meanest guy on the block, Algeria would still be French.
Re:This seems so obvious. (Score:4, Insightful)
While telling everyone as loudly as you can, that you had to decrypt it, to cover for the guy whom decrypted it for you.
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that would be dumb.
Of course it isn't what happened, they were driving through their neighbourhood, (taking their children to school) didn't see or even hear any fighting (the apaches were over a kilometer away) and found some wounded people. They tried to help. Then they got shot. What battle?
Re:occam's razor (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry you can't see it, but the rules of engagement were followed. Two Reuters reporters decided to embed themselves with a group of people who were armed in a combat zone. Bad things happened. In retrospect, it was a sad situation. Hindsight being 20-20 and all.
In the heat of the moment, everything they did was checked and re-checked by their command chain to coincide with the rules of engagement. The audio shows they were repeatedly requesting permission up the command chain for the clear to fire. Commanders reviewed the information available against the rules of engagement, and determined they should be allowed to fire. That's why they were determined to have complied with those rules in this situation.
Just because Wikileaks can now review the video in "super-zoom" and "super-slo-mo" and determine that the pilots and gunners might have been able to discern whether the reporters were carrying cameras on straps instead of guns on straps does not make them liable for murder. It doesn't change the fact that these were people walking in a combat zone, with other people who had weapons, and were standing in a position waiting for a column of American vehicles to come into range.
Occam's razor does not say, "These were murderous thugs," Occam's Razor says, "This was a sad situation that occurred in the 'fog of war'."
Or, more succinctly, "War Sucks."
Re:maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, they got it from an anonymous source, this "we had to haxx0r REALLY hard" story is a smokescreen. The AH-64's onboard recorders don't store this video encrypted. Either a concerned party in that unit or someone in the Pentagon leaked the video.
The video itself isn't the worst part of this story. The fact that they tried to bury it is what is really disturbing to me. You put a bunch of Army troops on the ground and give them the most lethal and effective killing machines on the planet in an urban environment and civilians ARE going to die. People who claim otherwise are lying their asses off.
Re:Bruteforce (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b (Score:5, Insightful)
Also the term "rescue" and "rescuer" bias the reader that the van that just happened to enter the area with three men who jump out immediately and attempt to put the wounded man into the van while the van is rapidly turning and moving to provide a getaway was some good Samaritan, and not at all involved despite everyone in Iraq knowing to stay away from where the Apaches are circling.
That, and naming the site, "Collateral Murder" as well.
That puts it outside the provenance of just factually "leaking" the data.
A factual release would have been, "5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting a military action in Iraq which resulted in the deaths of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and the riders in a van apparently coming to remove him from the scene. Two young children seated in the van were also seriously wounded in the attack."
The difference is subtle, but important. The factual version lets you decide whether it is indiscriminate or not -- by watching the video. The original version acts as judge and jury on the actions of the Apache crew -- a crew vindicated as meeting all the rules of engagement by a Pentagon review of their actions.
Re:maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
But shooting a Family that did nothing but stop to pick a wounded man on the side of the road, is nothing short of a war crime. And the "don't bring kids to battle" doesn't work when its the US that took the battle to Baghdad (Where, shock horror, families live with children).
Re:Wikileaks = Enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about the bravery of the troops.
This is about their commanders putting them at risk by doing coverups which, when they eventually fail, feed the enemys' ability to recruit, rather than actively and transparently enforcing the "rules of war" and thus pulling the enemys' teeth.
It's time for YOU to grow up. There's more to war than tactical details and bravery under fire.
Re:Overpaid geeks: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY! (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you didn't watch it, you are one of the pilots, or you think anyone that all non American should be shot.
Hindsight is useless. So try foresight next time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, we are not seeing what the soldiers see here here. We can watch the video fifty times on slow-mo, squinting to see if that dude's carrying an RPG or a camera: the soldiers are making snap decisions on half-second glimpses. Contrariwise, the soldiers have a much wider perspective on the entire battlefront, and see things we can't. Our hindsight second-guessing is pointless.
But my point here is not to defend the soldiers or the military: it's to say that since hindsight is useless, we should try foresight. BEFORE we send troops into a country, we should understand that shit like this WILL happen. Absolute precision in warfare is impossible: conflict WILL result in innocents getting slaughtered by terrified boys with heavy weapons.
So when the option of war starts being discussed, we should not ask, "is our cause righteous? Are we prepared to sacrifice our sons' lives for it?" but rather, "Is our cause righteous enough that we can watch the mass slaughter of innocents, and still say we did the right thing?"
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
These guys are going to be tomorrow's homeless vets
The 'homeless vets' thing has been blown way out of proportion. Most of the 'vets' you see on the street are bums with an angle. The only thing they know about the service is what they've seen on the movies.
These guys - and tens of thousands of others - are going to be just what their peers were after coming back from Kuwait, Vietnam, Bosnia, Korea and the Pacific. Business leaders, professors, bus drivers, technicians. Quiet men who don't talk a lot about what they did but know their own value and get things done.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
" Anyone whose empathy has been so destroyed that they can laugh at another person's mortal suffering is too messed up to fit into normal society. "
I'm sorry, I know far too many people who have been to war, had to kill and make light of it that fit fine back in civilian life.
Most WWII vets, Most Vietnam Vets, and so forth.
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b (Score:3, Insightful)
Crap, I was not logged in.
That is NOT the raw video, that's the "MP4 they provided [that is] larger but is still blurry and obviously not the source video." The file is an mp4 (do helicopter cameras use that? Doubt it.) Are the timestamps clear? No. Is it still in a boxed frame in a lossy codec with titles? Yes. Is this file in the format they received it in? Maybe, but I'd still like to have it without any of the tampering they did to it to add titles, etc.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I can't imagine why these pilots would think that someone driving into a courtyard, with the dust still settling from the two Apaches pouring fire into it, would be anything but an innocent civilian. I mean, I'm sure if you were driving, and you saw a helicopter mow down an entire group of people in front of you and repeatedly pound the area with machine gun fire, that you would look over at your two kids and say, "You know, I should really stop and see if I can help the guys the helicopter was shooting at, even though he's still circling the area."
Sorry, most people would stomp the accelerator down and be gone. I'm not risking my kids in a combat zone.
Re:maybe (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:5, Insightful)
Apropos of anything else, I laughed.
I seem to recall our soldiers swearing oaths on statements made to military investigators, courts martial, and so on, that nothing untoward or unprofessional happened at Abu Ghraib.
A little while later, some of those soldiers were revealed as posing in some photos that gained quite a bit of infamy...
Re:supercomputer (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm probably on the other side of the fence on this - I support the actions of the troops in the helicopter and on the ground, and think they made the correct decision given what they knew - and I'll agree with that. Knowledge is always better than ignorance.
Re:Did you even watch the footage? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dispute the "clearly shown" part, but there was definitely a guy holding something about the size and shape of an AK-47. In the ~18-minute video embedded on BoingBoing [boingboing.net], look at the guy just above the crosshair at 3:39, and the guy left of him; those are the probable AKs that I see. Comments in the video refer to these people being near US ground forces: 4:28 in the video, "he was right in front of the Brad".
Considering the released report claims the ground troops actually found these weapons at the scene, as well as the cameras which apparently contained photos of the Bradley, the narrative that the photographers were walking around with a group of people who were intending to do violence to US forces and were near US ground forces seems at least adequately supported.
If you want to know why they weren't ducking and covering, did you see the delay between the gun firing and the hits? The bullets must have been in the air a good 2 seconds. That puts the person shooting like a kilometer away! The guys on the ground probably had no idea where the shots came from. They were too busy looking at the Bradley right next to them, and thought they were perfectly shielded.
The audio track is certainly pretty ugly, and what happened to the kids in the van is tragic -- but in context it all seems pretty understandable. Once it was decided that this war would be fought, there were bound to be tragic incidents like this.
I am, at the moment, willing to believe the government line that this was a small number of civilian casualties in the heat of battle, and I'm a lot unhappier about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. If this is what it takes to get people talking about the real issues again, fine, but I don't see that this is one of those issues. This is the cost of war. Apparently there was probably an ROE violation when they shot the van -- which is sad, and the attitude of the soldiers is ugly, but this is no My Lai massacre.
Re:occam's razor (Score:5, Insightful)
What they initially took to be an RPG was actually [timesonline.co.uk] the camera. I can't find the original news article I read, but it quoted a US military source as admitting as much.
And as for military procedure, they behaved like a bunch of trigger happy cowboys playing a video game. They were itching to fire and blast away, and were just looking for a reason to do it. There was no desire for clear information; they made assumptions that favoured the desire for action. Instead of verifying that there was an RPG, they immediately decided it was. The van that rocked up to take away the bodies could have been a makeshift ambulance - there was no signs of its occupants being armed - but they just immediately assumed it was hostile, and shot. They were urging the wounded Iraqi to pick up a weapon so they could kill him. Later, when they fired the first missile into the building, it was quite clear that a civilian had come into frame before firing, yet he shot anyway. The second missile was fired even though again, quite clearly, you can see civilians gathering outside the building to try help the wounded. Again, they fired without any consideration to innocents being nearby.
They demonstrate a callous disregard for the very human lives that they were supposedly trying to help/save, and clearly wanted to any excuse to open fire. And I doubt the fog of war really applies here since they weren't being fired on, so they could've taken their time to make good judgements.
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the presence of the RPG at the scene was confirmed by a Washington Post reporter.
Listen, I think a whole set of poor decisions were made, but to call this an unprovoked slaughter of a bunch on innocent civilians, as some have, is simply wrong.
This is one of those -- terrible -- things that happens during war.
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, the Reuters reporters failed to wear their officially issued retro-reflective "Press" vests, that would have identified them as non-combatants. They made this choice knowing the consequences. Thus, they intentionally, and knowingly, put themselves into a situation where they were endangering their lives. They also had failed to report to Reuters that they would be in the area, or even in the city of Bagdhad. It was only because one of the reporters was talking to a third man on his cell phone that Reuters found out where they were.
Third, recovered from the scene were one (or more) AK-47 fully automatic rifles, and two RPG7 rocket launchers with two warheads. One of the RPG rounds was actually found under the body of the cameraman.
Fourth, also recovered were the two Canon EOS cameras used by the reporters. The last images on the cameraman at the corner (the one found on the RPG round) were beautiful pictures of the lightly armored side of a Humvee about a block away from them. These are included in the investigative report. Were an RPG to have been fired from his position, those American soldiers would have died.
Again, with perfect knowledge, we know that the guy leaning around the corner is holding a camera with a long lens. To an Apache gunner, guarding the convoy below, it looks like a big tube, and the guy is standing over an RPG round (remember, it was found under him) pointing right down the street at the troops the Apache is supposed to be protecting.
That convoy had already received small arms fire (the reason for calling in the Apache air support) and was attempting to move through the area.
Now, consider what the Apache pilot knew. He has been called in to protect an armored column that has been taking fire from insurgents in the area. He (and a second Apache) spot a group of armed men, one holding an RPG (which rules out the idea of "bodyguards" floated so often in this discussion.) approaching the route of the column he's been called in to protect. These men brandish the weapons, and then gather around a blind corner on the route of the column. One of them, apparently holding a long, straight tube, leans around the corner and sights down the tube directly at the column of soldiers.
Still think that "unprovoked" applies? The mere presence of an RPG means that this is not just a bunch of guys taking pictures. So the attack is provoked.
As for "indiscriminate"? Seriously? When the guy is down and wounded, and not carrying a weapon, they do not fire. Admittedly they beg for him to "give them a reason," but they do not fire. "Indiscriminate?" I think not.
At every step of the way, they are getting cleared by commanders watching the same video feed, the commanders have the feed from two different Apaches to make those decisions (and apparently a UAV in the area as well.) We are seeing a single viewpoint. And we can slow-mo and zoom in on the video in a light-controlled office environment, with all the leisure to scroll back and forth and take closer looks. We are not in the heat, light, and adrenaline rush of a helicopter cockpit, buffeted by noise, smoke,and wind, and fearing for the lives of the men below who are counting on us to protect them.
The "FACT" can only come with perfect knowledge after the facts are known, and even then, you have to ignore most of the facts to come to that conclusion.
Re:Not true (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone whose empathy has been so destroyed that they can laugh at another person's mortal suffering is too messed up to fit into normal society.
I'd actually say that's societies fault.. Society, especially American/Western has removed the daily activity of death and dying from the average person. Showing dead bodies on TV is no longer common place in American news, or it's branded as 'Too Disturbing'.. it's not disturbing.. it's how the friggen universe works.. people die.. get over it.
You don't think Undertakers and Medical Examiners laugh at mortality too? They just happen to work with it all day long.. People that work with food all day long laugh about hair in your food.. I'm work in computing..and you don't think I don't laugh about people that can't do what I consider 'simple things'?
Re:Not true (Score:2, Insightful)
These particular soldiers were not given an order to shoot a people. By giving false information (especially the stuff about the people from the van picking up weapons) they were anxiously asking for permission to shoot. Can you see the difference?
I hope nobody gives people like these something as powerful as nuclear launch codes etc.
Re:occam's razor (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the point I cited in the video clearly shows a loaded RPG. It's even clearer in the full size MP4 unedited version.
And the cameraman was found by the soldiers lying on top of an RPG round. But that doesn't fit your view.
Were the pilots a bit gung-ho? Yes, they were. That's how you get a soldier past the fact that they're chopping up other human beings. It's a part of soldiering.
As for the van? Once again, you miss the context. Insurgents in Iraq often arrived in vans to collect wounded, weapons, and ammo to make any dead appear to be innocent civilians. This was well known to the Apache pilot, the gunner, and their chain of command. They didn't just "fire wildly" at the van. If you listen to the unedited video, they repeatedly ask their chain of command for a clear to fire. Their commanders were watching the video from two Apache helicopters and a UAV and made the decision that this appeared to be an insurgent group retrieving their wounded and weapons, and gave the order to fire.
The two men who attempt to load the guy into the van came from the same place the other insurgents had come from, not from the van itself. The guy in the van clearly knew who they were, knew he was in a combat zone (watch him trying to move the van to line it up for a getaway once they were loaded, almost running one of them over) and he made the choice to be there and to put his kids in danger.
Once the soldiers arrive, they continue to come under small arms fire, even while trying to rescue the wounded.
It's a war, hard decisions are made, and "under fire" doesn't necessarily mean they're shooting at you but it could mean your friends are taking fire.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, this wasn't a war zone. It was a neighborhood. They hadn't cleared all the civilians out, and had no reasonable assumption that everyone still on the streets was an enemy. Also, this part of the raid, during the surge, was a complete surprise. They intended to flush out insurgents, and knew full well that they would be intermixed with civilians. They should have been MORE cautious, not less.
So you're saying the chopper needs to have an RPG shot at it before it can engage the enemy?
That's actually what the Rules of Engagement say as well. Shots have to be fired, or at least threatened, before PID is possible and engagement is legal. Wikileaks has them, go read them for yourself.
In my opinion...
Light them all up is the last thing that would go through any sane persons mind.
Watch the rest, then go back and put the first part in context. Look at the 'bongo truck' situation. Or that poor bastard walking in front of the building when it takes a missile. Or all the rubber-neck-ers who bite it when the next two missiles hit. Did they deserve to die as well? Boondoggle, from start to finish.
Re:occam's razor (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were the entirety of the video, your position might be deemed rational.
What about the poor bastard on the sidewalk when that building takes a missile hit? Or all the lookie-loo's who die after the second and third missiles. Or the six families that allegedly lived there at the time?
And of course the 'bongo truck'. You know, the one that never demonstrated intent to pickup anything but wounded? The one that was utterly destroyed, and all those surrounding it slaughtered - both against the Rules of Engagement, I might add.
In the entire context, please defend your position:
Occam's razor does not say, "These were murderous thugs," Occam's Razor says, "This was a sad situation that occurred in the 'fog of war'."
Because to me it looks like willful blindness, at a minimum. They lied to Bushmaster Seven to get permission to fire on that truck. They only suggested going to missile fire when they ran out of normal rounds. And you're going to tell me these men are neither 'murderous' nor 'thugs'?
I'm not bashing them because they used to be military, by the way. I'm bashing them because they lost their honor, disobeyed orders, and made all the good and decent fighting men and women around them complicit in their crimes.
And in that light, why the hell would you, or anyone, want to defend them?
Re:Not true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b (Score:5, Insightful)
The US army killed everyone in the group since 1 may have had a gun and 1 may have had an RPG. That may be called prudent even. But it certainly was indiscriminate.
unprovoked - occurring without motivation or provocation
The men on the ground didn't shoot. They weren't close enough to swear at or give the finger. Hell there was no indication that they were aware of the helicopter.
rescuer - a person who rescues you from harm or danger
In this case you are right. Attempted rescuer would be better. I think you could say with confidence in a strict a situation as a legal court that they were rescuers. There was a man laying on the ground riddled with bullets and they tried to drive off with him. Would you describe them as kidnappers?
The title I will give you! It is clearly a leading title.
Though i find it ironic that you don't want wikileaks to act as jury. But you are cool with the us gov acting as judge, jury and executioner in this case. Do remember that the US gov pretty clearly lied about this action in cover up and refused to release the footage. That is pretty evil.
Re:supercomputer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone whose empathy has been so destroyed that they can laugh at another person's mortal suffering is too messed up to fit into normal society.
That's idiotic. How do you think coroners keep their spirits up? Undertakers? EMT's? Police? You don't think that every single career which deals with death is similarly filled with jokes about it? I don't wanna call you "naive", but every other word which comes to mind is worse.
Re:Hindsight is useless. So try foresight next tim (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact remains they were wrong. They didn't even try to be sure, they just started shooting and laughed about it.
Screw you for trying to protect trailer park trash like this which shouldn't even be allowed access to weapons of any kind, never mind heavily armed assault choppers.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
And the van? What weapon did it have?
A phaser cannon and full complement of photon torpedoes.
Who gives a shit what weapons it had? The actions of the men in the van indicated that they were allied with the men on the ground. That made them legitimate targets, especially when they started removing evidence/intel from the scene. If they really were picking up the weapons also - as the guy in the video indicates - that just provides even more justification for shooting them, but it's certainly not required.
Re:"Jawa report" not credible (Score:1, Insightful)
The United States should not go to war against a country where its troops have to have the liberty to shoot any random person on the street in order to protect themselves from sudden death.
Tell that to your politicians, not the troops doing their jobs. Once your life is on the line your opinion might not stay consistent.
I would also submit that, regardless of who is doing the interdiction, whether it's the Apaches or the armored Bradleys, they could have taken a damn minute to figure out if these guys on the ground had hostile intent. These guys were clearly just wondering around. Did they have AK-47s? Yes. But not everyone had one. No one was pointing them at anything.
This is war. Even worse is that it is a guerrilla war. War is NOT the same as our judicial system where you have to catch someone in the act or prove them of their crimes (in most cases). If we did this do you think the US death toll would still be 4 figures? The fact of the matter was there was a friendly group nearby taking hostile fire. These men where also nearby with weapons and did not belong to their known friendly group. This is where the "shit happens" comes to play.
Not Traitors, Just Ignorant (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly, dehumanizing the enemy is a necessary part of war if your soldiers aren't sociopaths (and the US military is fairly good at weeding those out).
Mo, the US military has almost nothing else. How, the fuck do you think they keep managing to find scum to send all around the world fucking America in the ass?
Keep in mind, the US military hasn't been used for anything except fucking the world for the sake of a few very rich sociopaths since world war 2. So given that, your assertion that the members of the US military are anything but sociopathic traitors is batshit insane. If they had a scrap of integrity they would have killed themselves long before obeying criminal, treasonous orders to fuck their country.
Seriously, try thinking not just spouting the idiotic militaristic propaganda you've been spoonfed.
I agree with you that in recent decades the U.S. military has mostly been used as a beatstick to protect the interests of a small handful of wealthy sociopathic elite. However, most of the soldiers aren't bad people. They are mostly ignorant, uneducated people who truly believe the lie that they are fighting the good fight and doing what needs to be done. It's not that they lack integrity, they genuinely don't know that what they are doing is traitorous to their country and their planet. Only a small handful at the very top qualify as "sociopathic traitors".
why is a political piece on /.? (Score:3, Insightful)
The line dividing
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
You're obviously an ass. I detest Bush, and I detest all the lies told by the Bush administration to "justify" the invasion of Iraq. But, painting the soldiers with your broad brush of treason and murder is every bit as dishonest as Bush's reasons for invading Iraq.
Get a clue: a soldier is sworn to obey the lawful orders of his lawfully appointed superiors. The men in Iraq are doing so. Now, pull your head out of your arse, and attack the morons who were in the position to authorize and order an invasion. That would include almost everyone who was part of the Bush administration, as well as almost every senator and congressman.
I understand "why" Congress authorized the war, but it was still wrong.
Re:Not true (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm liberal, it just seems wikileaks is going out of it's way to make the military look bad and then play itself up.
I'm a realist, and I it sucks that sites such as wikileaks have to do stuff like this. They aren't going out of their way to make the military look bad. The military does that all by itself without anyones help. Had they admitted to a fuck up, and then talk about how they were going to make it so these things didn't happen, they would of gotten less of a outcry and more public sympathy. Instead, they cover it up.
Here, to make it easy for your "liberal" mind. Say you come home, and your wife is dead. Then you hear police sirens and you decide to take off instead of being taken in for questioning. How does that look to the police? Like your guilty, because your running, trying to hide something.
We are humans, we make mistakes all the fucking time. Trying to act like the military, the police, the president don't make those same mistakes is stupid, and in some cases, criminal. How are we to teach our children to stand up and be responsible for your actions when we don't hold ourselves to that standard?
As for wikileaks using this to make money, or fame, or whatever, please, shut up.
Wikileaks runs by donations. Always has, always will. Just because a story they are covering happens to go big, ya, they get more exposure as a side product of that, but thats good.
We need sites like wikileaks thats not afraid to host and show the things that people want hidden. This is stuff governments/corporations/people with power are doing and hiding. Maybe you want to believe that everything has your best interest in mind, but I live in the real world, where most everything wants to control you, make money off of you, or just know everything you are doing.
Re:Hindsight is useless. So try foresight next tim (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. On my first casual watch-through, I heard them claim 5-6 guys with AKs. My jaw dropped, then I assumed that was chatter from a different site. There was ONE man in the PLENTIFUL video beforehand who had anything long enough to be a rifle, and it was the wrong shape.
It soon became evident that the claim was not chatter from a different site.
I only watched as far as the first salvo - the crime had been committed at that point. I didn't watch the rest of the egregious violations, and I didn't watch it in slo-mo, so my criticisms above aren't about 'heat of battle'. I'm also not a trained killing professional. There was no battle before the US started it. This isn't about 'absolute precision'. This isn't even supposed to be a war at this point, but an occupation.
This is one of the weakest positive identifications in existance, outside of total, utter fabrication.
Re:Not true (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b (Score:3, Insightful)
You were not there
you do not know where those weapons came from, but you already ACCEPT IT as being truth, compare to what you saw and heard with your own eyes.
A person without a weapon is a person without a weapon. You do not MURDER UNARMED PEOPLE just because there IS an ARMED person with them.
Your logic is so flawed, by its own fallacy, as soon as we invaded Iraq, there is no difference between "bad people" all are bad, even if they dont have weapons - thus, there are no civilians.
FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
If we run by that logic in every day life then helping anyone is a liability or just plain dangerous.
If that is the case, then killing american civilians with bombs is a valid military tactic as the american civilian public is helping the US military by funding them through the payment of taxes.
You see... that kind of logic goes both ways ;)
Re:maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
The area just got lit the fuck up by a bunch of really powerful, really loud cannon rounds. A van drives right into it, bunch of people running around picking stuff up...
Looks like the calvary came to grab the weapons and reinforce the people that just went down.
That's a perfectly good reason to light the van up too.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did you even watch the footage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah the usual apologist crap.
May I point out to you that AK47s are perfectly legal in Iraq and that pretty much every household has one?
Even if there were weapons held by one or two (out of at least a dozen) people, were they being used? Were they even pointed at some US asset that could even most remotely be in danger? (it took the ground forces 10 minutes to arrive on the scene of the slaughter and the Apache - according to its own gun sight readouts - was so far out that no small weapons fire could have even scratched it and that includes any conceivable variant of RPG-7 that the insurgents have). The journalists (without the quotes) in question had to use huge telephoto lenses to take pictures of the actual combat happening nearly a kilometer away.
In fact there is absolutely no action these people could have taken to not get blown up by some blood-thirsty American yahoos that would not get some apologists to crawl out of the woodwork to blather about "decision at the time" and "fog of war" and other nonsense. Their crime was simply breathing-air-while-an-Iraqi (a sub species of Homo-non-Americanus-Inferiorus) and therefore "legitimate" targets by mere association with the "bad guys" (i.e. every other Iraqi who dares to oppose the Righteous and Glorious Liberators, Bringers of Light, Shock and Awe).
They stand: they get shot for "aggressive posture", they lie down: "they are taking cover", they run away: "they are regrouping for counter-attack", they try to crawl away after getting their arms and legs blown off: "they are taking evasive action", they kneel and pray: "they are attempting communication with possible reinforcements" or "they are manipulating unseen devices between their legs", they arrive to help long-time good neighbors bleeding on the ground in the middle of their street: "reinforcements have arrived, light them up, Boys!". Their only choice once selected by some moron in a gunner seat of an Apache to be the Sacrifice to The Eternal Glory of America is to die, their families to die, their children to die, or all of them to die more painfully.
In short the murderous yahoos in the chopper, the vicious thugs at the command post with the TV monitors and the venomous, despicable apologists like you all pretty much agree on this point. Or "America #1 #1, Right or Wrong! Its these Iraqis own damn fault that we decided to play God to them! How dare they live in an America-made War Zone!? Serves them right whatever they get! Yiiiihaaaa!".
Re:maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Standing up for this will not help. Watch the full video, you even get a sense of the attitude between the ground forces and the airborne calvary unit.
Real soldiers who where there in Iraq are condemning these actions. Real pilots are too.
And lets not forget this is their *home city*. This is where they live, America made it a "war zone", where shooting unarmed people (by the pilots own admission) who are rescuing the wounded (a fellow country man) is apparently fair game for burst of 30mm cannon rounds by the American version of the rules of engagement.
If I was a middle eastern country right now, i would be very supportive of a government that was trying to get nukes. It seems to be the only way to be treated as a sovereign country.
Since when does rescuing the wounded *unarmed* get a kill on site order.
Re:Did you even watch the footage? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. an AK-47 is not an RPG.
2. being openly armed in Iraq is not an act of war.
The crazy thing is half these people bitching that one of the Iraqis had a weapon probably also raise hell about the second amendment here every chance they get.
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight -- your claim is that an unarmed person rendering aid to wounded people on the ground makes the good Samaritan a "legitimate target" undeserving of sympathy when he gets mowed down by gunfire from a helicopter?
I'll try to keep that in mind if I ever see you struggling at the scene of an accident.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fucking hilarious that these same idiots claiming that the possible presence of a rifle justified the massacre will also jump up and down in the US demanding the right to carry guns openly at schools, churches, bars, and airplanes.
Re:Not true (Score:3, Insightful)
There are times to be a good Samaritan and times to mind your own business.