Skip to main content

Links to other articles covering this incident from and as well as a link to the Army investigative documents posted on the Centcom Information Portal.

some new developments late tonight. TalkingPointsMemo has picked up the story and has a few links here. Additionally,'s "Danger Room" has a pretty good article on Wikileaks involvement, including noting that the normally neutral wikileaks has made the leap into investigative reporting. Will this continue? Is this a sort of evolution in reporting? I'd be interested in various viewpoints.

Lastly, TPMMuckraker's latest update includes a link to the Centcom Information Portal that has posted documents of the investigation. There you have it folks! Information (redacted) from the horse's mouth.

I've read through the documents and viewed the video. The latest information most likely won't change anyone's mind. But if you're interested in learning more about what actually happened, you owe it to yourself to view the documents. The most revealing (in more ways than one) is the 2nd Brigade Combat Team investigation (document #6). If you only read one thing from that site, that's the report to read.

This will by no means end the debate, but I think it's an important part to it...

Originally posted to 3CPO on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 12:02 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the info. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    QuestionAuthority, Miep, 3CPO

    They must be getting a lot of traffic.

    The site opens for me but not the pages. They timed out on 1.2 mb dsl.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 12:32:04 AM PDT

  •  The Army investigating itself? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    willibro, truong son traveler

    The reports don't match the video.

    The cameraman is accused of demonstrating hostility by attempting to film the helicopter?

    This whitewash is not important unless you want to prove that there was a coverup.

    This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

    by Agathena on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 12:38:49 AM PDT

    •  Not the helicopter (4+ / 0-)

      but the Bradleys down the street. The gunships were flying support and (according to one of the documents) the investigating officer surmised that the cameraman preparing to take photos with a long-range lens was mistaken for readying a RPG for firing at the ground forces.

      Your point about the Army investigating itself is well taken. However, I think it's only fair to point out that there are other interpretations of what happened. If you're going to judge, you should at least have the opportunity to view both sides.

      On another note: Thank God for FOIA...

  •  The link to TPM was of particular interest with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    QuestionAuthority, Green Sauce

    two comments from 1armywif at 10:51PM and 12:30AM.

    The most significant was the assertion that following this incident Reuters issued a policy statement addressed to all field reporters that they were to avoid running with armed insurgents.

    "...fighting the wildfires of my life with squirt guns."

    by deMemedeMedia on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:01:18 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for those links. (5+ / 0-)

    No caring human being likes what happened that day. But the 2d Brigade Combat Team report offers another perspective. There were ground troops within 100m of the group that were fired upon, and those troops had been taking fire for several hours (the report says "since dawn") by the time of the incident (~10.20am). The ground troops and the pilots believed the group of Iraqis intended to fire on the ground troops, and recovered 2 RPGs and an AK-47 or AKM assault rifle among the dead. That is documented in the original video as well.

    This is what combat does to human beings.

    •  Thank you... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NCrissieB, QuestionAuthority

      ...for seeing this as it was intended.

    •  then why didn't the army (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NCrissieB, OtterQueen, laker

      supply the video to the AP when they asked for it?

      •  Unknown... (3+ / 0-)

        and a good question...

      •  Maybe because of the outright elated glee (4+ / 0-)

        that these cowboys displayed when they went after those people, including those little kids.

        There is no excuse, no justification whatsoever, that can ever make this 'incident' acceptable in the eyes of anyone with an ounce of integrity and human decency in their bodies. These cretins that laughed and gave themselves props while begging for a chance to finish off that Iraqi should be put somewhere far, far, far away from the rest of the planet. They are too damn damaged and far too lacking in human compassion and values to be allowed to wander around without a keeper.

        •  Sorry, Amanda (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DianeNYS, NCrissieB, OtterQueen, 3CPO

          They didn't know the kids were in that van until it was too late.

          I think you need to step back and consider more fully what happened there with a little less emotion. This is NOT another My Lai massacre.

          This was not some cop shooting someone in LA. This was war. Did you expect it to be some antiseptic video game? Those helicopter pilots saw what they thought was a threat to their buddies and fired on it. Read Document #6.

          Here we have pilots believing they were under fire, flying a noisy and complex helicopter, keeping track of themselves, friendly and possibly hostile troops, looking through a small B/W screen at someone aiming something at their buddies. Those pilots have probably lost friends to the insurgents already. They had no knowledge of any media in the area. They described what they thought they saw and were given permission to fire. What did you expect them to do? Land and ask them if they're insurgents or not?

          Save your anger for the leaders that put our troops in that position every day. That's who your anger should be directed against, not the troops.

          "Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success." -7.75/-6.05

          by QuestionAuthority on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 05:24:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh crap. These were human shitheaps who were (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            trolling around in their 'ride' looking for people to kill.

            My Dad was Navy
            My brother John was Air Force (sharpshooter in Turkey)
            My idiot brother Bob was a piss tester in the Army
            The one that shocked us all was Tommy, he made it through the Marines

            I am not at all unfamiliar with the military.

            And these fuckers are a disgrace. To humanity in general.

        •  You're both right and also wrong, IMO. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DianeNYS, willibro, laker

          I agree the military didn't want to release the video because the video shows a very ugly side of war: that troops in combat often behave in ways the rest of us regard as inhuman.

          But you're wrong to single out those troops as uniquely evil. This is what combat does to human beings. Not just these particular men, but many men, and in every war. Combat skews the moral compass to the point where otherwise ordinary men commit and celebrate horrific acts that they spend the rest of their lives reliving in nightmares and flashbacks.

          This was not shocking to anyone who has served in the military or read non-sanitized military histories. In 1942 in North Africa, the Army established a reimbursement scale for civilians and livestock killed by Allied troops: $500 for a dead camel, $300 for a dead boy, $200 for a dead donkey, $10 for a dead girl. (Atkinson, An Army At Dawn, p.168.) I'm not saying what the pilots did was "right." I'm saying it was "war."

  •  Interesting consent agreement (0+ / 0-)

    at that link.  The way I read it, by clicking OK one is agreeing to penetration testing and counterintelligence techniques directed at whatever computer with which one is connecting to that site.

    He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.

    by jrooth on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 06:05:59 AM PDT

    •  The way I read it (0+ / 0-)

      was they were talking about the Information System itself.  Any "communications on this IS," not on your computer.

      Is there something else there that leads to you think otherwise?  I didn't read the entire agreement...

      •  Well ... that depends entirely (0+ / 0-)

        on what "any device attached to this IS" means.

        IANAL, but I can see some reasonable basis for either interpreting that as "physically attached" (i.e. directly networked into the IS) but also for the idea that by agreeing to this and making a TCP/IP connection into the IS, one becomes "attached" to the IS.

        It's that latter reading which would make this consent form a consent to having your workstation subject to pen test etc.

        And frankly, I don't see why there would be any need to get the consent of people connecting to a website if all they're talking about is internal testing and monitoring.

        He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.

        by jrooth on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:06:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I was wondering when someone would say something (0+ / 0-)

      That sort of banner is common on Government computers. You can see how the wording scares the hell out of Teabaggers and Wingnuts...

      •  Even paranoids sometimes have enemies :) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Of course this kind of thing is common - after all DOD is the client for the lawyer(s) who wrote that and lawyers will routinely phrase things in the manner most broadly advantageous to their client.

        And basically, that was that was my point.

        He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.

        by jrooth on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:12:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks ! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Thanks for posting this.

    IMHO, there has been a "rush to judgment" in this case. I wish the photos had been clearer, and I wish there had been a report from the ground (any weapons recovered, etc., etc.)

    •  In one of the documents (0+ / 0-)

      (number 6 I think) there's a description of the weapons the ground troops found at the scene. I think it goes something like an AKM, AK-47, RPG and a couple of RPG rounds.

      And two cameras.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site