Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 113 posts

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#61

Post by rdl »

I was in Iraq when this happened. It is a fairly representative incident -- the only remarkable thing is that Reuters people were involved. There have been plenty of within-rules shootings which led to the deaths of civilians, but there were also plenty of situations where the rules hindered successful operations or even self-defense. It's a balancing act, and it's war, so it's choosing among least-bad options, with imperfect information.

It's fair to criticize the Rules of Engagement as being overly hostile to civilians, and counter to the goal of winning and leaving. In Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal actually stopped a lot of effective tactics (night raids, airstikes, etc.) because they were counter to the strategy of winning the war by winning the populace. In Iraq, there were periods of intense kinetic violence (such as going into Baquba, Sadr city, Fallujah) combined with periods of reconstruction and trying to win the populace.

I actually knew Julian Assange from running a remailer long before wikileaks, and he seemed like a pretty decent guy. I'm not sure what happened. I'm betting he/they felt marginalized and were trying to use this to raise their own profile. I support the general idea of transparency through third parties publishing information, but I can't support wikileaks.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#62

Post by Maktab »

dpatru wrote: post #57

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that the video was released without context that would justify the American military action. If the American military had wanted context, they should have released the video themselves with additional context. Instead, the American military suppressed the video. They should not complain that the video is now being released without context. Americans are in Iraq as forei…

Aside from the larger issue being debated here, I think you're guilty of operating under an outdated assumption. The US forces in Iraq have not been 'foreign occupiers' for quite some time. They are there at the will of the democratically elected Iraqi government in a deployment sanctioned by the UN Security Council. It should be possible to acknowledge this fact even while disagreeing with the presence of US forces in Iraq.

Nor do I believe the US military had an obligation to release the video, although they did have an obligation to conduct a serious and thorough investigation and make the results and key aspects of it public. I think it's clear this didn't happen, but it did not justify Wikileaks's heavily edited and flawed version of the video.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#63

Post by barmstrong »

gruseom wrote: post #55
pg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.

From various profiles of Assange scattered around the web, it seems clear that he intended Wikileaks to be a propaganda (he uses the word "activist") organization from the beginning. I suppose that implies they were simply biding their time waiting for a leak that would make a big enough propaganda splash (he uses the phrase "maximum political impact") before showing their hand. It seems we all just projected the rol…

Wow...totally agree here. To me their mission is a lot less compelling as an activist organization. I liked them a lot better when they were just publishing information.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#64

Post by delluminatus »

ck2 wrote: post #53
kscaldef wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this video had not come to light, we'd keep thinking that war was cut and dry I'm not sure why you say that. I didn't think "war was cut and dry" prior to this video being released. Did you?

There seems to be no shortage of people rationalizing this behavior and relieved to have an explanation, implying it could be condoned. Just like the all too common abuse of power by police, the end never justifies the means and can never be condoned. Those with power have a much higher responsibility, not less with justifications like "that's just how war is".

I don't think anyone is condoning this behavior (certainly not the soldier in the interview). However, I should mention that police abusing power is a little different, since they aren't in a WAR ZONE, having been shot at minutes before. Whether or not the soldiers erred (and they did) is not the question here. The question is, why did WikiLeaks present it in the way they did?

People are attacking WikiLeaks because they feel betrayed by the organization. I know I do. What was supposed to be an impartial mediator of classified data turned out to be a sensationalist mediator of classified data presented with a spin that would make Fox News proud.

In closing: Wikileaks exposed us to civilian murder. This would normally by fine. However, they also distorted the facts and the context of the event to support a sensationalist publicity routine. That is the problem here.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#65

Post by stse »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #2

If it was possible to give a standing ovation to someone via Hacker News, I would. This is perhaps the most sincere, mature, well-thought out commentary I've ever read on anything to do with the Iraq war. Spoken like a true soldier. edit: to clarify what I mean, I grew up shortly after there was a civil war in my country - and as such I really appreciate soldiers who, having fought on soil that was not their own, are…

I think it came across quite clearly in the video that the guys on the ground were a lot more attached to the situation. You could here it in their voices. An important part of this story that sadly won't get much attention is how badly the soldiers are treated. The sergeant could potentially have saved this guy a lot of trouble by letting him see a "mental health person".

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#66

Post by anthonyb »

CamperBob wrote: post #41
techiferous wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ultimately I came to the realisation there is a limit to how much we can care for the animal kingdom on a philosophical level. I agree with you 100%. I think we probably disagree on where that limit is, and I think we as humans are way overstepping our bounds. > Speaking purely as animals the need to hunt/rear/kill is perfectly natural You have a good point, and I would add that factory farming is very far from nat…

You have a good point, and I would add that factory farming is very far from natural. It's "natural" for a certain, non-negligible percentage of humanity to starve to death, or to suffer from malnutrition. Factory farming is a very important reason why fewer people starve to death every year. Screw your idea of what's "natural."

Factory farming generally means pigs, cows and chickens crammed into small spaces. I think you're confusing that with Industrial Agriculture, aka. "The Green Revolution".

It's quite possible to have non-factory farming and not starve to death.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#68

Post by tome »

GHFigs wrote: post #56
andreyf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was brought up on The Colbert Report's interview of Julian Assange [1]. His response was that they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability. I don't think their strategy was the best way to fullfil that goal (precisely because of the blatant political slant), but that's their stated motivation. 1. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-c…

they where provided the video under the condition that they'd try to maximize its political impact to the best of their ability With this policy in mind, is it any wonder that Army counterintelligence once wondered: "Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services, or foreign terrorist groups to spread propaganda, misinformation, or disinformation or to conduct perception or influence opera…

This is appalling. It sounds like Wikileaks has been "positively blackmailed"[1] into accepting the video.

"We'll give you this tasty goodie to publish on your site, but you have to use it to further our political agenda".

Sounds like they couldn't resist the temptation. This is not what we want from a whistleblower protection site.

[1] is there an official word for that?

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#69

Post by david927 »

F_J_H wrote: post #31

My wife and I had a baby girl 5 weeks ago; I never imagined I could feel as much love for someone or something as I feel for her. I easily would give my life for her. Having just experience my daughter’s birth, the soldier’s description in this article of the young girl in the shot up van and the sound of her cry cut me to the core. I can’t imagine what he is going through and the torment he must feel when that memor…

Were you born in America? Because America did this. They went to Iraq and did this.

all I can think to do is to simply grieve for this situation

No, you can ask that America leaves Iraq. If it was your daughter, you wouldn't just say, "I guess all I can do is grieve". Right? Look at her. I have a daughter too. You can do a fuck lot more than that.

Let's get the US out of Iraq and back home. NOW.

Re: Soldier in Wikileaks video of 2007 Apache attack reveals what happened that day

#70

Post by johnyzee »

gruseom wrote: post #55
pg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes; I lost a lot of respect for Wikileaks after that. It seemed as if they'd branched out into the propaganda business. I wonder what made them change direction after so long.

From various profiles of Assange scattered around the web, it seems clear that he intended Wikileaks to be a propaganda (he uses the word "activist") organization from the beginning. I suppose that implies they were simply biding their time waiting for a leak that would make a big enough propaganda splash (he uses the phrase "maximum political impact") before showing their hand. It seems we all just projected the rol…

I don't get the difference? The important thing is that this kind of video is made publically available. Who cares what commentary the publisher chooses to make alongside of it and how is that different from what you get from any of the mainstream news sources (tv, newspapers), except that those actually feign neutrality (contrary to wikileaks).
Post reply on HN