Wikileaks has really misled the public

I hadn't seen or heard about this video prior to this article.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001802-38.html seems to have it embedded and a description.

There is so much wrong with this article, I don't know where to start.

After I saw the first video, I did some googling around and reading about the rules of engagement during an insurgency. Under the Geneva Convention, clearly identified medical personnel treating combatants removed from combat are protected. However, if an armed combatant is attempting to help another combatant get to cover, they're both fair game. There's a grey area when it's not clear if a person helping a combatant to cover is a civilian or a combatant.

That's the first part. The second part is that the Army and other forces have made it very clear that attempting to take any weapons from the battlefield counts as engagement, and they will fire at anyone attempting to do so. Apparently this was a big problem during the start of the war - if they took out insurgents, their guns would often be grabbed and ran away with, and presumably used again later. So that's a clear situation right now - attempting to remove weapons from a battlefield will get you fired upon.

It's unclear who was in the van, and if they were attempting to take weapons, though.

There's clearly something fishy about the video if only because we're obviously coming in half way through whatever happened. But the real problem isn't the behavior of the soldiers as much as it's the military not making it's case before this video broke. The author here is raising some valid points but they're all speculation because the military hasn't released anything officially.

Military tribunals should be public record (like civilian trials) and the public that funds the military should be allowed to see what's going on over there and why certain things happened. ESPECIALLY when there were possible non-combatant casualties (I'm talking about the alleged camera men)

Clearly the names of the soldiers would have to be withheld to avoid retribution but there should be some public record when something like this happens

Wouldn't a person helping a combatant get to cover be by definition a combatant (although perhaps just for the duration of the action)?

Also, if we're talking about the Conventions, were these illegal combatants? (I haven't watched the video.)