However, I'm uncomfortable with the way Wikileaks has couched the release of this video (the editing, the title, and the url used to promote it). It's agitprop, and in the long term I think it undermines the ability of leaked documents like this to enter the public discourse and (possibly) effect change.
My advice to Wikileaks if they want my continued support is to stick to what you're good at: enabling whistleblowers to anonymously release documents that may serve the public interest. But let Michael Moore handle the filmmaking.
I definitely saw cameras with telephoto lenses in the video, but I also saw a weapon as well.
I'm glad the video was released, but it should have been released raw and without all of the markup and commentary.
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/bmooi/wikileaks_video_j...
And who gave them permission? (Really ignorant here, sorry....) Did the person who granted them permission to fire have another source of information about the situation, or was the decision based entirely on the crew's description of the situation? Did it have something to do with them saying the van was "picking up weapons?"
They actually ask twice for permission to fire on the van. The first time with some detail about the target and the second without.
Did the person who granted them permission to fire have another source of information about the situation, or was the decision based entirely on the crew's description of the situation?
The latter. Although being that authority to fire is in the hands of the ground commander, he should have asked what the heck they were firing on. From the sounds of it, I think he was tied up with other things at the time he gave said permission, which doesn't absolve him from his role.
It's not clear that no one is shooting, though. It's only clear that the available and very limited perspective did not capture such activity.
02:15 No hold on. Lets come around. Behind buildings right now from our point of view. ... Okay, we're gonna come around.
02:19 Hotel Two-Six; have eyes on individual with RPG. Getting ready to fire. We won't...
02:23 Yeah, we had a guy shoot---and now he's behind the building.
02:26 God damn it.
02:28 Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad Uh, 'bout, there, one o'clock.
02:34 Haven't seen anything since then.
I don't know the tactical situation, but it looks like they were providing aerial cover for a convoy of some sort, since that's who they keep chatting with. This was quite possibly an ambush in it's very early stages. While disturbing (welcome to war) I don't think that the actions of the crew where unbecoming at that point.
I did however have an issue with the destruction of the van. There were no weapons visible, it was clear that they were collecting bodies for transport/medical attention. Any perceived or real threat to the convoy was at that time neutralized, and there was no need to fire.
Doing so clearly violated the Geneva conventions and the US Army's ROE. Both apache crews should be charged with murder, and the authorizing officer should be charged with some lesser charge for not confirming the intended target.