I referenced that video so I'm clearly aware of it.

Assange putting "murder" in the title doesn't actually make it illegal homocide. That's not how any legal system works.

IMHO that incident is unfortunate because some of those people were innocent, and it is legally questionable, but there's also a strong argument that it was legal. A very far cry from exposing something clearly illegal like the My Lai Massacre or Abu Ghraib torture.

So all he's done is expose one legally questionable incident from 2007 by a single military unit during the Iraq war? I suppose I'm not forgetting anything then.

Killing first-responders is a war crime not a "questionable incident", regardless of their conduct while killing innocent civilians. You're also implying that this is the only case where something like this happened. It's only the only one we know about.

In addition, the Iraqi and Afghan war logs showed evidence of massive underreporting of civilian casualties and cases of friendly-fire. Cases of DoD contractors hiring child prostitutes. Cases of soldiers firing into enemy combatants that were surrendering. Handing prisoners over to Iraqi custody even though they knew they would likely be tortured. Lack of investigation into reports of abuse, torture, rape by Iraqi police. And so on.

Your characterization of the incident could simply be wrong, legally speaking. Were those first responders, or merely enemy combatants helping their fellow enemy combatants escape? Are soldiers required to let wounded enemies escape? What if they're not in uniform? What if innocents would die?

It's very possible that it was completely legal under the international rules of war (Geneva Conventions, etc), whether or not you or I like what happened.

And I'm well aware that many other unfortunate and illegal things happened during the Iraq War. I referenced Abu Grahib. But the topic here was scoped to U.S. gov crimes exposed by Assange.

Edit: I did actually write "questionable incident" and that's what I meant there, my mistake.

I (the GP) actually agree with you. The point in making my distinction wasn't that I think one is criminal and one is not. I think they're both criminal, however there's clearly a political angle being played in both.

Legally questionable?

> Mark Taylor, an international law expert and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, told Al Jazeera "there's a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed." He added, "I think what this video shows is really a case that challenges whether the laws of war are strict enough."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...

You're free to argue that the laws of war should be stricter. But even if they were changed, it wouldn't retroactively make this incident illegal. It may or may not have been legal (i.e. it's legally questionable), whether you like or agree with the actions is a separate issue.

Contrast this incident with the case of that Navy SEAL murdering a POW. That's not legally questionable, that's very clearly illegal.

The legality of the incident relies upon the notion that a camera's telephoto lens could be mistaken for an RPG.

Watching the video is enough to dispel that.

No, it's much more complex than that. Some of the men were very clearly armed, which anyone who watches the video can see for themselves. Even Assange acknowledged this fact.

The most legally questionable part (I believe) is firing on the van that was evacuating wounded people. The best ethical defense to that attack was that they didn't know children were in there and the driver is primarily to blame for what happened to them.

But even if it was most likely an ethically wrong decision, that doesn't make it automatically illegal.

Even without children in the van, is it legal to fire on an unarmed person in a van picking up the wounded?

And all these arguments are spurious IMO. Collateral Murder exposed what was being done secretly overseas in US citizens' name.

If it wasn't illegal then there should be no problem showing their people exactly what their war budget is paying for.

> Watching the video is enough to dispel that.

Doesn't the video show a group of gunmen who the camera guy was following around?