However, WikiLeaks lost me when they released selectively edited video, spliced in editorial overlays, registered a domain name "CollateralMurder" and advocated a position.
That said I'm glad the leak happened even if there was some hoopla associated with it.
If my bank does something shady, its fine for whistleblowers to expose them, but they shouldn't screw over innocent bank customers while exposing the bank itself.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I happen to think what Wikileaks is doing is important, and calling something "Collateral Murder" makes people pay attention to them. On the other, I wonder if there isn't anything else we can do to make people unwilling to read source documents do something other than herd themselves to and from each talking head who gets their attention. Is it sane, or even possible, to leak things in manner that contains no bias, and to choose what to actually leak with no bias, without becoming mostly useless noise? I honestly don't know.
But, Wikileaks does always release the full, unedited source of what they're leaking. If nothing else, it's a step above mainstream Western journalism.
Showing that the U.S. Military makes mistakes helps destroy the dangerous myth that all U.S. servicemen are saints. I have no idea how this meme that "WikiLeaks is bad because it showed U.S. soldiers doing bad things" was born, but it's, frankly, really ludicrous. When you see cold-blooded murder right before your eyes, you do take a stand. If you don't, you're a monster. Or an accomplice. Period.
But selectively EDITING video and hyping it under the "Collateral Murder" banner enters into ADVOCACY.
To be fair, both the edited and the complete video of the attack were released simultaneously.
Watching some 40 minutes of a clip mostly filled with inaction vs. the clip containing only the important parts with context, which would you rather watch? I know what I'll choose, time is important to me.
I can almost understand your argument against the editorializing, but the bottom line (at least to me) is that Wikileaks does eventually leak all data in its entirety, you can so choose to ignore all their commentary if you desire.
http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-...
In addition, there is a lot of "context" in the edited out footage of even Wikileaks "full" version (timestamps):
0:26 The “Black van” dropping off possible insurgents.
0:46 “We got a target fifteen coming at you, it’s a guy with a weapon.”
1:05 “One of them has a weapon.”
1:27 Guy carrying AK-47, and other with RPG (no way it a tripod) that had previously fired on U.S. Troops. WikiLeak video distracts you with letter box about a camera Bag).
3:53 “Roger, be advised, there were some guys popping out with the AKs behind that dirt pile. Break.”
4:25 “Uh, location, I have about 12 to 15 dead bodies. Where else were you taking fire from?”
4:34 They had AK-47s and were to our East. So, where we were taking small arms fire, over.
4:59 “I also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG crouching around the corner, Getting ready to fire on your location. That’s why we requested permission to engage.”
5:17 (IMPORTANT) “Six this is four, I got one individual looks like he’s got an RPG round laying underneath him. Break.” (Note: Four was at the scene of the shooting and found an RPG, of course wikileaks left that out).
5:43 “ I can hear small arms fire from your engagement area…”
6:10 “Right about where we engaged? Yeah, one of them with that RPG or whatever.”
6:19 “He’s got a weapon. Got an RP–, uh AK-47.”
6:34 “Roger, we have another individual with a weapon.”
Although, the article goes on to argue whether they still can call it the "full video", but that's just a debate of semantics then. I am at the moment unsure whether the timestamped captions were a part of the original source video or not. It would be disappointing if it were, just as disappointing was WikiLeaks' decision to go by the 'collateral damage' domain, still however -- they are doing what they need to be doing: leaking material.
My overarching point is they are not "leaking" raw material - they are pushing "produced" and "edited" material to advocate a single viewpoint.
Those statements (w/timestamps) were not just "boring" parts omitted by Wikileaks in the 17min version -- I actually argue they were quite interesting-- they were dropped by them because it didn't fit the narrative implied by the "Collateral" murder theme.
Anyway, I think perhaps they do need to separate themselves into two wings and clearly mark that distinction: one that provides raw video with zero commentary, and another that puts clues together, analyzes information, etc. to make it presentable for the common consumer as 'news'.
Then, they hyped the 17min version and edited out all that radio traffic I chronicled (w/timestamps) - not for brevity sake - but because it didn't fit the narrative.
1. Murder is the un-lawful killing of humans by other humans. 2. Murder in war occurs when humans kill other humans by not acting within the confines of the rules of war.
Although most military bodies including US military have to follow Geneva convention that does not mean every war time act is lawful. How many unlawful military acts in Iraq/Afghanistan got prosecuted last year? More than one did.
This specific event has not been ruled un-lawful yet and reporters are always told that in battle areas if they are with the armed enemy they may risk being fired upon.
Hence, the Collateral part of the video name. However, usually in these cases its the organization workings that fail the solider in determining differences between lawful and unlawful acts not the individual solider himself or herself.