text:
The last time the Senate met it actually came to a unanimous decision. It agreed that the traditional rendering of George Washington's Farewell Address, which for more than a hundred years has been read in the chamber on or around the birthday of the first president, would instead occur Monday, and that Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte would perform this commemorative act. That's a start.
When she gets around to reading that revered document, the New Hampshire lawmaker may think the 17th paragraph was written especially for the 113th Congress. In that passage, Washington talks about "obstructions to the execution of the Laws," the danger posed when factions hold "artificial and extraordinary force," and the peril involved when small groups seek "to make the public administration the mirror of ... ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction."
It makes you wish the Farewell Address were read more than once a year, or that Ayotte's 99 colleagues might actually break with form and listen carefully to what's being said in the Senate.
Now let's go from the first president to the 44th.
In the neighboring chamber less than two weeks ago, the latest incumbent in the Washington succession spoke to those who hold the seats once occupied by Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, Caleb Strong of Massachusetts and Rufus King of New York. In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama said the American people "expect us to put the nation's interests before party," adding, pointedly, "They ... expect us to forge reasonable compromise where we can."
Much of what the president said went unheeded at best, opposed at worst. But he did speak of one matter where both parties could come to swift agreement -- and not a peep has been heard about it from either branch of government since. It is a comprehensive overhaul of our tax system, 100 years old this month.
Let's recognize that throughout our history there's been no issue more consistently contentious than taxes, except, of course, race. This is why lawmakers wheedle, maneuver and plot to get on the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, where the tax laws are written -- or, if you will, ruined.
The country was founded on a tax rebellion; the notion, still not fully redeemed, that all were created equal came later, in part to dress up the American Revolution and clothe it in Enlightenment raiment. Tax rebellions have been central to our history from Pennsylvania's Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 to California's Proposition 13 of 1978.
In our time, Republicans have waged consistent war against taxes, equating them, as their patriot forebears did, with tyranny, or arguing that they distort economic behavior and act as a brake on growth.
In his address in the House chamber earlier this month, the president portrayed a tax overhaul as a way to hit deficit-reduction targets, arguing that the country could "save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected."
That's almost certainly true, but it's also almost certainly a losing argument. Those who have tax loopholes and deductions are those best armed to preserve what President Washington would have called "the ill-concerted and incongruous" in our tax code.
It's the next paragraph in the president's address that has political merit. "The American people," the president said, "deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms and more time expanding and hiring; a tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can't pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries; a tax code that lowers incentives to move jobs overseas and lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that create jobs right here in America."
In short: a less complicated, fairer system. Also -- and here we plunge a policy dagger into the heart of accountants coast to coast -- one that is comprehensible to the normal human being.
In his 1976 presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter described the U.S. tax code as a "disgrace to the human race," perhaps the only thing upon which he and his 1981 successor Ronald Reagan would agree.
Reagan, assisted by the Democrat who headed Ways and Means, Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Chicago, was able to strip the code in 1986 of many barnacles and lower the top rate to 28 percent from 50 percent. (The top rate has since migrated up to 39.6 percent.)
Now the trumpet summons us again to tax overhaul. The president -- like Reagan, with Illinois roots, but a Democrat -- believes that "now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit."
He was speaking language his rivals understand, and embrace. And the beauty thing -- as George H.W. Bush would put it -- is that Republicans are in accord. "There's the possibility now of doing something very big," Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said in an interview. "It's going to take presidential leadership. He's got to bring his party to the table. Republicans desperately want to do tax reform."
So there we have it. Two willing parties. One extremely juicy target. A way to ensure justice (the Democratic imperative) and lower rates (the Republican preoccupation). Also a way to increase the economic activity subject to taxes (a Democratic priority) and a way to help small business (a Republican goal since the time Newt Gingrich was speaker) all at once.
And a way to do what almost nothing does in a culture where it takes minutes to boot up a computer and hours to figure out how to get On Demand on your television. It simplifies things.
What's not to like?
Well, the Republicans are going to want tax overhaul to be revenue neutral and the Democrats are going to want to use it as revenue enhancement -- and those differences are not nuances.
There's going to be a debate about the rate of corporate taxation, but if we are lucky that will include a parallel one about tax obligations by companies with substantial operations overseas.
There almost certainly will be a discussion about whether the tax system should be an implement of social policy, but we have been having that debate for almost 24 decades. We probably won't decide that one in the next 24 months.
The three most powerful and evocative words in the American political lexicon are John F. Kennedy's. They are: Let us begin. Let's.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
My sketch of a panel discussion hosted by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press on transparency – read cameras – in the Supreme Court that took place at The National Press Club this morning.
The panel, from right to left, was composed of Alan Morrisson, Pete Williams, Neal Katyal, Maureen O'Connor, Ken Starr and moderator Tony Mauro. They all pretty much agreed – with a teeny bit of reservation from Katyal – that cameras are inevitable and belong in the Supreme Court.


text:
Early spring weather sped up plant, tree and shrub growth, making them vulnerable to several nights of cold temperatures this week. Fruit plants and trees were especially hard hit by freezing temperatures. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach horticulture specialists have received many questions from gardeners concerned about damage to plants and trees. To have additional questions answered, contact the Hortline at 515-294-3108 or email@example.com.
Is it safe to eat rhubarb after the plants have been exposed to freezing temperatures?
Rhubarb is a tough plant. Temperatures in the upper 20s or low 30s usually cause little or no damage. A hard freeze (temperatures in the mid-20s or lower) usually is required to cause serious damage. Rhubarb damaged by freezing temperatures will have black, shriveled leaves and soft, limp leaf stalks. It's safe to harvest rhubarb if the plants show no signs of damage two or three days after the freeze event. Damaged rhubarb stalks (blackened foliage and limp stalks) should be pulled and discarded. New stalks that emerge after the freeze are safe to harvest.
What effects will freezing temperatures have on my apple trees?
The freezing temperatures may have damaged the flowers on apples and other fruit trees. If the flowers have been damaged, this year's fruit crop may be much smaller than normal. The extent of damage is determined by the stage of plant development and temperature. At the bloom or petal drop stage of development, a temperature of 28 F will kill approximately 10 percent of the flowers/fruits on apple trees. A temperature of 25 F will kill approximately 90 percent of the flowers/fruits on apple trees at the bloom or petal drop stage of development. Similar losses would occur on pear and tart (sour) cherry trees at 28 and 25 F at the bloom and petal drop stages of development.
The newly emerged foliage on my maple tree has been destroyed by freezing temperatures. Will the tree leaf out again?
Newly emerged tree and shrub foliage is susceptible to damage from below freezing temperatures. The new growth on many trees and shrubs can tolerate temperatures in the low 30s and upper 20s. Freeze damage is most likely when temperatures drop into the middle 20s or below. Symptoms of freeze damage include shriveling and browning or blackening of damaged tissue. Damaged growth usually becomes limp. Eventually, damaged or destroyed leaves drop from the tree or shrub.
Fortunately, trees and shrubs have the ability to leaf out again if the initial growth is damaged or destroyed. Damaged trees and shrubs have only suffered a temporary setback. Healthy, well established trees and shrubs will produce additional growth within a few weeks. Good care during the remainder of the year, such as watering during dry periods, should aid the recovery of trees and shrubs planted within the past two or three years.
PHOTO: Freeze damage to apple tree


text:
to continue to ilmkidunya.com
Please Provide following information to Register
Since the establishment of first College of Commerce in 1985, the network of Punjab Colleges has grown from a single college to the largest network of private colleges in Commerce, IT and Science Disciplines with 70 colleges in thirty one cities of Pakistan. The pioneering spirit and steadfastness of the founders is reflected in its richly earned traditions of excellence and its series of huge successes.
At the Bachelor's level, the Punjab University Degree is awarded to B.Com students. At Intermediate level, students receive an I.Com Certification from the Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education.
For students desirous of pursuing science subjects, Punjab Colleges of Science were set up in all the major cities of Punjab where students mainly study F.Sc. Pre-engineering and Pre-medical courses. Our students have excelled in these disciplines in all the Boards of the Intermediate and Secondary Education in Punjab and the number of students notching top positions is increasing every year.
Program and Courses
No review posted by any user for this college. Be the first to rate this institute.
ilmkidunya.com's representatives at
We need a few details from you to suggest you relevant institutes & create your


text:
Package Name:
Developer: Life Hack Studio
Category: Free Dating Apps
Publish Date: Jun. 26, 2019
Android 15 and above
File Size:
You might struggle when you want to download the applications as an apk file. In this case our website always ready to help you and finish your job quick and effective as much as possible. You can download Dating Tips and Date Ideas apk from our website with very high download speed without facing any problem. Our website gives you all the applications for free and without subscription or registering unlike other famous apk file download platforms. Please don't forget to look at other applications we serve you anytime and whenever you want.


text:
West Point Food Processor WF-3804
10 in stock
Enjoy the fresh homemade fruit juices this season with this West Point juicer that saves your time and energy. Westpoint Electronics France, Westpoint appliances are sold in more than 70 countries around the world with top class warranty. Conceived by creative designers in France, and produced in world class factories. Westpoint is known for its good quality products in reasonable price. It has great range of products used to reduce your effort in daily life, so you can enjoy more life.
Shipping Information• Shipping charges on all domestic products will be charged Rs. 150/-.
• We charge shipping Rs.200 on all products marked imported.
• Stock Items will be delivered same day if order is received before 1:00 PM. (Currently only for Lahore)
• Orders placed by 1:00PM noon (Pakistan Standard Time) will be shipped the same day.
• Orders received after 1:00PM will be dispatched next day.
• Orders received on Sundays and on Pakistan's National Holidays will be processed and shipped on the next working day.
• Delivery time for domestic items will be between 1 to 3 working days (No delivery on Sundays).
• For all imported items, the delivery time will be 15-25 Days.
• All orders above Rs.30,000/- worth, 50% advance payment is must. Once the customer confirms the order of the products, our representative will contact for payment information and details and account details will be communicated afterwards these order will be shipped via a traceable courier service.


text:
Whilst finalising my presentation for the 2009 UKSG Conference in Torquay, I thought it would be interested to dig into the circulation data to see if there was any indication that our book recommendation/suggestion services (i.e. "people who borrowed this, also borrowed…" and "we think you might be interested in…") have had any impact on borrowing.
Here's a graph showing the range of stock that's being borrowed each calendar year since 2000…
Just to be clear — the graph isn't showing the total number of items borrowed, it's the range of unique titles (in Horizon speak, bib numbers) that have been borrowed. If you speak SQL, then we're talking about a "count(distinct(bib#))" type query. What I don't have to hand is the total number of titles in stock for each year, but I'd hazard a guess that it's been fairly constant.
You can see that from 2000 to 2005, borrowing seems to have been limited to a range of around 65,000 titles (probably driven primarily by reading lists). At the end of 2005, we introduced the "people who borrowed this, also borrowed…" suggestions and then, in early 2006, we added personalised "we think you might be interested in…" suggestions for users who've logged into the OPAC.
Hand on heart, I wouldn't say that the suggestions/recommendations are wholly responsible for the sudden and continuing increase in the range of stock being borrowed, but they certainly seem to be having an impact.
Hand-in-hand with that increase, we've also seen a decrease in the number of times books are getting renewed (even though we've made renewing much easier than before, via self-issue, telephone renewals, and pre-overdue reminders). Rather than hanging onto a book and repeatedly renewing it, our students seem to be exploring our stock more widely and seeking out other titles to borrow.
So, whilst I don't think there's a quick any easy way of finding out what the true impact has been, I'm certainly sat here with a grin like a Cheshire cat!


text:
A couple months back I was sent some complimentary samples by Lisa from Organicville. I was really excited about this opportunity as I have been looking for ways to minimize the amount of sugar, and especially high fructose corn syrup, in our diets. According to this article, the average American consumes 150-170 pounds of sugar per year! That is just ridiculous. Sugar & HFCS are found in places that they shouldn't be – breads, crackers, pickles, canned or frozen vegetables – just to name a few. Anything I can do to help cut back on the sugar in our diets, I am all for it. Organicville's products contain no added sugar and use agave nectar to sweeten them. I am not a fan of artificial sweeteners like Nutrasweet or Splenda, so this aspect of the Organicville product line really appealed to me.
Here is some great information that Lisa sent to me:
Organicville Foods
Food chemicals and high-sugar additives plague the grocery store aisles nationwide. Most brands sweeten their products with high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners which are contributors to higher risk for obesity and diabetes more than ever before. These synthetically processed substances in many of America's food favorites dangerously impact the glycemic levels.
But now, people can choose a healthier option that delivers the same great taste. Organicville, makers of USDA certified organic, vegan and gluten-free ketchup, barbeque and teriyaki sauces, salsa's and vinaigrettes are made with agave – a 100% natural sweetener, which digests more easily compared to other types of sugar, and delivers the same great taste. The products are gourmet solutions for a healthier, more environmentally focused lifestyle – including products that are safe for those with special dietary concerns, and tasty enough for all – even kids love them!
Founded by Rachel Kruse, a 33 year-old entrepreneur, third-generation vegetarian and organic consumer, she turned to creating delicious, healthy products to offer a better alternative to sugars, preservatives and processed foods – as growing up, she couldn't find organic dressings and condiments that tasted great. The goal: to enjoy a great tasting organic product without having to sacrifice flavor or quality.
Organicville's Product Quick Facts:
· Products: ketchup, salsas, BBQ and teriyaki sauces, and vinaigrettes.
· Vinaigrettes are available in 11 great flavors including: Orange Cranberry, Miso Ginger, Olive Oil & Balsamic, Sun Dried Tomato & Garlic, Herbs De Provence, Tarragon Dijon, Sesame Tamari, Pomegranate, Sesame Goddess, Non-Dairy Ranch and French (fourth largest salad dressing brand nationally)
· Gluten free
· USDA certified organic
· Sweetened with agave nectar
· No High Fructose Corn Syrup – ever!
· No added sugar
· Contain less sodium than other brands
· Fat and cholesterol free
· Vegan
Organicville's organic ketchup, barbeque and teriyaki sauces, salsa's and vinaigrettes are available for purchase in supermarket chains, natural food stores nationwide and online at www.amazon.com. Additional product and availability information can be found at www.organicvillefoods.com.
I was sent 2 different BBQ sauces, 2 salad dressings & 2 marinades to try. I passed the marinades along to a friend with Celiac because I can't eat sesame seeds and they both contained sesame seeds. Her opinion will be shared below, too.
I served the Organicville salad dressings – Herbs de Provence & Sun Dried Tomato & Garlic at our Thanksgiving day dinner. They were a great addition to our menu and were well liked by all who tried them. I loved that neither dressing was heavy – they were both very light & flavorful. The Herbs de Provence is a very unique dressing that I have come to love on a salad of arugula, mushrooms & grape tomatoes.
The Organicville BBQ sauces rank right up there with my previous favorite – Sweet Baby Ray's. The obvious benefit to the Organicville sauce is no HFCS and organic ingredients. I love to use the BBQ sauce on chicken breast, pizza & salmon.
Lindsey, my friend that I passed the marinades along to, really enjoyed the Island Teriyaki marinade. She also tried the Sesame, but said it wasn't as good and had a really strong sesame flavor.
Keep an eye out this week for another post on Organicville and a couple of great recipes for Superbowl Sunday!
Filed under: Family, Gluten-Free, Gluten-free Products | 6 Comments »


text:
has anybody here spotted the meena tillis variation / error reported about on the rebelscum main page? by variation, i mean the light cream colored face version. just wondering if this is a widespread variation or some kind of unintentional production error where only a small amount leaked out.
A note to all bidders: I have been accused of tampering with this product by far too many people who assume that anyone selling such an item is a rip off scam artist. I don't know how this product got the way it is, maybe somebody cast a magic spell to get it this way. All that I can tell you is I bought it from a well known store back in May. I did not tamper with it. If it has been tampered with it was by somebody that works for the store or the factory it came from. Maybe it was Frodo with his magical ring. I am not trying to scam anyone, this is what I bought and I am no collector nor could I possibly have the know how to do the things people are saying I am doing. If you don't like it just don't bid on it and please no more e-mails with false accusations about me. If this is all the star wars collector's are about then I should just cancel this auction rip this open and give it to my son.
Page created in 0.068 seconds with 18 queries.


text:
On July 2nd, a consortium of organizations concerned about the future of a free and open internet, published a document framing four essential principles. The Declaration of Internet Freedom was designed with the understanding that if regulation of the internet is inevitable, we must define the essential qualities of an open internet to preserve in any future legislation.
At Rhizome, not only do we support the idea that a free and open internet can make the world a better place, but believe it is crucial for the future of online creative communities. We have set up a microsite where you can amend, edit, debate and discuss the original declaration. We hope to open a dialogue here, and encourage you to consider how these principles apply to artistic practices on the web.


text:
July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike
|July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike
|Part of the post-invasion Iraq War
|New Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
|July 12, 2007
Attack type
|Press reports of number killed vary from 12[1][2] to "over 18".[3][4] 2 journalists were killed, and 2 children were wounded.[5][6]
|United States Army
The July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes were a series of air-to-ground attacks conducted by a team of two US AH-64 Apache helicopters in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, New Baghdad during the Iraqi insurgency which followed the Iraq War. The attacks received worldwide coverage following the leaking of 39 minutes of classified gunsight footage in 2010, provoking ongoing global discussion on the legality and morality of the attacks.
In the first strike, the crews of two Apaches directed 30mm cannon fire at a group of ten Iraqi men standing at a position (intersection) insurgents had previously used to shoot an American Humvee with small arms fire. Among the group were two Iraqi war correspondents working for Reuters, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen. Namir accomplished his objective with three photos of the Humvee which included the large dirt pile used as cover by insurgents to attack the Humvee earlier that morning. Seven men (including Noor-Eldeen) were killed during this first strike, and Saeed Chmagh was injured.
The second strike, also using 30 mm rounds, was directed at a van whose driver, Saleh Matasher Tomal, appeared to happen to drive by and who proceeded to help the wounded Chmagh. However, in the long version of the video this van was targeted prior to the first engagement by one Apache (Crazyhorse 1/8) as it traveled south toward the Reuters employees who were, simultaneously, targeted by the other Apache (Crazyhorse 1/9) as they walked north on the same road toward the van. Minutes after the first engagement ended the van returned traveling in an opposite direction (north) once again on this same road.
Two men assisting in the rescue effort were from a group of five standing at an intersection - seen in the upper right corner of the video when the Reuters employees arrive in the courtyard - reported to Apaches as being a second position combatants were using to attack the Humvee. Both of these men, Chmagh and Tomal, were killed in the second strike, and two of Tomal's children were badly wounded.
In a third strike Apache pilots watched people flee into a building and engaged that building with several AGM-114 Hellfire missiles.
Reuters had unsuccessfully requested the footage of the airstrikes under the Freedom of Information Act in 2007. The footage was acquired from an undisclosed source in 2009 by the leaks website WikiLeaks, which released the footage on April 5, 2010 under the name Collateral Murder. Recorded from the gunsight Target Acquisition and Designation System of one of the attacking helicopters, the video shows the incident and the radio chatter between the aircrews and ground units involved. An anonymous U.S. military official confirmed the authenticity of the footage.[7]
- 1 Context
- 2 Incidents
- 3 2007–2009 coverage
- 4 Coverage from 2010
- 5 Arrest, convictions and sentencing of Manning
- 6 Legality of the attacks
- 7 Awards
- 8 Media representations
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 External links
According to Tom Cohen, a reporter at CNN, "the soldiers of Bravo Company, 2-16 Infantry had been under fire all morning from rocket-propelled grenades and small arms on the first day of Operation Ilaaj in Baghdad".[8] Al Jazeera stated that the Army had received "reports of small arms fire", but were unable to positively identify the gunmen. Apache helicopters were called in by a soldier in the Humvee (Hotel 2-6) under attack from the same position used by Namir Noor-Eldeen to photograph the vehicle.[9] According to a military review, soldiers in that company "had been under sporadic small arms and rocket propelled grenade fire since" the operation—described as "clearing their sector and looking for weapons caches"—began.[10]
The Air Weapons Team (AWT) of two Apache AH-64s from the 1st Cavalry Division had been requested by the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment (2-16), 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich, before July 12 to support Operation Ilaaj. Tasked to conduct escort, armed reconnaissance patrols, counter-IED and counter-mortar operations, the two helicopters left Camp Taji at 9:24am. They arrived on station in New Baghdad at 9:53am, where sporadic attacks on coalition forces continued.[11]
Attack on personnel
In the video on the morning of July 12, 2007, the crews of two United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters observe a gathering of men near a section of Baghdad in the path of advancing U.S. ground troops, some with AKMs and RPGs.[8][12] The crew estimates the group is twenty men.[13] Among the group are two journalists working for Reuters, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh.[8][14][15][16][17] (While the two are carrying media cards, they are not wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves as such.)[18] A crew member requests authorization to engage after seeing five or six of the men, some with AKMs and RPGs moving in the direction of U.S. soldiers.[8] A long shadow cast on the ground by a telephoto lens on Noor-Eldeen's camera is misidentified by the pilot as an additional RPG aimed at him and a U.S. Army humvee directly below his aircraft. One second later he screams, "He's got an RPG!" Noor-Eldeen fails to photograph the Apache but three pictures of the U. S. Humvee appear on his camera's memory card when it was recovered by U. S. soldiers. The men become obscured behind a building as the Apache moves around the group.[8] Expecting an immediate attack on the U.S. soldiers, both helicopters strafe a group of ten men with 30 mm rounds once they became visible again.[7][8][19] Seven men are killed, including Noor-Eldeen, and three others wounded, including Chmagh.[8][12][15] Once the group was eliminated, the Apache pilots direct the ground troops to move up to the position of the attack to clear the area.
Attack on a van
As the ground troops advanced, a wounded Chmagh was seen crawling and attempting to stand on the ground.[8][15][15][20][20] An Apache gunner moved the helicopter's sights onto Chmagh, checked to see if he had or was moving towards a weapon but saw none, and expressed his disappointment because rules of engagement prohibited him from firing on an unarmed person who posed no threat. As the U.S. soldiers moved towards the site of the attack, a van stopped near Chmagh. In the van was Saleh Mutashar and his two children Sajad and Doaha, age nine and six, whom he was driving to visit his brother.[21] Mutashar told his children he was going to take the injured man to a hospital.[22] The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle.[23] The Apache crew alerted the ground troops of the van and requested permission to engage the vehicle before the ground troops arrived. The Apache crew saw unarmed[15] men exit the vehicle and move to Chmagh.[8][15][20] The Apache crew requested permission to engage, stating "... looks like [the men] possibly, picking up bodies and weapons" from the scene,[24] and repeated their request with "Let me engage!" and "Come on, let us shoot!",[25][26][27][28][29] before they received permission to open up 30mm fire on the van and its occupants.[8][15][20] Chmagh was killed[8][15][20] along with the children's father and two other men, while the two children were injured.[22] The young girl suffered from a stomach wound and glass in her eyes, and the boy a head injury.[30][31] Just as the van was destroyed, U.S. ground troops made their final turn and arrived on the road with the van. The Apache crew then alerted the ground troops that they believed that they could see an injured child moving around inside the destroyed van. On the video, it is then seen that Army soldiers establish a perimeter around the site and extract the children from the burning van.
Attack on a building
The ground troops that secured the site of the first two strikes then receive small arms fire from nearby buildings.
There is a period of 20 minutes not included on the leaked tape.[32] According to the internal legal review, the helicopters engaged a group of armed insurgents, and that some were seen entering a nearby building.[12]
As the tape resumes, two men, one holding an AK-47, are seen walking. They split up and the footage follows one who appears to be armed.[33] He walks into a building which has been identified as the source of fire at U.S. ground troops. They request permission to fire a missile at the building, describing it at as "abandoned" or "under construction". The ground controller responds, "If you've [positively identified] the individuals in the building with weapons, go ahead and engage the building". As the pilot positions the helicopter to attack the building, two unarmed men walk towards, and perhaps into, the building. As the gunner fires the first missile, another man is seen walking along the street in front of the building. The missile hits the building, and the man is caught in the explosion. The crew then reposition the helicopter and fire two more missiles into the upper floors of the building[34]
WikiLeaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video.[36] Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word 'RPG' was ever used".[36] Politifact states: "When Assange points out in the context of justifying the title "Collateral Murder" that the word "RPG" was not used until after permission to engage was given, he leaves the impression that the soldiers were given the okay to open fire on a group of unarmed men, or men believed to be unarmed. But the video and accompanying audio make clear that the soldiers in the helicopter said they spotted "weapons" among those in the group—later allegedly identified by an internal army investigator as an AK-47, RPG rounds[37] and 2 RPG launchers, one of which was loaded.[12][38] Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence, I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"[23] Assange stated that initial attempts to evacuate the wounded children to a nearby US military hospital were blocked by US military command.[39] The legal review carried out by the US Army states that the two children were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital via Forward Operating Base Loyalty, then transferred to an Iraqi medical facility the next day.[12]
Fox News said that of the attack "WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying. ... The Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body. WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG."[23]
The Guardian stated "It is unclear if some of the men are armed but Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera".[15] Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com said that "the vast majority of the men were clearly unarmed".[40] Greenwald called the second airstrike a "plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety".[40] The Australian newspaper said the group was displaying "no obvious hostile action".[41]
In The Independent on April 8, 2010, human rights activist Joan Smith asserts that the engagements were like a game to the helicopter crew. She writes that the co-pilot urged a dying, unarmed journalist to pick up a weapon as he tried to crawl to safety; and claims that the footage shows "... the Apache crew opening fire on civilians...".[42] When the crew were informed that a child had been injured by their attack, one initially responded, "Ah damn. Oh well", and a minute later continued, "Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle".[42] Smith describes this reaction as inhuman. She draws parallels with soldiers who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder in earlier wars. She continues "... the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are inflicting huge psychological damage on combatants".[42] In refusing to recognise this, the US military fails both its own soldiers and their "victims".[42] Command structures need to be in place to identify "combatants with serious psychological problems",[42] she concludes.
On Democracy Now!, Josh Stieber, a conscientious objector who was at the time assigned to Bravo Company 2-16, said that although it's natural to "judge or criticize the soldiers", in fact "this is how [they] were trained to act". He said that the debate should be re-framed, that it is more appropriate to ask "questions of the larger system" that teaches "doing these things is in the best interests of my own country".[43] In a later interview on the World Socialist Web Site, Stieber said that the attack "exposes so clearly the fallacy of using war as a tool of foreign policy or as a way to supposedly spread 'freedom and democracy' around the world".[44]
Ethan McCord, a soldier who arrived on the scene after the attack, stated in an interview for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:
From being in the perspective of the Apache helicopter crew, I can see where a group of men gathering, when there's a firefight just a few blocks away, which I was involved in, and they're carrying weapons, one of which is an RPG. ... Their overall mission that day was to protect us, to provide support for us, so I can see where the initial attack on the group of men was warranted. However, personally I don't feel that the attack on the van was warranted. I think that the people could have been deterred from doing what they were doing in the van by simply firing a few warning shots versus completely obliterating the van and its occupants.[45][46]
On June 7, 2010, The New Yorker reported that Kristinn Hrafnsson, an investigative reporter who worked on the Collateral Murder video and has since become a spokesman for WikiLeaks,[47] claimed to have found the owner of the building who said that three families had been living in there and seven residents had died, including his wife and daughter.[33] The report stated that the helicopter crew did not know how many people were in the building when they destroyed it with missiles, and that "there is evidence that unarmed people have both entered and are nearby".[33] It concludes that an investigating officer would want to know how the armed men were identified as combatants from the earlier engagement; would question the nature of the collateral-damage estimate carried out by the crew before the missiles were launched; and would wish to determine whether a missile attack was a proportionate response to the threat.
A Pentagon spokesman insisted the video did not contradict the official finding that the helicopters' crew acted within the rules of engagement and said that the inquiry backed the assessment that the group of men was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG).[48]
2007–2009 coverage
On the day of the attack the US military reported that the two journalists were killed along with nine insurgents, and that the helicopter engagement was related to a US troop raid force that had been attacked by small-arms fire and RPGs.[49] US forces spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Scott Bleichwehl later stated: "There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force".[49]
The Washington Post reported it was unclear whether the journalists were killed by U.S. fire or by shooting from the targeted Iraqis. Captain James Hall stated they couldn't drive in Bradleys in fear of running over bodies. Major Brent Cummings claimed they took great pains to prevent the loss of innocent civilian lives.[50]
Reuters reported that it could locate no witnesses who had seen gunmen in the immediate area. Reuters also stated that local police described the attack as "random American bombardment".[51] Reuters subsequently asked the US military to probe the deaths. They asked for an explanation of the confiscation of the journalists' two cameras, access to the on-board footage and voice communications from the helicopters involved, and access to the reports of the units involved in the incident, particularly logs of weapons taken from the scene.[51]
The Pentagon blocked an attempt by Reuters to obtain the gunsight footage of the incident through the Freedom of Information Act.[15] In a personal statement during her court martial, Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) stated that the military did have access to this information, and that it was actively examining it, yet it denied access partially on the basis that the information may no longer exist.[52]
An internal legal review by staff at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq during July 2007 stated that the helicopters had attacked a number of armed insurgents within the rules of engagement, and that in an apparent case of collateral damage two reporters working for Reuters had also been killed. The review would not be released in full until 2010, after the video of the incident had been released by WikiLeaks.[2]
Washington Post reporter David Finkel, who at the time was embedded with Bravo Company 2-16 Infantry, later covered the incidents of the day in his book, The Good Soldiers.[53] However, this was later disputed by Manning's personal statements to court. In this statement, Manning agrees that parts of Finkel's account are quoted from the same source "verbatim", yet she asserts that other events from the source were clearly fabricated by Finkel.[52]
Coverage from 2010
Leaked video footage
Early in 2010, the internet leak site WikiLeaks made a public request for assistance in decrypting a video it described as "US bomb strikes on civilians", specifically requesting access to supercomputer time.[54] The site stated on its Twitter account on January 8, 2010, that it had a copy of gunsight footage of the incidents,[55] and announced that it would release it by March 21[citation needed].[56] The footage was released during an April 5 press conference at the National Press Club, and subsequently under a designated website titled "Collateral Murder". WikiLeaks stated that the footage shows the "murder of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists".[57][58] WikiLeaks identified the leak's source as "a number of military whistleblowers".[39] Speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, a U.S. Defense official confirmed the authenticity of the leaked audio and video.[7] The military reported that it could not find its copy of the video.[59]
WikiLeaks released a 39-minute version, which shows all three incidents, and a 17-minute version, which shows only the first two incidents. Highlighted in the 17-minute version of the video are Noor-Eldeen with a camera and Chmagh talking on his mobile phone.[15] Both videos depict the attack on the van, van driver, and two other men, and the aftermath when the two seriously injured children were evacuated by US ground forces who arrived on the scene.[39] The longer video shows the third attack, in which Hellfire missiles were fired into a building.[33]
WikiLeaks' rationale for their title of the footage
In an Al Jazeera English interview on April 19, 2010, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange explained why WikiLeaks titled the video "Collateral Murder":
And you can see that they also deliberately target Saaed, a wounded man there on the ground, despite their earlier belief that they didn't have the rules of engagement—that the rules of engagement did not permit them to kill Saeed when he was wounded. When he is rescued, suddenly that belief changed. You can see in this particular image he is lying on the ground and the people in the van have been separated, but they still deliberately target him. This is why we called it Collateral Murder. In the first example maybe it's collateral exaggeration or incompetence when they strafe the initial gathering, this is recklessness bordering on murder, but you couldn't say for sure that was murder. But this particular event—this is clearly murder.[60]
Regarding the title Toby Harnden in The Daily Telegraph wrote: "Oddly enough, it was Stephen Colbert, ostensibly a comedian, who skewered him":
The army described this as a group that gave resistance at the time, that doesn't seem to be happening. But there are armed men in the group, they did find a rocket propelled grenade among the group, the Reuters photographers who were regrettably killed, were not identified...You have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called 'collateral murder.' That's not leaking, that's a pure editorial.
According to Harnden "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create 'maximum political impact'."[61][62][63][64][65] Dan Kennedy wrote in The Guardian "Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation'".[66]
Bill Keller of The New York Times wrote "But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn't call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric Collateral Murder."[4] The New York Times reported that "Critics contend that the shorter video was misleading because it did not make clear that the attacks took place amid clashes in the neighborhood and that one of the men was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade."[67]
Reactions to the video footage
Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command stated that the airstrike video "gives you a limited perspective, [it] only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs. "Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat."[23][68] Also, WikiLeaks "does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG". The Wikileaks edited video did not add arrows pointing to these men, nor did they label them, as was done with the men carrying cameras. WikiLeaks did, in fact, state "some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed" in the introductory text of the shorter video.[36] In an interview with Fox News Assange acknowledged that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons". He explained, "based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything. ... Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area". Fox News later stated that "although it could be argued AK-47 rifles are common household items, RPGs are not". A draft version of the video WikiLeaks produced made reference to the AK-47s and RPGs, but WikiLeaks said that ultimately they became unsure about the RPG, believing the long object could have been a camera tripod, so they decided not to point it out in the released version.[23]
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticised WikiLeaks for releasing the video without providing any context. "These people can put out anything they want, and they're never held accountable for it. There's no before and there's no after". Gates remarked that the video provides the public a view of warfare "as seen through a soda straw."[69] Gates stated: "They're in a combat situation. The video doesn't show the broader picture of the firing that was going on at American troops. It's obviously a hard thing to see. It's painful to see, especially when you learn after the fact what was going on. But you—you talked about the fog of war. These people were operating in split second situations."[10][70]
The New Yorker praised its release, calling it "a striking artifact—an unmediated representation of the ambiguities and cruelties of modern warfare".[3] Julian Assange said "it's ludicrous to allege that we have taken anything out of context in this video".[23]
Daniel Ellsberg, a former United States military analyst best known for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the media, said of the airstrike:
It would be interesting to have someone speculate or tell us exactly what context would lead to justifying the killing that we see on the screen. As the killing goes on, you obviously would see the killing of men who are lying on the ground in an operation where ground troops are approaching and perfectly capable of taking those people captive, but meanwhile you're murdering before the troops arrive. That's a violation of the laws of war and of course what the mainstream media have omitted from their stories is this context.[71]
Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute said of the airstrike:.
It is precisely the presence of weapons, including RPGs, that goes a long distance toward explaining why cameramen for Reuters—pointing television cameras around corners in a battle zone—were readily mistaken by our gunships for insurgents. The video makes plain that in this incident, as in almost all military encounters in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are up against forces that do not wear uniforms—a violation of international law precisely because it places innocent civilians in jeopardy.
Responsibility for civilian deaths in such encounters rests with those who violate the rules of war. The Wikileaks videos also do not reveal the hundreds upon hundreds of cases in which American forces refrain from attacking targets precisely because civilians are in harm's way.[72]
Subsequent mainstream media coverage
Publicity of the incident ballooned following the release of the footage. The event was covered by Al Jazeera English, RT[73] and Reuters,[7] and was also followed by organizations including The Washington Post,[74] The New York Times,[2] The Christian Science Monitor,[75] the BBC,[58] and CNN.[19]
Assange stated that some of the press had not reported on the third airstrike, in which three Hellfire missiles were fired onto an apartment complex, which only appears in the longer unedited version of the two videos.[20]
In an interview on NPR on April 6th, the day after the Collateral Murder video release, David Finkel pointed out that the Reuters reporters were not embedded with anyone, but working independently. He also gave his view of the context of the killings:
the Reuters guys walked into the hottest spot of a very hot morning. There had been running gun battles. There had been a lot of RPG, grenade fire and so on, and they were doing what journalists do. They heard about something, they came to it and they just wanted—from everything I've learned since, they were just there to get that side of the story.[76]
Finkel had reported the day in his book, The Good Soldiers,[53] including conversations which closely matched the subsequently leaked video footage. On the same day as the NPR interview, Finkel was asked how he had gotten a chance to see the unedited video and whether WikiLeaks had shown it to him. He responded, "I hadn't heard of WikiLeaks before yesterday. I based the account in my book on multiple sources, all unclassified".[77] WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange said that Finkel had seen the video and that at least one individual at the offices of the Washington Post had a copy of the video for at least a year, prior to its release by WikiLeaks.[71] The Washington Post has denied having any copy of the unedited video prior to WikiLeaks release of their edited version, and Finkel (who was on book leave from the Washington Post at the time) has said that he has never made any statement about his sources for the story, except that it was "sourced [...] from unclassified information and my presence in the area that day".[78]
Interviews with Ethan McCord
Ethan McCord, the soldier seen in the video carrying the injured boy, recalled in an interview on The Marc Steiner Show that on arrival at the scene, "The first thing I did was run up to the van ...". After attending the girl's wounds and handing her to a medic, McCord was ordered to take position on the roof but he returned to the van to find the boy moving his hand. "I grabbed him and ran to the Bradley myself". McCord states he was yelled at for not "pulling security." "The first thing I thought of ... was my children at home". He later sought help for psychological trauma, but was ridiculed by his NCO and told that if he were to go to the mental health officer, "there would be repercussions".[79]
McCord discussed his experience in the battle in an interview with the World Socialist Web Site on April 28, 2010, stating, "What happened then was not an isolated incident. Stuff like that happens on a daily basis in Iraq."[80] McCord also recalled being ordered to "kill every motherfucker on the street" in the event of an attack on their convoy. Describing doubts over his initial enthusiasm in Iraq, McCord said that "I didn't understand why people were throwing rocks at us, why I was being shot at and why we're being blown up, when I have it in my head that I was here to help these people. ... The first real serious doubt, where I could no longer justify to myself being in Iraq or serving in the Army, was on that day in July 2007."[80] In this interview, McCord reports that repercussions for seeking mental health help could include being labeled as a "malingerer," a crime under U.S. military law.[80]
McCord requested mental health assistance following his experiences in July 12, but was told by his superior officers to "get the sand out of [his] vagina" and to "suck it up and be a soldier."[81]
When interviewed by Wired, McCord stated that he supported Wikileaks in releasing the video, with some qualifications: "When it was first released I don't think it was done in the best manner that it could have been. They were stating that these people had no weapons whatsoever, that they were just carrying cameras. In the video, you can clearly see that they did have weapons ... to the trained eye." McCord added, "I don't say that Wikileaks did a bad thing, because they didn't. ... I think it is good that they're putting this stuff out there. I don't think that people really want to see this, though, because this is war. ... It's very disturbing."[82]
James Spione has made a short documentary film about the airstrikes called Incident in New Baghdad, featuring a first-person account from Ethan McCord. It was nominated as a Documentary Short Subject for the 84th Academy Awards.[83]
In an interview with Russia Today, McCord stated that he became suicidal after the incident, and attempted suicide on two occasions.[84]
Arrest, convictions and sentencing of Manning
|Wikinews has related news:
In May 2010, a 22-year-old American Army intelligence analyst, Chelsea Manning (then Bradley) was arrested after telling Adrian Lamo he had leaked the airstrike video, along with a video of another airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to WikiLeaks.[85][86] The chats between Manning and Lamo were revealed to the public by Wired.[87]
As of June 7, 2011, Manning had not yet been formally charged.[85][86] Instead Manning was held under a "Prevention of Injury" assignment until April 2011, which Daniel Ellsberg, source of the 1971 released Pentagon Papers, and David House, founder of the Private Manning Support Network, called "no-touch torture". House said this caused Manning to "degrade over time—physically, mentally, and emotionally." Dennis Kucinich and Daniel Ellsberg compared the treatment to what happened inside the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (e.g., nudity, isolation, harassment, sleep-deprivation).[88][89][90][91][92]
Manning said that the diplomatic documents exposed "almost criminal political back dealings" and that they explained "how the First World exploits the Third, in detail".[93][94]
WikiLeaks said "allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect".[94] WikiLeaks said they were unable to confirm whether or not Manning was actually the source of the video, stating "we never collect personal information on our sources", but saying also that "if [Manning is the] whistleblower then, without doubt, he's a national hero"[94] and "we have taken steps to arrange for his protection and legal defence".[85]
On February 28, 2013, Manning pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 specified charges. Military judge Colonel Denise Lind accepted the guilty pleas, for which Manning faced up to 20 years in prison. Manning did not plead guilty to the most significant charge of aiding the enemy.[95]
Manning acknowledged having provided archives of military and diplomatic files to WikiLeaks. The material leaked included videos of airstrikes in Iraq and Afghanistan in which civilians were killed, logs of military incident reports, assessment files of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and a quarter-million cables from American diplomats stationed around the world. Manning read a statement recounting how she joined the military, became an intelligence analyst in Iraq, decided that certain files should become known to the American public to prompt a wider debate about foreign policy, downloaded them from a secure computer network and then ultimately uploaded them to WikiLeaks.[96]
The trial on the remaining charges began on June 3, 2013.[97] It went to the judge on July 26, 2013, and findings were rendered on July 30.[98][99] Manning was acquitted of the most serious charge, that of aiding the enemy, for giving secrets to WikiLeaks. In addition to five[100][101][102] or six[103][104][105] espionage counts, she was also found guilty of five theft specifications, two computer fraud specifications and multiple military infractions.[106]
On August 21, 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment, reduction in rank from Private First Class to Private, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge.[107] She may be eligible for parole after serving one third of the sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released after eight years.[108][109][110]
Legality of the attacks
In an June 7, 2010, article in The New Yorker, Raffi Khatchadourian addressed several issues involved in determining the legality of the attacks, including "proportionality", "positive identification" ("reasonable certainty" that the target has hostile intent), and "the treatment of casualties during an ongoing military operation".[111] Mark Taylor, an expert on international law and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, has stated that there is "a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed".[112] An article in Gawker stated that Reuters reporter Luke Baker had written an article claiming that the airstrikes may have been war crimes, but the editor in chief of Reuters declined to run the story.[113]
Military legal review
On April 5, 2010, the same day as the release of the video footage by WikiLeaks, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released a collection of documents including two investigative reports.[2][11] Pentagon officials told the Reuters news agency that US military lawyers were reviewing the video and could reopen an investigation into the incident,[59] but said more recently that there are no plans to reopen the investigation.[114]
The report states that at least two members of the group which were first fired on were armed, that two RPGs and one AKM or AK-47 rifle could be seen in the helicopter video, and that these weapons were picked up by the follow-up U.S. ground troops. The report concludes that the Reuters employees were in the company of armed insurgents. It also states that "The cameras could easily be mistaken for slung AK-47 or AKM rifles, especially since neither cameraman is wearing anything that identifies him as media or press".[8] The report recommends encouraging journalists in Iraq to wear special vests to identify themselves, and to keep the U.S. military updated about their whereabouts. It claimed reporters' "furtive attempts to photograph the Coalition Ground Forces made them appear as hostile combatants".[35][115]
Incident according to the report
Attack on personnel and a van per US Army report account
According to the U.S. Army investigation report released by the United States Central Command, the engagement started at 10:20 Iraqi local time and ended at 10:41. A unit from Bravo Company 2-16 was within 100 meters of the individuals that were fired upon with 30mm AH-64 Apache cannons. The company was charged with clearing their sector of any small armed forces, and had been under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The company was supported by two Apache helicopters from the 1st Cavalry Division's Aviation Brigade, callsigns "Crazyhorse 1/8" and "Crazyhorse 1/9". Two men were identified by Crazyhorse 1/8 as carrying an RPG launcher and an AKM or AK-47. When the cameraman on the ground aimed his camera in the direction of Bravo Company 2-16, a pilot remarked "He's getting ready to fire". An Apache maneuvered around a building to get a clear field of fire and shot all nine men, killing eight. A passing van then stopped and attempted to load a wounded man. After getting permission to fire, the Apache crew fired on the van. When Bravo Company arrived at the scene, they reported finding two RPGs and an AK-47 or AKM. They also found two Canon EOS digital cameras with telephoto lenses. Two children were found in the van, a four-year-old girl with gunshot wounds and embedded windscreen glass wounds and an eight-year-old boy with multiple wounds, including brain damage arising from shrapnel damage to his right temporal lobe. Both children were said to have been evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital via Forward Operating Base Loyalty, then transferred to an Iraqi medical facility the next day.[12] This account of first bringing the wounded children to the Combat Support Hospital appears to be contradicted by orders by radio that form part of the video record, which forbids it and orders that the children be handed over to local police.[116]
While the Air Weapons Team was providing support at the first engagement area they were informed by ground troops that they were receiving small arms fire from the south/southwest. The crew for Crazyhorse 1/8 then located multiple individuals with weapons about 400 meters east of coalition forces and was given clearance to engage the targets. However, the co-pilot/gunner then observed a child and some other non-combatants in the vicinity of the individuals and decided to hold off on the engagement until the non-combatants were clear. After the non-combatants were clear Crazyhorse 1/8 engaged the targets. The crew for Crazyhorse 1/9 could not engage due to target obfuscation from buildings and dust.[12]
The team observed several individuals from this group, some possibly wounded, run into a large multistory building. The co-pilot/gunner for Crazyhorse 1/9 spotted three individuals near this building get into a red SUV and drive away to the west. For about 5 to 10 minutes the team diverted its attention to this vehicle. However, according to the co-pilot for Crazyhorse 1/8 they failed to positively identify the occupants as combatants and returned to the previous engagement area.[12]
Attack on building per US Army report account
The events between the attack on the van and the attack on the building (approximately 30 minutes) were not captured on the leaked video footage.[117] The military did not include the attack on the building in their report.[33]
Julian Assange's comments regarding US Army report
Assange responded to the investigation report released by the Army in an interview with Democracy Now!, stating that "the tone and language is all about trying to find an excuse for the activity. ... It's very clear that that is the approach, to try and find any mechanism to excuse the behavior, and that is what ended up happening".[20] Assange also stated that the building attacked by missiles was not abandoned, and that WikiLeaks had evidence that "there were three families living in that apartment complex, many of whom were killed, including women".[20]
In May 2011 the Barcelona Human Rights Film Festival awarded the investigative film Collateral murder, Hellfire, done by Kristinn Hrafnsson, Wikileaks spokesperson, and Ingi Ingason, with the award for International Journalism and Human Rights.[118]
In June 2011 the Federation of German Scientists (VDW) awarded the "Whistleblower Award" to the person who made the video "Collateral Murder" public via WikiLeaks.[119][120]
Media representations
- Incident in New Baghdad a 2011 Oscar-nominated short documentary film about the Baghdad airstrike.
- Documentary: Permission to Engage: Collateral Murder through the eyes of victims' families.[121]
- Street art representation (including audio) by Banksy, October 9, 2013. Part of Banksy's Better Out Than In month-long artwork series on the streets of New York City.[122]
See also
- ↑ Schmitt, Eric (2010-07-25). "In Disclosing Secret Documents, WikiLeaks Seeks 'Transparency'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2011-04-27. Retrieved 2011-04-27.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Bumiller, Elisabeth (2010-04-05). "Video Shows U.S. Killing of Reuters Employees". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Khatchadourian, Raffi (2010-06-07). "No Secrets". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2010-07-10.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Keller, Bill (2011-01-26). "Dealing With Assange and the WikiLeaks Secrets" (adapted from introduction to the book Open Secrets). New York Times. Retrieved 2012-06-18.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Iraq war files: Apache Hellfire victims". Channel 4. 2010-10-22. Archived from the original on 2011-04-27. Retrieved 2011-04-27.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "US soldier on aftermath of WikiLeaks Apache attack". BBC. 2010-10-28. Archived from the original on 2011-04-27. Retrieved 2011-04-27.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Alexander, David (2010-04-05). "Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-04-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 Cohen, Tom (2010-04-07). "Leaked video reveals chaos of Baghdad attack". CNN. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
The two photojournalists were Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen. ... Chmagh surviving the initial shooting, but apparently he died when the gunship opened fire on people attempting to get him to a van that arrived, apparently to collect the wounded.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Collateral Murder?". Al Jazeera English. 2010-04-15. Retrieved 2010-04-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 "Gates said leaked military video of shooting in Iraq doesn't show the broader picture of Americans being fired upon". PolitiFact. Retrieved 2011-05-19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 "Records released to the public, under the FOIA, that are or will likely become the subject of subsequent requests". United States Central Command. 2010-04-05.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 United States Department of the Army (2007-07-17). Investigation into Civilian Casualties Resulting from an Engagement on 12 July 2007 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq (PDF) (Report). Washington DC, United States: United States Central Command. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-10-20. Retrieved 2014-04-29.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike transcript – Wikisource". En.wikisource.org. Retrieved 2011-05-19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Cohen, Noam; Stelter, Brian (2010-04-06). "Video expands notoriety of WikiLeaks site". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
left 12 people dead, including two Reuters news-agency employees ... (The Pentagon defended the killings and said no disciplinary action was taken at the time of the incident. ... Reuters had tried for 2 ½ years through the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the Iraq video, to no avail. ... WikiLeaks .. used the label Collateral Murder<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 15.00 15.01 15.02 15.03 15.04 15.05 15.06 15.07 15.08 15.09 15.10 McGreal, Chris (2010-04-05). "WikiLeaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
Among the dead were a 22-year-old Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Sengupta, Kim (2010-04-07). "The pictures that prove US helicopter gunships opened fire on Iraqi civilians". The Independent. London. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
among those killed were 22-year-old Namir Noor-Eldeen, a photographer carrying a camera, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40, carrying out a journalistic assignment. ... an investigation shortly after the incident concluded that US forces were unaware of the presence of the Reuters team and believed they were engaging armed insurgents.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ McElroy, Damien (2010-04-06). "Calls for inquiry into Apache attack on Iraqi civilians". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, two cameramen for the Reuters news agency, were among 15 people killed in the attacks ... The Pentagon acknowledged the authenticity of the video but a spokesman insisted the video did not contradict the official finding that the helicopters' crew acted within the rules of engagement.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Hodge, Nathan (2010-04-07). "U.S. Military Releases Redacted Records on 2007 Apache Attack, Questions Linger | Danger Room". Wired.com. Retrieved 2011-05-19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 "Video shows deaths of two Reuters journalists in Iraq in 2007". CNN. 2010-04-06. Retrieved 2010-04-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 Goodman, Amy (2010-04-06). "Massacre Caught on Tape: US Military Confirms Authenticity of Their Own Chilling Video Showing Killing of Journalists". Democracy Now. Retrieved 2010-04-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ ^Permission to Engage-Witness. Al Jazeera English.
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 "Video shows 'US attack' on Iraqis". Al Jazeera English. 2010-05-26. Retrieved 2010-04-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 Fishel, Justin (2010-04-07). "Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video". Fox News. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Collateral Murder (Internet video). Iraq: WikiLeaks. 2007-07-12.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers. Reuters.
- ↑ Grim truths of Wikileaks Iraq video | Douglas Haddow | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk. Guardian (2010-04-07).
- ↑ "Let Us Shoot". Big American Night (2010-04-05).
- ↑ 'Let Us Shoot': US Troops Fire On Journalists. News.sky.com.
- ↑ Legal Glance on the Baghdad Helicopter Shooting | Peščanik. Pescanik.net (2012-11-13).
- ↑ "US soldier on aftermath of WikiLeaks Apache attack". BBC News. 2010-10-28.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Zetter, Kim (2010-04-20). "U.S. Soldier on 2007 Apache Attack: What I Saw". Wired.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Barrowclough, Nikki (2010-05-22). "Keeper of secrets". The Age. Melbourne.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 Khatchadourian, Raffi (2010-04-07). "The Use of Force". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2010-04-08.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "NewYorker-Useofforce" defined multiple times with different content
- ↑ "Collateral Murder Op Ed". Dispatches. Retrieved 2010-04-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 "Redacted internal US Army report: "INVESTIGATION INTO CIVILIAN CASUALTIES RESULTING FROM AN ENGAGEMENT ON 12 JULY 2007 IN THE NEW BAGHDAD DISTRICT OF BAGHDAD"" (PDF). Wired. Retrieved 2013-08-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "wired1" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "wired1" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "wired1" defined multiple times with different content
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 Robert Farley (2010-04-14). "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tells Colbert permission to engage was given before the word RPG was ever used". Politifact.com.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Gates said leaked military video of shooting in Iraq doesn't show the broader picture of Americans being fired upon". PolitiFact. Retrieved 2011-05-19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange tells Colbert permission to engage was given before the word RPG was ever used". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on 2013-10-29. Retrieved 2011-05-19. Unknown parameter
|deadurl=ignored (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 "Collateral Murder". WikiLeaks. 2010-04-05. Archived from the original on 2010-04-07. Retrieved 2010-04-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 Greenwald, Glenn (5 April 2010). "WikiLeaks releases video of slaughter in Iraq".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Norington, Brad (2010-04-07). "Military shooting of Reuters men online". The Australian. Retrieved 2010-06-24.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 Smith, Joan (2010-04-08). "Joan Smith: Now we see what war does to those who wage it". The Independent. London. Retrieved 2010-04-08.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "'This Is How These Soldiers Were Trained to Act' – Veteran of Military Unit Involved in 2007 Baghdad Helicopter Shooting Says Incident Is Part of Much Larger Problem". 2010-04-08. Retrieved 2010-04-13.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "US soldier on Baghdad airstrike: "Not out of the ordinary in Iraq"". World Socialist Web SIte. Retrieved 16 April 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ YouTube, (ddchalmers channel) Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Lateline (2010-04-29). "2 soldiers in 'Collateral Murder' video apologize. (quote begins at 5:15)". YouTube, (ddchalmers channel) Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2010-08-20.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Lateline, Reporter David Mark (2010-04-29). "Soldiers in 'Collateral Murder' video apologise". Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Lateline. Retrieved 2010-08-20.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Greenberg, Andy (2013-08-14). "Meet The New Public Face Of WikiLeaks: Kristinn Hrafnsson – Forbes". Blogs.forbes.com. Retrieved 2013-08-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ McElroy, Damien (2010-04-06). "Calls for inquiry into Apache attack on Iraqi civilians". The Daily Telegraph. London.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 49.0 49.1 Rubin, Alissa J.; Mizher, Qais; Fadam, Ahmad (2007-07-13). "2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-05.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Partlow, Joshua; Finkel, David (2007-07-13). "U.S., Shiite Fighters Clash in Baghdad". The Washington Post.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 51.0 51.1 Yates, Dean (2007-07-16). "Reuters seeks U.S. probe into killing of Iraqi staff". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-04-05.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 52.0 52.1 "Bradley Manning's statements during his trial". The Guardian. London. 2013-03-01.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 53.0 53.1 Finkel, David (2010-04-06). "U.S. gunfire kills two Reuters employees in Baghdad". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-04-06.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Cohen, Noam; Stelter, Brian (2010-04-08). "WikiLeaks silent on how it broke encryption". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2010-04-08.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Twitter / WikiLeaks: Have encrypted videos of U". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2010-04-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Twitter / WikiLeaks: WikiLeaks to reveal Pentag". Twitter.com. Retrieved 2010-04-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Video shows 'US attack' on Iraqis". Al Jazeera English. 2010-04-05. Retrieved 2010-04-06.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 58.0 58.1 "WikiLeaks posts video of 'US military killings' in Iraq". BBC News. 2010-04-05. Retrieved 2010-04-06.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 59.0 59.1 "US military 'cannot find Iraq tape'". Al Jazeera English. 2010-04-08. Retrieved 2010-04-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Al Jazeera English (2010-04-19). "Collateral Murder? (The quote begins at 12:22 in video, and the shot that killed Saaed is at 12:25)". Al Jazeera English Channel, YouTube. Retrieved 2010-08-20.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Harnden, Toby (2010-08-22). "Julian Assange's arrest warrant: a diversion from the truth?". The Daily Telegraph. London.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "One Year Ago Tonight: Stephen Colbert vs. Julian Assange". The Nation. 2011-02-25. Retrieved 2011-05-19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Greg Mitchell: Stephen Colbert Interviews Glenn Greenwald—and Julian Assange". Huffingtonpost.com. 2011-04-12. Retrieved 2011-05-19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Julian Assange – The Colbert Report – 4/12/10 – Video Clip | Comedy Central". Colbertnation.com. 2010-04-12. Retrieved 2011-05-19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Colbert Interviews Wikileaks | Reuters Video | Julian Assange". Mediaite. 2010-04-13. Retrieved 2011-05-19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Kennedy, Dan (2010-07-27). "WikiLeaks,US military (News),Media,Internet,Press and publishing,Afghanistan (News),US news,Middle East (News),World news,Afghanistan: The war logs,The war logs". The Guardian. London.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Cohen, Noam; Stelter, Brian (2010-04-06). "Airstrike Video Brings Attention to WikiLeaks Site". The New York Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Sheridan, Michael (2010-04-07). "Elliptical vs. treadmill: Which will give you the better workout?". Daily News. New York.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Hudson Institute > Warfare Through 'a Soda Straw'". Hudson.org. 2010-06-23. Retrieved 2011-05-19.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Stewart, Phil (2010-04-13). "Gates assails Internet group over attack video". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-04-14.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 71.0 71.1 "United States – Truth or Dare". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 2010-06-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>, transcript of WikiLeaks – Iceland. Journeyman Pictures. 2010-07-05. Event occurs at 0:17:00. Retrieved 2010-07-06.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Hudson Institute > Warfare Through 'a Soda Straw'". Hudson.org. 2010-06-23. Retrieved 2013-08-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "WikiLeaks Documents Murder in Iraq" (television interview with Julian Assange). The Alyona Show. RT.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers". The Washington Post. 2010-04-05.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Murphy, Dan (2010-04-05). "WikiLeaks releases video depicting US forces killing of two Reuters journalists in Iraq". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2010-04-14.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Leaked Video Depicts Civilian Deaths In Iraq". NPR. 2010-04-06.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Finkel, David (2010-04-06). "Video shows death of 2 Reuters employees in Baghdad attack". Live Q&As. Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-07-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Hendler, Clint (2010-06-07). "WaPo denies allegation it sat on WikiLeaks video". The Kicker (blog). Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2010-07-08.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Two members of the company in the WikiLeaks video speak out". The Marc Steiner Show. 2010-04-13. Retrieved 2010-04-17.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 80.0 80.1 80.2 "US soldier in WikiLeaks massacre video: 'I relive this every day'". World Socialist Web Site. The International Committee of the Fourth International. 2010-04-28. Retrieved 2010-06-09.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Tony Jones (2010-04-29). "Former US soldier speaks (interview transcript)". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2011-03-08.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Kim Zetter (2010-04-20). "U.S. Soldier on 2007 Apache Attack: What I Saw". Wired. Retrieved 2011-02-17.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "8 Doc Shorts on Oscar's 2011 Shortlist". Beverly Hills, California: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. 13 October 2011. Retrieved 14 October 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Surviving 'Collateral Murder': Soldier relives infamous WikiLeaks video – RT USA". Rt.com. Retrieved 2013-08-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 85.0 85.1 85.2 "US intelligence analyst arrested over security leaks". BBC News. 2010-06-07. Retrieved 2010-06-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 86.0 86.1 Poulsen, Kevin; Kim Zetter (2010-06-06). "U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in WikiLeaks Video Probe". Wired. Retrieved 2010-06-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Hansen, Evan (13 July 2011). "Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Revealed". Wired. Archived from the original on 21 March 2012. Retrieved 21 March 2012. Unknown parameter
|deadurl=ignored (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Brooke, Heather; David House (2010-12-16). "Bradley Manning's health deteriorating in jail, supporters say". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-01-17.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Sontheimer, Michael; David House (2011-03-14). "Have Watched My Friend Degrade over Time". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2011-04-20.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Condon, Stephanie; Philippa Thomas (2011-03-11). "State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley decries Bradley Manning's treatment as counterproductive, stupid". CBS News. Retrieved 2011-12-06.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Ellsberg, Daniel (2011-03-11). "This shameful abuse of Bradley Manning". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-12-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Greenwald, Glenn (2010-12-15). "The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention". Salon. Retrieved 2011-01-17.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Ellen Nakashima (2010-06-10). "Messages from alleged leaker Bradley Manning portray him as despondent soldier". The Washington Post.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 94.0 94.1 94.2 Sheridan, Michael (2010-06-07). "Report: Soldier arrested for allegedly leaking 'Collateral Murder' helicopter video to WikiLeaks". New York Daily News. Retrieved 2010-06-07.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Bradley Manning pleads guilty to some Wikileaks charges", BBC News, February 28, 2013.
- ↑ Charlie Savage and Scott Shane (March 1, 2013). "Soldier Admits Providing Files To WikiLeaks". The New York Times. p. A1.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Julie Tate and Ellen Nakashima, "Bradley Manning court-martial opens", The Washington Post, June 3, 2013.
- ↑ "Closing arguments conclude; Manning's fate now with judge". CNN. 2013-07-26. Retrieved July 26, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Verdict in Manning trial to be read Tuesday". CNN. 2013-07-29. Retrieved July 29, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Matt Sledge (July 30, 2013). "Bradley Manning Found Guilty of 19 Counts, Not Guilty of Aiding The Enemy". huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved July 30, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Dashiell Bennett (July 30, 2013). "Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty of Aiding the Enemy". theatlanticwire.com.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Zachary Stieber (July 30, 2013). "Bradley Manning Acquitted of Aiding the Enemy, Found Guilty of Violating Espionage Act". Epoch Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Army Pfc. Bradley Manning acquitted of aiding the enemy, convicted of six counts of espionage". New York: NY Daily News. Retrieved July 30, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Savage, Charlie (2013-07-30). "Manning Acquitted of Aiding the Enemy". New York Times. Retrieved July 30, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Bradley Manning acquitted of aiding the enemy for giving secrets to WikiLeaks". CBS News. Retrieved July 30, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "BBC News – Bradley Manning guilty of espionage in Wikileaks case". bbc.co.uk. July 30, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Dishneau, David. "Manning Gets 35 years for wikileaks disclosures". MSN.com. Associated Press. Retrieved August 21, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Sledge, Matt. "Bradley Manning Sentenced To 35 Years In Prison For WikiLeaks Disclosures ", Huffington Post, 21 August 2013.
- ↑ "Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison – live updates". The Guardian. August 21, 2013. Retrieved August 21, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Tate, Julie (August 21, 2013). "Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years". Washington Post. Retrieved August 21, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Khatchadourian, Raffi (2010-04-05). "The WikiLeaks Video and the Rules of Engagement". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2010-07-20.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Fordham, Alice, Baghdad families to sue US Army over deaths in 2007 airstrike 'mistake', The Times, April 8, 2010
- ↑ "Exclusive: Reuters Chief Spikes Story on Killing of His Own Staffers In Baghdad". Gawker. 2010-04-08. Retrieved 2010-04-10.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "US 'reviewing' Iraq killing video posted on WikiLeaks". BBC News. 2010-04-08. Retrieved 2010-05-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Nathan Hodge (2010-07-04). "U.S. Military Releases Redacted Records on 2007 Apache Attack, Questions Linger". Wired. Retrieved 2011-02-12.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Amy Goodman (April 6, 2010). "Rush transcript of video". democracynow.org. Retrieved 2011-03-11.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ CollateralMurder's Timeline of attack: relevantly, '06:49:09 Video cuts; 07:20:42 [video resumes]'
- ↑ "Ingi Ingason Ragnar and Kristinn Hrafnsson awarded International Journalism and Human Rights Award at Barcelona Human Rights Film Festival". Wikileaks-press.org. 2011-07-07. Retrieved 2013-08-22.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Verleihung des Whistleblower-Preises 2011". Hintergrund (in German). Verlag Selbrund. 2011-06-06. Archived from the original on 2013-10-23. Retrieved 2014-04-29. Unknown parameter
|deadurl=ignored (help); Unknown parameter
|trans_title=ignored (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Whistleblower-Preis 2011 geht an Kernforscher. Heise.de (2012-05-31).
- ↑ Permission to Engage – Witness. Al Jazeera English.
- ↑ http://www.banksy.co.uk/2013/10/09/lower-east-side Better Out Than In by Banksy, October 9, 2013.
External links
|Wikisource has a complete transcript of:
|Wikinews has related news:
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike.
- Collateral Murder – WikiLeaks-owned alternate site, includes full footage of the video as originally released
- USA Collateral Murder in Iraq (39m 13s) (616 MB), The Pirate Bay
- WikiLeaks editor on Apache combat video: No excuse for US killing civilians – April 2010. Russia Today via YouTube
- Families of Victims of 2007 US Helicopter Killing React to Leaked Video – video report by Democracy Now!
- Ethan McCord Describes Emotional Toll of Witnessing Killings – video interview by Democracy Now!
- 'Collateral Murder' in Baghdad Anything But, a Rebuttal by Bill Roggio
- "Julian Assange Is Not Your Friend" from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
- Videos at the old WikiLeaks site. Archived on 2 May 2012.
- Archived by the Internet Archive.
Lua error in Module:Coordinates at line 668: callParserFunction: function "#coordinates" was not found.
- Pages with reference errors
- Pages with citations using unsupported parameters
- CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list
- CS1 maint: unrecognized language
- Articles with unsourced statements from November 2013
- Commons category link is defined as the pagename
- Conflicts in 2007
- 2007 in Iraq
- 2007 in military history
- Photojournalism controversies
- Journalists killed while covering the Iraq War
- WikiLeaks
- Reuters
- 2010s in media
- 2010 in military history
- Iraqi insurgency (2003–11)
- Airstrikes by town or city
- Civilians killed in the War on Terror
- Filmed deaths
- 21st century in Baghdad
- Military history of Baghdad


text:
This weekend here in Connecticut we observed the annual tradition of "Silent Sidelines" enforced at all youth soccer games across the State. Silent Sidelines has three goals:
1. Develop our players to make decisions on the field without sideline intervention.
2. Improve the players' communication on the field by reducing outside noise.
3. Support our youth referees by eliminating criticism from the sidelines.
It's a weekend for players to play without parents screaming a bundle of confusing instructions in their direction. It is a time for the players to make decisions and listen to one voice - the coach's voice.
I wonder, though, whether silence on the sidelines best serves our players. Is there a better way to engage parents?
The soccer education industry is filled with talented players and knowledgeable coaches. A player's role is to develop their own skills and knowledge, and the coach's role is to educate the players they work with to ensure that they can play at the highest level possible. But what is the parent's role?
Youth coaches work with their players for an average of 4-5 hours a week. For the rest of the week, players are with their parents. Therefore, the impact a coach has on a player is relatively insignificant in comparison to the role of a parent.
And fair or not, parents are viewed as a problem in youth soccer. That's clearly implied by the Silent Sidelines program. Yet they are the most important and influential people in players' lives.
So instead of discouraging players from listening to their parents shouting game strategy and tactics from the sidelines, why not encourage the parents to get on the same page with the coach? Shouldn't we work to educate them as well as the players?
As a coach, I encourage parental communication from the sidelines if it is consistent with what I am delivering on my sideline. This point was reinforced yesterday when I was coaching my U13 Boys team against a side who had many Spanish speaking players. Immediately from the kick off, Spanish instructions and cheers were being directed at the opposing players. Not a minute would pass without a parent shouting something. After 20 minutes of incessant instructions I made a comment to the assistant referee nearest to me about Silent Sidelines. The assistant, it turns out, was fluent in Spainish also and could understand everything that was being said on the opposite sidelines. He then remarked, "I am impressed. The opposing parents are reinforcing everything the coach is asking for from his players."
One voice does not have to come from one person. One voice can be a collective.
If a coach has been working on possession all week prior to a game, and then during a game the parents are screaming, "Punt it!" and cheering loudly for a big kick, the coach has no one to blame but him or herself.
So rather than silencing the parents and marginalizing them, why not engage them and use them as a coaching tool? Why not educate them along with the players?
Before a game, when you are instructing the players as to game strategy and tactics, invite the parents to listen and learn, too. Then, after the game, grade yourself not on whether you won or lost, but whether you and your parents were able to communicate to your players with one voice.
Tom Butler is the U12 Boys Coach at Southeast Soccer Club (@SEsoccerclubCT), The Williams School's (@WMI_Athletics) Girls Varsity Head Coach, and YESsoccer's (@YESsoccer) New England Regional Director.
Contact via email at firstname.lastname@example.com or connect with Tom on Twitter at @CoachTomButler.


text:
The Original Champion
8 Products
Filter By:
Complete your everyday look with a pair of Keds Champion Originals. From classic styles in canvas and leather to glitzy sneakers for weddings, the original Keds design can keep up with your busy schedule – day or night.
Keds Champion Originals have been a top choice for women's canvas and leather sneakers since 1916. Leading ladies of fashion throughout history have sported Keds Originals as their go-to canvas tennis shoes. Today, the original Keds design comes in various colors, widths and materials to complement any outfit while keeping you comfortable. Stay classic in Keds Champion Originals or switch things up with our women's slip on sneakers, and enjoy free shipping on all orders today.


text:
All personal advertising for things like your personal horn, or some old sheet music, or a gig bag are still free. But trying to market products for commercial gain is not something I care to offer free hosting for. If you want to attempt to cash in on TubeNet then feel free to contact me about becoming a TubeNet Sponsor. It is VERY easy and helps pay for things here.
If anyone here happens to run across what looks like a business venture of any kind that is being advertised by a non-Sponsor then PLEASE let me know so I can take a look at it. Either use the report facility or email me Sean AT Chisham Com. If it is through email a URL would be helpful.


text:
Possible Duplicate:
What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in s?
"Please submit your and your parent(s)' federal tax returns." Is the possessive of "parent(s)'" correctly formatted in that sentence? I know the apostrophe comes before the "s" for just parent singular, and it would come after the "s" for parents plural, but what if I don't know if it is one or two parents, and therefore want to use the (s)?


text:
4 guests maximum
35 m2
studio apartment
1 bathroom
1 double sofa bed
1 double bed
What's going on nearby…
Smart Chelsea is a riverside area south of Hyde Park and Knightsbridge. A popular area in the 1960's and the focus of 'Swinging London' especially along the King's Road, it hasn't lost its reputation for cutting edge fashion.
Stroll around and enjoy some of the city's most picturesque riverside views, visit the gardens at the Royal Hospital or cross the pink Albert Bridge to Battersea park.
Chelsea is also home to many celebrities who frequent its many galleries, and upscale shops and eateries.
Check-in / Check-out
The standard check-in time is from 16:00 and the check-out by 11:00.
Arrivals and departures outside this standard time are always tried to be accommodated on request.
Refundable damage deposit upon arrival : £ 250.00 credit card. The damage deposit will be returned at check-out.
For a late check-in between 21:00 and 09:00 there is an extra cost of £ 50.
Please note : non smoking, pets are not allowed, no parties please, younger groups on request
Please note that the check-in address is different than the apartment's address. Subject to availability, a check-in service may be possible at the apartment, if organised minimum 24 hours in advance.
Facilities and amenities
- Internet
- Pets allowed
- Smoking allowed
- International TV
- Air conditioning
- Heating
- Fan
- Bed linen
- Towels
- Baby cot
- Washing machine
- Dryer
- Dishwasher
- Microwave
- Oven
- Complete kitchenware
- Balcony
- Terrace
- Garden
- Swimming pool
- Parking
- Lift (apt. is on ground floor)
Back to the top