Questions Surround Source of Videotape of Haditha Aftermath

[Apeman81]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199205,00.html

Time Magazine has said it obtained videotape, shot by a "budding journalism student" at the scene of the alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians in Haditha, from an Iraqi affiliate of the international group Human Rights Watch.

But in a subsequent online correction, Time admits that the organization that gave them the tape, the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, has no ties to Human Rights Watch whatsoever.

What the magazine did not acknowledge is that the man behind the video is not a budding journalism student, but 43-year-old, Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi, who created the Hammurabi group last year and serves as one of its two employees.

Hadithi says he made the tape the day after witnessing part of the incident last November, but did not say why he waited four months before handing telling anyone about it.
__________________________________________________________________________

Something to consider when leaping to conclusions

[PatrickHenry]

Do you think the tape's a fake?

[rmnunez]

I just wonder why we presume the tape is authentic. Was unaware the budding journalist was 43, but maybe he's a late bloomer? Why couldn't a journalism student create a human rights group? Based on the general perspectives voiced by most journalists it would seem concern for human rights a natural inclination among them, in fact I wonder whether many of them aren't just more discrete but likewise support and contribute to a variety of human rights-concerned entities. Suspecting this doesn't add to my sense of their objectivity and actually suggests instead an emphasis or focus on certain situations rather than on others.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Do you think the tape's a fake?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10386858

World News

Haditha defence questions key video, Iraqi group

1.00pm Friday June 16, 2006
By Dan Whitcomb

Is the tape a fake? I do not know. It appears obvious that questions need to be answered concerning the falsely reported link to Human rights watch, and the videographer's ties to insurgent prisoners.

But an even greater question arises when considering when and and even where the video was shot. As the video apparently does not include any footage of American soldiers shooting kneeling civilians, we have to question not necessarily its content, but the meaning of that content.

If bodies were in certain positions, when did they assume those positions? Is it unreasonable to assume that if someone wanted to make it look like a scene of a massacre, the bodies may have been moved?

Clearly, this "evidence" must be examined and verified before it be accepted carte blanche as fact.

As clearly, I am of the opinion that the soldiers, as the accused, must be given the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, it is my fervent wish that the evidence exonerate them.

Could a vindictive, retaliatory rampage have occurred? Of course!

Could conditions have been created to bring about this event through planning on the part of the enemy? Of course. By attacking from within a crowd of civilians while dressed as civilians, fire could be drawn to bring about civilian casualties.

Could the videotape be a fraud? Could the bodies have been moved, shell casings planted, testimony faked, all to create the image of a masssacre? Of course.

At this point, I don't know what happened. Court is still in session, if you will

[rmnunez]

There are many plausible alternatives to explain the video and what it portrays, but if anyone says it doesn't show thoughtless united statian marines wantonly exhibiting their depraved indifference to human life, the least they can expect is being branded a duped Bushbot.

[RickSp]

This reminds me of the trials of the WTC bombers in 1993 (back in the day when we actually had trials for those accused of acts of terror) when the NPR reporters would dutifully let the attorneys for the bombers go on and on on tape making the silliest claims as if they meant something.

Here we have the defendent's attorneys saying stupid stuff and it is being reported as if it means something. This is my favorite:

But an even greater question arises when considering when and and even where the video was shot. As the video apparently does not include any footage of American soldiers shooting kneeling civilians, we have to question not necessarily its content, but the meaning of that content.

I wonder how many massacres are videotaped? A few no doubt. Does the fact that this one wasn't mean much? To an attorney grasping at straws or to hawks in deep denial, perhaps.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp This reminds me of the trials of the WTC bombers in 1993 (back in the day when we actually had trials for those accused of acts of terror) when the NPR reporters would dutifully let the attorneys for the bombers go on and on on tape making the silliest claims as if they meant something. Here we have the defendent's attorneys saying stupid stuff and it is being reported as if it means something. This is my favorite: I wonder how many massacres are videotaped? A few no doubt. Does the fact that this one wasn't mean much? To an attorney grasping at straws or to hawks in deep denial, perhaps.

I respond out of curiosity.

Have you any doubts that this video is a true and accurate portrayal of the actions as they occurred? If you do, join the crowd.

If you do not. If you are certain that this video is is a true and accurate portrayal of the actions as they occurred, would you please explain why?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 I respond out of curiosity. Have you any doubts that this video is a true and accurate portrayal of the actions as they occurred? If you do, join the crowd. If you do not. If you are certain that this video is is a true and accurate portrayal of the actions as they occurred, would you please explain why?

I can't say that I have an opinion on the facts surrounding this particular piece of videotape. That being said the lawyer's claims were ridiculous. That is a defense attorney's job - to create as much distraction and confusion as possible. His hypothetical about "attacking from within a crowd of civilians" is a fine example. He never suggests that happened. All evidence suggest that it doesn't, which won't stop him from repeating it as many times as possible in hopes some gullible fool starts believing that that is part of what happened.

Pretending that this sort of posturing means anything is another matter entirely.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp I can't say that I have an opinion on the facts surrounding this particular piece of videotape. That being said the lawyer's claims were ridiculous. That is a defense attorney's job - to create as much distraction and confusion as possible. His hypothetical about "attacking from within a crowd of civilians" is a fine example. He never suggests that happened. All evidence suggest that it doesn't, which won't stop him from repeating it as many times as possible in hopes some gullible fool starts believing that that is part of what happened. Pretending that this sort of posturing means anything is another matter entirely.

Since, as you stated, the video in question is of, at best, marginal importance, further discussion of it's veracity is meaningless

[rmnunez]

Rick, if you think it is plausible united statian soldiers could deliberately shoot 4 year olds looking into their eyes, why is it inconceivable a terrorist could attack from within a crowd?

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Rick, if you think it is plausible united statian soldiers could deliberately shoot 4 year olds looking into their eyes, why is it inconceivable a terrorist could attack from within a crowd?

You miss the point entirely. There is no evidence that there were insurgents in the houses where the civilians were shot. The defense attorneys have not suggested, at least not yet, that insurgents were inside. By raising the suggestion of "insurgents within a crowd" strictly as a hypothetical the attorney is creating one possibile defense without having to back it up by fact. A trial ballon before the trial to see how it plays. Pre-trial grandstanding.

[rmnunez]

There is no evidence that there were insurgents in the houses where the civilians were shot.

You know more about the evidence in this case than I do.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp You miss the point entirely. There is no evidence that there were insurgents in the houses where the civilians were shot. The defense attorneys have not suggested, at least not yet, that insurgents were inside. By raising the suggestion of "insurgents within a crowd" strictly as a hypothetical the attorney is creating one possibile defense without having to back it up by fact. A trial ballon before the trial to see how it plays. Pre-trial grandstanding.

Just FYI; my repeated use of "insurgents within a crowd" is not restricted to this incident. The enemy in this battle slinks among the civilians on as a tactic. They dress as the citizenry does as a norm, not the exception. They purposefully mingle.

[RickSp]

My apologies. The phrase "insurgents within a crowd" was indeed yours Ape. It was very similar to a quote from a defense attorney to which I should have properly linked and didn't.

And yes I am aware that our soldiers are in the middle of a guerilla war. No news there, even if Rummy denied it for about six months.

The most detailed article I have seen on the events of Nov 19th, 2005. Contradictions Cloud Inquiry Into 24 Iraqi Deaths

[rmnunez]

According to Mr. Puckett, Sergeant Wuterich and his men believed their rules of engagement permitted them to shoot men of military age running away from the site of an improvised explosive device.

Seems a sensible military practice to me.

"Saying who's a civilian or a 'muj' in Iraq, you really can't," the marine said. "That's how wishy-washy it was. This town did not want us there at all." Mr. Puckett, the lawyer, said that the marines in Haditha believed that they were operating within established rules when they cleared the house.

The neighborhood was described by one of the marines as a "kill zone", colloquial among them for a place where Coalitioneers would regularly come under fire. At least one of the 'civilians' was killed holding a loaded and fully-functional AK-47.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Apeman81 Just FYI; my repeated use of "insurgents within a crowd" is not restricted to this incident. The enemy in this battle slinks among the civilians on as a tactic. They dress as the citizenry does as a norm, not the exception. They purposefully mingle.

This is very true. They especially like to have women and children nearby.

[rmnunez]

I've heard of at least 2 instances in the past few weeks when the suicidal terrorist was described as dressed as a woman.