The spokesman for Wikileaks already said that he gives the videos titles that will create more public attention, intentionally sensationalizing the videos for political impact. Otherwise, the videos would go unnoticed and there wouldn't be an impact at all. So he edits the videos, gives them titles like 'collateral murder', and presents them to the public. He also makes the unedited video available on his website so that we can go back and see the whole thing if we're skeptical.
I think what he's doing is commendable to say the least. He offers a safe outlet for individuals who feel that they've been a part of something ethically inappropriate and provides a service for the public by keeping us more informed.
I don't think the ethical controversy should be about the source of the video (wikileaks), but the content of the video (collateral murder).

But the two are linked by a certain bias. It needs clarification before judgement can be made. The American military are fond of not being held up for scrutiny and it opens them up to criticism. In the UK friendly fire from American forces, killing UK forces, has always encountered this attitude. Our courts are powerless to call American military witnesses.

Opinions like the fact that children were clearly visible in the van? That a vast majority of the people in the group that was fired upon weren't carrying anything, let alone weapons? Seriously, even if we were 100% that those two guys were carrying weapons, and they WERE enemy combatants, why would they be in a group with so many unarmed men? The first thing that would come to my mind is 1) It's completely ******* normal for Iraqi civilians to be walking around the street with assault rifles. No sarcasm here, they do it all the time, and not because they're hunting for Americans or anything. If you lived in Iraq, you probably would too. Or 2) The unarmed men are prisoners and we probably shouldn't rake them with 50 caliber machine gun fire.

You know what, even if there were two guys in the group heading off to fight US soldiers, you don't shoot unarmed civilians. Every death and injury that occurred in that incident was completely intentional. If you are using a weapon that is just so imprecise, you are intending to kill everything within the accuracy of that weapon. You don't throw a grenade into a classroom with a terrorist in it and a bunch of hostages and then say 'Don't blame me, I was just trying to get the terrorist'. Even worse than that they actually deliberately aimed for everyone in the group, even the people who were clearly unarmed. There's more than enough information in here.

Still, I'm not defending their actions; these men are hired killers, it's what they signed up to do

Are all soldiers hired killers, or do you reserve that appellation only for Americans? Anyway, if you are right, then thank goodness for our hired killers. If we had no hired killers protecting us, the other hired killers would kill us.

So get the clarification before you make the judgment. Problem solved.

Yes, all soldiers are hired killers, I'm not singling out Americans. Like it or not, that's what they are...

Add to this the fact that the insurgents are smart, and they know the value of negative press for the US in winning the war. They have no problem with blending in with women, children, and generally harmless villages, in order to 1) avoid attack from US forces, or at least 2) document for the media (and future insurgent recruits) the ensuing atrocity that occurs when US forces necessarily return fire into civilians after being fired upon from one of the insurgents within that group.

Yes, all soldiers are hired killers, I'm not singling out Americans. Like it or not, that's what they are...

Even if they are drafted, I suppose. As I wrote, thank goodness for our hired killers. They defend us from the murderers of Islamic Fascism. Yes, they protect you too.

But should they be protecting you, with lethal force, from Reuters cameramen and passing families with children?

They are not protecting us from Reuters cameramen and passing families with children. But what has that to do with it?

The wikileaks video Ken.

You know - the actual subject of this thread.

But others have written that soldiers are just hired killers, and murdering (some suddenly switched terms from "kill" to "murder") kids and newspaper people is their specialty. I was dealing with that bit of nonsense.

So lawyers just rob us, architects build crap buildings, accountants teach us how to thieve, doctors prolong our agony.

That they are trained to kill, and do so for a wage, is, I think, unequivocable. "Hired Killers" is a cold term clearly chosen to be unflattering - but it's not technically nonsense is it?

I'm not sure how I would behave if I was driving through an area that had recently seen some combat and saw a clearly wounded man crawling on the floor. I like to think I would stop and help. Especially seeing as there was no visible military presence or warning shots at that point (a circling helicopter is presumably not too odd a sight in Baghdad - it is common enough in Belfast).

Seeing as this action alone gets people declared "insurgent" and raked with fire it does seem to indicate a level of trigger happiness I personally disapprove of.

The guy who clearly takes some pleasure in a jeep driving over a dead body is a jerk. I hope he gets a court martial.

Hadn't seen anyone claim that was their speciality myself. Mind you I have not read every comment on the thread. They seem pretty good at killing unarmed journos based on the footage. I think it's also disturbing that the Pentagon lied about it until the release of the footage (claiming the incident followed ROE and the only casualities were insurgents - which none of them seem to have been - they certainly weren't armed insurgents).

There is a whole cast of "liberals" who disparage soldiers when, at the same time, they are thriving under their protection.

It is the height of ingratitude and meanness. And whenever it happens it ought to be pointed out.

I agree that they shouldn't have shot the van. But this reasoning is a bit bizarre to me. Are fully armed apache's circling over a pile of dead bodies, with bullet holes everywhere and the echoes of gunfire still in the air a "common enough sight in Belfast"???

It's a combat zone and civilians have orders not to do things like that--

People don't get court martialed for being "jerks". His comment didn't hurt anyone, and I imagine you have to become callous in order to function as a soldier.

Even the edited version of the wikileaks video shows them with weapons. The incident presumably did follow ROE.

There is a whole cast of "liberals" who disparage soldiers when, at the same time, they are thriving under their protection. It is the height of ingratitude and meanness. And whenever it happens it ought to be pointed out.