New Tapes of Another U.S. Massacre of Civilians About to be Released

[Michael Tee]

Thanks for the correction, and the graphic assist,CU4 and sorry for the mistake.  But I still don't see a smile on the kid's face - - could be anything, smile or  grimace.  "Awww, Maw, cut it out!"  Who knows what kids that age are thinking and who can tell based on facial expressions?  No indication the kid even belongs to the woman.

[Amianthus]

First of all, who says the tape is missing 20 min.?

From one of the links you posted:

"There is a period of 20 minutes not included on the leaked tape. According to the internal legal review, the helicopters engaged a group of armed insurgents, and that some were seen entering a nearby building."

Sorry that you failed to read all of your own sources.

[Michael Tee]

<<According to the internal legal review, the helicopters engaged a group of armed insurgents, and that some were seen entering a nearby building.>>

So if that's what the tape showed, where's the tape?  

Also, what's the relationship between the building the "armed insurgents" entered and the site of the massacre?

Furthermore what's the credibility of an "internal legal review" of an entity that tried to conceal the entire tape in the first place?

Without the production of the 20 minutes, you have to assume that they are damning to the Army's case.

[BT]

Without the production of the 20 minutes, you have to assume that they are damning to the Army's case.

depends on whose cutting floor the missing 20 minutes ended up on.

[Michael Tee]

According to the Daily Beast (the source of the Wikipedia assertion that 20 minutes were missing, sorry I don't have the link now but it's footnote 17 in the Wikipedia article) WikiLeaks received the tape with 20 minutes already missing.  (That's if you accept the claim of the "internal review" that 20 minutes were missing.)

[BT]

Did the leaker edit the tape?

[Michael Tee]

It's not clear from what I've been able to find out who edited the tape.  It's really not clear that there are 20 min. missing.  As far as I can tell, this is only a claim by the "internal review committee," who are probably trying to edit tapes from other missions into their copy of the tape and trying to do  it in a way that will avoid detection of the doctoring.  The fact that they refused to release the tape they had is of course highly suspicious.  Now when they finally release it they will have had all the time they needed to make a foolproof fake tape with the "combat with insurgents who went into a nearby building" now an integral part of the record.

[Plane]

Pooch, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

My common sense tells me that concealment of evidence = consciousness of guilt.  Each and every time?  I'd say nine times out of ten.
My common sense tells me that lying about what happened = consciousness of guilt.  Why conceal a truth that would exonerate?  Again, nine times out of ten.

I will have to admit , I have the same attitude and have used the same sort of arguement to support my contention that Stalin and Mao killed many and used extreme controll of information to make their awfull secrets safe.

Luckyly Stray Pooch was not present to correct me last time I did that.

When the whistleblower took his copy of the tape , do you suppose he picked the worst one he could find? Do you suppose he left an unedited copy in the files?

I expect that more is coming. The full length tape perhaps , but the only one who is certain to have a copy is the leaker who might have edited it.

Perhaps a more complete account of the battles that were occuring nearby , perhaps even some ideas of why those news men thought this group of men were news worthy.

[Michael Tee]

<<When the whistleblower took his copy of the tape , do you suppose he picked the worst one he could find? Do you suppose he left an unedited copy in the files?>>

Nope.  Too much trouble.  I think the whistleblower would have taken the only copy of the tape there was, the whole tape.  Then maybe he edited it.  In which case of course the Army has the undedited copy.  Or he released the whole thing, and there is no unedited copy.

Now if he (whistleblower) edited the tape he stole, the Army has the whole copy.  I can think of no reason at all why they would not then IMMEDIATELY produce the unedited copy and say, "Look, jackass, here's the whole story and it proves those guys were the same insurgents previously shooting it out with the choppers."

OTOH, if there was no extra 20 minutes of tape, I could see the Army claiming immediately "That's not the whole tape!!!  We were framed!!!" and then going into overdrive to splice extra combat scenes into the original, probably using air-to-ground shots of other combats and using crew voice-overs.  But this would take some time to get right, so that the fakery would be undetectable.  Which might be still going on as we speak.  Sooner or later the tapes would be produced, when the Army thought they had a fool-proof product.  Or they could just claim that 20 minutes are missing and never produce the tapes on the grounds of "national security."

In any event, if and when the Army finally releases what it claims to be the whole tape, it'll never have any credibility because they'll never be able to account for their delay in producing it.

<<I expect that more is coming. The full length tape perhaps , but the only one who is certain to have a copy is the leaker who might have edited it.>>

The Army would be the likeliest to have the unedited tape in full, since that would probably be what the leaker stole.  But then the delay in producing it could never be explained satisfactorily.  It would be obvious that what they were producing as the full tape would have to be a fake, with 20 minutes fabricated to exonerate them.

<<Perhaps a more complete account of the battles that were occuring nearby , perhaps even some ideas of why those news men thought this group of men were news worthy.>>

It was my understanding, from a comment posted somewhere by another journalist, that journalists from the West usually attract a crowd of hangers-on, people who want jobs or favours.  They were in all likelihood following the newsmen, not the other way round. 

[Amianthus]

It's really not clear that there are 20 min. missing.

It's pretty clear that it's missing based on the timestamps in the video.

[Plane]

<<When the whistleblower took his copy of the tape , do you suppose he picked the worst one he could find? Do you suppose he left an unedited copy in the files?>>

Nope.  Too much trouble.  I think the whistleblower would have taken the only copy of the tape there was, the whole tape.  Then maybe he edited it.  In which case of course the Army has the undedited copy.  Or he released the whole thing, and there is no unedited copy.

Now if he (whistleblower) edited the tape he stole, the Army has the whole copy. 

If the whistleblower had access to more than a few tapes , then he probly picked the worst , if they were classified there were probly only a few copies , possibly only one.

The only one we know has the unedited copy is the leaker , will he produce the whole thing after a while?

[Michael Tee]

I think it's inconceivable that the Army which produced the tape in the first place would have no backup copies of it.  The most that the whistleblower could do would be to steal either an edited copy or an unedited copy, in either case leaving the whole copy in the possession of the U.S. Army. The whistleblower could probably not steal ALL of the Army's copies.  So at this point, whether or not there was any editing done by the whistleblower is totally immaterial for the simple reason that the U.S. Army possesses a full copy of the tape.

For the above reasons, the Army's failure to produce the whole tape is doubly damning:  1) it could mean that there IS no missing portion or 2) it means that the missing parts of the tape do not exonerate the Army in any way.


At this late stage in the game, anything produced by the Army and supposedly representing a "missing" 20 minutes of tape would lack all credibility anyway.

[Plane]

I think it's inconceivable that the Army which produced the tape in the first place would have no backup copies of it. 

Oh?

To the Army ,what would be the purpose of back up tapes?

[sirs]

At this late stage in the game, anything produced by the Army and supposedly representing a "missing" 20 minutes of tape would lack all credibility anyway.

In other words, its damned if they do, damned if they don't.  Nice, how that works

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh?

<<To the Army ,what would be the purpose of back up tapes?>>

The Army?  It's a vast bureaucracy, is it not?  I thought you were the expert on the bureaucracy, on its waste, its inefficiencies, its needless duplications.  Are you now telling me that the Army does not keep backup tapes?  I am shocked, plane.  Shocked.