Did you watch the same video?

looks like an ak to me

they were fired upon before the apache was there. Thats the reason the apache was called in.

Yeah I have to say these guys are guilty of only one thing from this video - saying some pretty callous things about a very awful situation.

I think that is pretty messed up all by itself, but outside of that people passing judgment based on the actual actions in the video are extremely premature.

-We don't know what events preceded this or what other actionable intelligence was being used, only that they were given clearance by command to fire.
-We don't know what the standard operating procedures actually are for this type of situation and whether these actions were out of the norm given the circumstances.

The fact is that by all appearances they followed procedure and were given clearance to fire. Their justification for that order is not at all considered or addressed by the video.

So while this is certainly an important piece of information in ascertaining exactly what happened it is only one side of the story. The sad truth is that this is what a war looks like and its not supposed to be pretty.

I'll finish by saying I do actually think things like this should not be made public. The amount of damage, in terms of morale as well as propaganda, that the video can do is immense. With that said issues like this must be dealt with, and if they aren't handled properly in a discrete fashion sometimes a public airing is the only way.

On that score we don't have a lot of information either. We'd have to know exactly what the military did to handle the situation before we could be certain. But as with the soldiers/command and their actions I will give the people who leaked the video the benefit of the doubt in the mean time.

PS - I understand there is an emotional reaction people have to this, but that emotion can't enter into how we actually deal with such things. That's not to say there should be no justice, quite the contrary, it just means justice must be had through a calm, cool, and reasoned approach, and not by way of a lynch mob.

Only one person had a camera. In the video it was clearly mentioned that 5-6 individuals had AKs and at least one inidividual had an RPG, and you could make out quite a few of the weapons despite the blurry feed.  And as hobbit said, as far as I know the reason the Apache was called in in the first place is because US troops were fired upon.

OT:  I have little issue with the initial engagement, but I could only think "wtf??" when they fired upon the van, despite all dangerous subjects having already been incapacitated.  It crossed the line from eliminating a legitimate threat to the killing of innocents.

I have to wonder why the journalists thought it was a good idea to run around with that crowd, though.

I agree, the second firing I have a much bigger issue with than the initial engagement (I do think the comments were innappropriate as well but thats less actionable).

The only caveat is that it's not always so clear cut, the folks in the van could be there trying to help a high-value target (HVT) escape or they could just be there trying to rescue their terrorist buddies.  Both of those scenarios mean they might fire on the incoming US troops that were to arrive shortly (and whose arrival would preclude the apache from assisting - firing while they're in the area is troublesome due to accuracy restrictions).  On the other hand yes they could have been well-meaning civilians simply trying to help, and in hindsight given the children, that's probably what they were (I like to give the benefit of the doubt until shown false).  But that's hindsight.

@bolded: The same could be said about any journalist following US troops who die.

The action is a horrific thing, but I understand the horrors of war. I am disgusted that they fired at the van, and wounded men, he was EGGING on the guy crawling on the ground to do somethiing. He wanted to kill the man. The disrespect of the dead was also a disgusting thing.

If I remember the Reuters story correctly, they had heard of a military raid and were going to take some photos of the damage. When they got out of their car a crowd started to gather; and thats all we know.

I completely disagree with this point. Subduing this sort of thing and measures like preventing photography/coverage of fallen American soldiers returning home is simply an effort to make war look tactical and sterile when it isn't. Americans just as much as everyone else in the world should be aware of questionable events like this. Wikileaks is doing the public a service by releasing this.

Just think of any terrorist incident in modern history. It is always brought to light, thoroughly investigated and details are often overwhelming. Failures on the part of the military that result in civilian deaths need to be investigated and disclosed like we expect in those circumstances. Covering it up only to have it spill over like this hurts the image of the US and completely undermines what the US is supposed to stand for. 

For the record, my primary issue is with the way they're conducting themselves (complete callousness, like they're playing a video game honestly) and saying over the radio that the van was "picking up bodies and weapons" when they were trying to pick up a single wounded journalist along with the ensuing coverup.

coverup? what are you talking about? This story was reported on by the NewYorkTimes and Reuters the day after it happend. The military even showed the video to Reuters.