Wikileaks has released a video accusing US troops of murdering two Reuters journalists. These two journalists embedded with terrorists, and were then killed in battle. Is this murder? Watch the video and decide for yourself:

Ed Morrissey sums up what happened, and points out that the video actually shows quite clearly that the troops did not murder the journalists.

In the video, starting at the 3:50 mark, one member of this group starts preparing what clearly looks like an RPG launcher, as well as some individuals with AK-47s. The launcher then reappears at the 4:06 mark as the man wielding it sets up a shot for down the street. In 2007 Baghdad, this would be a clear threat to US and Iraqi Army ground forces; in fact, it’s difficult to imagine any other purpose for an RPG launcher at that time and place. That’s exactly the kind of threat that US airborne forces were tasked to detect and destroy, which is why the gunships targeted and shot all of the members of the group.

Another accusation is that US forces fired on and killed rescue workers attempting to carry one of the journalists out of the area. However, the video clearly shows that the vehicle in question bore no markings of a rescue vehicle at all, and the men who ran out of the van to grab the wounded man wore no uniforms identifying themselves as such. Under any rules of engagement, and especially in a terrorist hot zone like Baghdad in 2007, that vehicle would properly be seen as support for the terrorists that had just been engaged and a legitimate target for US forces. While they didn’t grab weapons before getting shot, the truth is that the gunships didn’t give them the chance to try, either — which is exactly what they’re trained to do. They don’t need to wait until someone gets hold of the RPG launcher and fires it at the gunship or at the reinforcements that had already begun to approach the scene. The gunships acted to protect the approaching patrol, which is again the very reason we had them in the air over Baghdad.

I’ve long held the view that journalists shouldn’t even be embedded with our troops in a war zone. It endangers the journalists, and it endangers our troops. Reporters do nothing but get in the way, and they distract our soldiers from concentrating on their missions. How can they be completely alert to the war zone around them when they have to worry about keeping some journalist who decided he wants to tag along alive? Embedding with our troops is bad enough and dangerous enough in and of itself.

Embedding with the enemy? Well, frankly, in my opinion, that makes you the enemy too. These Reuters cameramen embedded themselves with the enemy. Anything they produced would be propaganda for the enemy. I believe that is called treason, and as such, these traitors deserved to be shot and killed. And as Rusty points out, Reuters has a history of doing this.

Reuters has a long history of its local stringers embedding themsleves with terrorist forces. Perhaps they do this because they are sympathetic, perhaps they do this to get “the story”, but it matters little to those engaging insurgents.

When you embed yourselves with terrorists you know the risk. You are producing propaganda for them. You have become one of them.

Anything less than this understanding is purposeful naivite about “objective journalism”. In war there can be no objective journalism. You’re either with us or the enemy. If you want to stay neutral stay out of the war zone.

There are no shades of grey when it comes to war. At best, these journalists were idiots. They must have been, to not understand the risks of embedding with a freakin’ enemy of the United States in a war zone. At worst, they’re traitors who deserved to die a traitor’s death. Producing propaganda for the enemy certainly falls under the category of “giving aid and comfort”.

This isn’t murder. It’s justice. It’s war. If you’re embedding with the enemy, you deserve to get shot. Period.

Cross-posted at Liberty Pundits.